#and realistically at least some kind of communist | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

marley-manson · 2 years

Note

I love all your MASH posts! Do you have any thoughts to share on the varying ways the characters relate to queerness?

Thank you so much <3

You bet I do! I hope what you’re looking for here is a bunch of sexuality and gender related headcanons, because that’s what I’ve got.

None of these are hard and fast when it comes to like, writing fic or whatever, and there’s obviously room for a ton of different interpretations which is cool, but this is kind of like the default lens I watch the show through lol. Also I prioritize the show’s vibe over strict notions of historical accuracy wrt homophobia, but at the same time based on a couple books I’ve read it’s not necessarily historically inaccurate for a military unit to have a bunch of barely closeted people and for no one to really care lol, from what I’ve read it really varied depending on the unit and COs. It got dicier in the 50s as opposed to the early 40s with some official policy changes and the lavender scare, but probably still not impossible, at least according to anecdotal evidence.

Also obviously since this is based on mountains of gay jokes it’s not going to completely fit every moment in every episode, but ykw, the implications are still a lot more consistent than you’d probably expect lol.

So anyway. This got long so it’s under a cut.

Hawkeye:

Bi, has known it for a long time, and is perfectly secure and comfortable with it. I like to think he favours men a little over women, like a kinsey 4.5. No real reason, but it’s my headcanon so there.

Was somewhat into the gay scene back in the states, has had lots of anonymous sex and short term flings and maybe couple longer term male partners.

Carlye knows he's bi though he was probably monogamous while he was with her (I say this because their first scene together reads so strongly to me like he's trying to imply he's with BJ now to save face after learning she's married lmao).

On the slightly effeminate side but doesn't play it up much (I'm differentiating this from the onslaught of combatative jokes, I'm talking mannerisms and speech patterns), though he's happy to lean into queeny stereotypes a little to piss people off. Very nearly canonically a bottom lol, though I can see him occasionally switching, and very nearly canonically into tall, broad guys with a sense of humour, full lips, a nice ass, and a big dick based on the shoe size jokes.

I think his dad knows and is relatively cool about it too. I don't see it causing a lot of drama in his life, I think he's one of the lucky ones, which contributes to his relative lack of fear.

Though that said one headcanon I have is that some kind of close call with nearly getting caught or accused and discharged happened between season 7+8, which is why he tones it down so much in late Mash.

Hm what else... I just posted about this lol but after the war I can see him getting more politically engaged and casually joining the gay communist scene.

Trapper:

Also bi and knows it, more careful and discrete about it (back in the states) what with presumably being from a pretty catholic family and being married. My logic is if the jokes are Hawkeye's bi evidence, then Trapper with almost the same amount and as a totally game participant has the same evidence, but he does have a more conscious of consequences vibe to me.

I’m torn on whether Trapper was somewhat into the gay scene stateside, or if his experience was mainly just anonymous sex while cruising. I could see an argument for the latter being more realistic and plausible, BUT I’m kind of enamoured with the idea of Trapper being just as out, in the old school ‘part of a community’ sense, as Hawkeye. It could even be a fun nod to their original book backstory where they’d coincidentally met once at a football game - except they vaguely recognize each other from the Boston bar scene lol. Maybe they fucked in a bathroom stall once.

Either way I like to think he and Hawkeye started hooking up almost immediately, then became friends, then caught feelings, and Hawkeye was the first guy Trapper ever had romantic feelings for. It doesn't perfectly fit every moment - eg if you take their exchange at the end of George (what secrets do you have in your past?) as a gay reference, which I mean considering the context it's impossible not to, that implies Trapper doesn't officially know, but it ain't about the exacting details, it's about the Vibes.

Henry:

Mildly bi swinger. He's still cheating on his wife and vice versa because they're supposed to only fuck other people as a couple. Maybe doesn't really think of himself as bi bc it’s group sex, at least at first. I'm pretty sure someone was deliberately implying some of this lol, c'mon I saw Dear Dad 3, and he gets some of the most eyebrow raising gay jokes and moments.

(One of my favourite jokes: Henry makes a PA announcement about a meeting at 0700 hours. “Is that AD or BC?” "I don't know, I never could tell with Henry." Note that AC/DC was contemporary slang for bi.)

Also has a crush on Klinger, obviously.

Klinger:

Bi and nonbinary, initially repressed about both. Comes to terms with being bi partway through the show since he's clearly hooking up with Radar by season 4, so. I like to think he had sex with Trapper at some point in season 3 too, and idgaf about Laverne here. Maybe he figures it doesn’t count if it’s with dudes. Comes to terms with his gender much later, post-canon. Would probably consider himself a transvestite, historically speaking.

Like the way he still wears his pink housecoat, complete with a bow sometimes, even after dropping the section 8 attempts? The fur coat too? In one of the most recent episodes I rewatched, in season 10, he had a bra in his footlocker, and in a season 9 episode he had pink heels stashed in one of the file cabinets, uncommented on. Soon Lee wants to see him in a dress. It all fits.

I think after he gets back to the states he opens a dress shop, slowly and organically starts acquiring a discrete trans and drag queen clientele since he's very skilled at altering women's clothes to fit a masculine build, makes some friends, gets invited to some events, and starts fully embracing his femininity.

Margaret:

I kinda like the repressed lesbian take. Her attraction to men always feels so forced and performative, like she's trying so hard to fit a role. I can also see her as bi, but I vote lesbian. I think she fucked women in college, including Lorraine, and has told herself it was just an immature phase since. Also repressed butch. Someday she finally gets that crewcut.

Radar:

Repressed gay or bi with some internalized homophobia, but chills out about it eventually. I mean come on, that scene where he gets offended when changing in front of Hawkeye? His typical noooo stoooop reactions to the gay jokes in general? Klinger was his plausible deniability dude where he could be like 'it's not gay bc i think of him as a girl.' They break it off somewhere in season 5.

Father Mulcahy:

Gay but a catholic priest, so off limits. Knows he's gay but doesn't act on it. Chill with all the gay vibes around the 4077 in accordance with his fairly live and let live attitude, regardless of whether that actually makes much sense for him as a Catholic. Whatever, there’s always exceptions to common rules and maybe he’s one of them.

Frank:

Repressed bi, but not all that repressed. Like he knows it, but denies it in his head in a way that doesn't even convince himself, like reciting a rote platitude. Internalized homophobia up to here. Would absolutely still date a guy if anyone likeable ever expressed genuine interest because he's that desperate for approval and easily malleable.

BJ:

I tend to favour the repressed gay or bi take. I see the reasoning, it makes sense to me, and it’s a fun way to watch the show. It fits what I percieve as his initial awkwardness with Hawkeye’s gay jokes in his first few seasons, including occasional no homo style defensiveness, or bringing up his own masculinity, etc. Also the way he doesn’t seem to notice that Hawkeye is blatantly hitting on him at the airport bar. The gay read in particular fits the way his fixation on his family is explicitly framed as a coping mechanism too.

I really enjoy thinking that BJ knows Hawkeye is into men and specifically into him by like, around season 7/8. Maybe not a sudden realizaton, but a sort of gradual understanding. It adds a certain je ne sais quoi to their late series interactions, and feels oddly appropriate.

I like to think he realizes he’s not straight in whichever way and is in love with Hawkeye about a year or two after going home lol, amid a crumbling marriage. But I don’t endgame ship them, so I think this revelation comes too late, Hawkeye has already moved on, and he goes back to San Francisco and either saves his marriage or finds himself a nice boyfriend.

Charles:

Gay, aware but possibly refuses to act on it due to internalized homophobia and ~respectability~, or if he does, he’s very discrete and careful. On the hunt for a suitable lavender marriage.

Potter:

He’s the token straight to me, sorry.

Random related thoughts:

I think Hawkeye and Trapper and Henry and Klinger fostered the carefree anything goes atmosphere of the 4077 just by being the way they are and being chill.

I like to think there was a gay poker night once a month. Zale accidentally crashed it in Pay Day. Klinger goes even though he doesn't consider himself anything but a straight man at first, but he's always down for a poker game and he points out that he fits in just fine.

Whenever new lgbt people arrive at the 4077 they go to either Hawkeye or Klinger first since they’re so loud, and early on Klinger might point them in Hawkeye’s direction, and Hawkeye tells them where the Seoul + Tokyo bars are and invites them to the poker game.

I think Hawkeye's subplot in Of Moose and Men was coded homophobia. Textually it was the officer being offended that Hawkeye is insubordinate, but come on, "I don't want that man touching me," followed by a sex joke about Hawkeye giving him a sedative in the ass? Followed by dude continually being disturbed by him? They really made "goof off" sound like a slur lol. Rally Round the Flagg Boys also had a milder version of this with communist substituted. Idk if it’s intentional in either case, but the vibes were there.

Margaret found out that Hawkeye’s bi at some point not long after they slept together. I could see him coming out to her during one of their heart to hearts, honestly, maybe even by accident. Maybe it helps her come to terms with her own sexuality too.

By season 4 Hawkeye and Klinger are both aware of each others’ sexualities and sort of bond over being the only 2 somewhat out guys left in the main cast. The way they start hanging out more, for a while Hawkeye’s gay jokes come out more in scenes with Klinger than in scenes with BJ, and just in general their mid-show interactions tend to have that ‘the two out cousins at the family reunion’ solidarity vibe.

I think Hawkeye thinks BJ is straight throughout the whole run of the show, but also knows BJ is sort of using him as a platonic wife replacement. Actually I think Hawkeye encouraged it early on while lowkey trying to seduce him, eventually had to be like ‘damn guess he’s straight after all,’ but by now it’s too late to reverse course and so he’s stuck pining in this weird pseudo romantic friendship.

Aaaand okay I have to stop at some point so I’m sure I have more but let’s call it good.

#mash #text post #marley on mash #thank you for the question and sorry this took a day but considering how long it is i'm sure you can see why lol #ask #hawkeye mash #trapper mash #bj mash #henry mash #margaret mash #radar mash #klinger mash #charles mash #mulcahy mash #ship hb #ship ht #mash gs

45 notes · View notes

fiftysevenacademics · 3 years

Text

Over the summer I read a novel I just learned about, called “Whose Names are Unknown,” by Sanora Babb. The novel is based on some of Babb’s early childhood experiences and extensive work she did helping people in California’s migrant labor camps during the Dust Bowl and Depression of the 1930s for the government’s Farm Security Administration (FSA).

In 1939 she completed “Whose Names are Unknown” but her publisher, who had initially been enthusiastic and given her an advance, declined to publish it. George Steinbeck, already a successful author, had just published “The Grapes of Wrath,” and it jumped immediately to the top of the bestseller list. The publisher felt another book on the same topic would be, in his words, “anticlimatic.” Babb’s novel wasn’t published until 2004, when she was 97 years old.

But Steinbeck’s novel owes a debt to Sanora Babb. Steinbeck began research in 1936 for articles that would eventually prompt him to write “The Grapes of Wrath,” visiting migrant labor camps that housed Midwestern Dust Bowl refugees. One of these camps was Weedpatch, near Bakersfield, California. Steinbeck befriended the camp’s administrator, Tom Collins. Collins helped Steinbeck’s research by giving him copies of detailed reports he and other FSA workers compiled about the people and conditions in the camp for the FSA.

One of the people who helped write these reports was Sanora Babb, who worked at Weedpatch, and was also friends with Tom Collins. Babb even briefly met Steinbeck twice.

The amount and type of Babb’s notes that Collins gave Steinbeck seems unclear. Did Babb give Collins personal, private notes she might have kept as part of her writing process? Or did Collins only have access to the notes she took for the official FSA reports? Regardless, Steinbeck had access to at least some of Babb’s observations to inform development of his novel.

Some have accused Steinbeck of stealing her work and publishing it as his own and of not doing his own research. This idea appears to be based largely on a blog post that makes some assertions without offering any evidence.

The executor of Babb’s literary estate said, “We have no proof that Steinbeck used her notes. We know her notes were given to him, but we don't know whether it was in the form of a FSA report of not. If that's the case, he wouldn't have known they came from her specifically. So we can't know to what degree he used her notes, or didn't, but at the end of the day, she was in the fields working with the migrants. She was the one doing that."

Writing in The Steinbeck Review, Michael J. Meyer noted numerous "obvious similarities" between the two novels "that even a cursory reading will reveal", such as Babb's account of two still-born babies, mirrored in Steinbeck's description of Rosasharn's baby. Among other scenes and themes repeated in both books: the villainy of banks, corporations, and company stores that charge exorbitant prices; the rejection of religion and the embrace of music as a means of preserving hope; descriptions of the fecundity of nature and agriculture, and the contrast with the impoverishment of the migrants; and the disparity between those willing to extend assistance to the migrants and others who view "Okies" as subhuman. Meyer, a Steinbeck bibliographer, stops short of labeling these parallels as plagiarism but concludes that "Steinbeck scholars would do well to read Babb — if only to see for themselves the echoes of Grapes that abound in her prose." (Source: Wikipedia)

I would say, however, that these similarities probably have more to do with the leftist, even socialist politics both writers espoused. Both were members of communist organizations at one point and both were strong supporters of labor activism and unions. Moreover, villainous banks, corporations, and company stores were, in fact, the cause of so many people’s poverty during the Depression and during the Dust Bowl. Clear-eyed, left-leaning writers like Babb and Steinbeck would certainly have elevated this fact in their fiction. Contrasting fecund nature/impoverished humanity, and disdain/kindness toward “Okies” seem to me like pretty obvious choices when writing about a human-made natural disaster (the Dust Bowl) and with a desire to humanize and generate sympathy toward both the victims of the disaster and toward the union movement. There is also a stillborn baby in both books, described in similar ways. That could, indeed have been something Steinbeck took from the FSA notes, as it is something he is unlikely to have witnessed himself. However, stillborn babies must have been pretty common in the FSA camps. Even this detail can’t be pinned directly to Babb’s notes, though it is suspicious.

In spite of these similarities, “Whose Names are Unknown” is very different from “The Grapes of Wrath.” Babb’s book explores the lives of her characters in ethnographic detail and portrays their lives and struggles with profound empathy and realism. It is clearly the work of someone intimately acquainted with the people and their moral universe, as well as the exacting minutiae of everyday life. Babb writes like an anthropologist, which is something I love about the book.

In “The Grapes of Wrath,” I think (and I am no Steinbeck scholar, heck haven’t even read the book since high school) Steinbeck was more concerned with creating a myth or grand narrative that encapsulated all of the good and bad aspects of America than he was with ethnographic truth. It has drama, good and evil, memorably flawed characters, and, importantly, an epic road trip that probably helped spawn the “road trip” genre of writing. It’s a book with many layers of meaning and emotional resonance. You don’t learn as much about the characters’ world and worldview as in Babb’s book, but you feel so much more and are moved to do something about it.

Babb felt she was a better writer than Steinbeck because her book was more realistic. If realism is the goal, I would agree with her. Her book is vastly superior to “Grapes” in that regard. But Steinbeck’s book is art. It’s a reflection of reality distorted and expanded into the level of myth or dream. Both books are really good, and really important.

I highly recommend reading “Whose Names are Unknown,” especially if you enjoyed “The Grapes of Wrath” or are particularly interested in Depression-era culture and politics. I don’t know if her book would have been successful if it had been published in 1939, though I suspect her publisher was wrong and it would have sold well enough. It’s also pretty clear that sexism played a big role here. I feel like the subtext of the publisher’s decision was another book about the Dust Bowl (BY A WOMAN) can’t compete with The Great White American Male Author.

#sanora babb #whose names are unknown #american literature #the great depression #California #my stuff

15 notes · View notes

mugasofer · 3 years

Text

It seems like many, perhaps most, people historically believed in some immanent apocalypse.

Many philosophies claim that the world is passing into a degenerate age of chaos (Ages of Man, Kali Yuga, life-cycle of civilisation), or divine conflict will shortly spill over & destroy the Earth (Ragnorok, Revelations, Zoroastrian Frashokereti), or that the natural forces sustaining us must be transient.

Yet few panic or do anything. What anyone does "do about it" is often symbolic & self-admittedly unlikely to do much.

Maybe humans evolved not to care, to avoid being manipulated?

Many cults make similar claims, and do uproot their lives around them. Even very rarely committing mass suicide or terror attacks etc on occasion. But cults exist that don't make such claims, so it may not be the mechanism they use to control, or at most a minor one. "This is about the fate of the whole world, nothing can be more important than that, so shut up" may work as as a thought terminating cliche, but it doesn't seem to work that strongly, and there are many at least equally effective ones.

Some large scale orgs do exist that seem to take their eschatology "seriously". The Aztecs committed atrocities trying to hold off apocalypse, ISIS trying to cause it. Arguably some Communist or even fascist groups count, depending on your definition of apocalypse.

But even then, one can argue their actions are not radically different from non-apocalypse-motivated ones - e.g. the Aztecs mass-executed less per capita than the UK did at times & some historians view them as more about displaying authority.

I'm thinking about this because of two secular eschatologies - climate apocalypse and the Singularity.

My view on climate change, which as far as I can tell is the scientific consensus, is that it is real and bad but by no means apocalyptic. We're talking incremental increases in storms, droughts, floods etc, all of which are terrible, but none of which remotely threaten human civilisation. E.g. according to the first Google result, the sea is set to rise by 1 decimeter by 2100 in a "high emissions scenario", not to rise by tens or hundreds of meters and consume all coastal nations as I was taught as a child. Some more drastic projections suggest that the sea might rise by as much as two or three meters in the worst case scenario.

It really creeps me out when I hear people who confess to believe that human civilisation, the human species, or even all life on Earth is most likely going to be destroyed soon by climate change. The most recent example, which prompted this post, was the Call of Cthulhu podcast I was listening to casually suggesting that it might be a good idea to summon an Elder God of ice and snow to combat climate change as the "lesser existential risk", perhaps by sacrificing "climate skeptics" to it. It's incredibly jarring for me to realise that the guys I've been listening to casually chatting about RPGs think they live in a world that will shortly be ended by the greed of it's rulers. But this idea is everywhere. Discussions of existential risks from e.g. pandemics inevitably attract people arguing that the real existential risk is climate change. A major anti-global-warming protest movement, Extinction Rebellion, is literally named after the idea that they're fighting against their own extinction. Viral Tumblr posts talk about how the fear of knowing that the world is probably going to be destroyed soon by climate change and fascism is crippling their mental health, and they have no idea how to deal with it because it's all so real.

But it's not. It's not real.

Well, I can't claim that political science is accurate enough for me to definitively say that fascism isn't going to take over, but I can say that climate science is fairly accurate and it predicts that the world is definitely not about to end in fire or in flood.

(There are valid arguments that climate change or other environmental issues might precipitate wars, which could turn apocalyptic due to nuclear weapons; or that we might potentially encounter a black swan event due to our poor understanding of the ecosystem and climate-feedback systems. But these are very different, as they're self-admittedly "just" small risks to the world.)

And I get the impression that a lot of people with more realistic views about climate change deliberately pander to this, deliberately encouraging people to believe that they're going to die because it puts them on the "right side of the issue". The MCU's Loki, for instance, recently casually brought up a "climate apocalypse" in 2050, which many viewers took as meaning the world ending. Technically, the show uses a broad definition of "apocalypse" - Pompeii is given as another example - and it kind of seems like maybe all they meant was natural disasters encouraged by climate change, totally defensible. But I still felt kinda mad about it, that they're deliberately pandering to an idea which they hopefully know is false and which is causing incredible anxiety in people. I remember when Greta Thurnberg was a big deal, I read through her speeches to Extinction Rebellion, and if you parsed them closely it seemed like she actually did have a somewhat realistic understanding of what climate change is. But she would never come out and say it, it was all vague implications of doom, which she was happily giving to a rally called "Extinction Rebellion" filled with speakers who were explicitly stating, not just coyly implying, that this was a fight for humanity's survival against all the great powers of the world.

But maybe there's nothing wrong with that. I despise lying, but as I've been rambling about, this is a very common lie that most people somehow seem unaffected by. Maybe the viral tumblr posts are wrong about the source of their anxiety; maybe it's internal/neurochemical and they world just have picked some other topic to project their anxieties on if this particular apocalypse wasn't available. Maybe this isn't a particularly harmful lie, and it's hypocritical of me to be shocked by those who believe it.

Incidentally, I believe the world is probably going to end within the next fifty years.

Intellectually, I find the arguments that superhuman AI will destroy the world pretty undeniable. Sure, forecasting the path of future technology is inherently unreliable. But the existence of human brains, some of which are quite smart, proves pretty conclusively it's possible to get lumps of matter to think - and human brains are designed to run on the tiny amounts of energy they can get by scavenging plants and the occasional scraps of meat in the wilderness as fuel, with chemical signals that propagate at around the speed of sound (much slower than electronic ones), with only the data they can get from input devices they carry around with them, and which break down irrevocably after a few decades. And while we cannot necessarily extrapolate from the history of progress in both computer hardware and AI, that progress is incredibly impressive, and there's no particular reason to believe it will fortuitously stop right before we manufacture enough rope to hang ourselves.

Right now, at time of writing, we have neural nets that can write basic code, appear to scale linearly in effectiveness with the available hardware with no signs that we're reaching their limit, and have not yet been applied at the current limits of available hardware let alone what will be available in a few years. They absorb information like a sponge at a vastly superhuman speed and scale, allowing them to be trained in days or hours rather than the years or decades humans require. They are already human-level or massively superhuman at many tasks, and are capable of many things I would have confidently told you a few years ago were probably impossible without human-level intelligence, like the crazy shit AI dungeon is capable of. People are actively working on scaling them up so that they can work on and improve the sort of code they are made from. And we have no ability to tell what they're thinking or control them without a ton of trial and error.

If you follow this blog, you're probably familiar with all the above arguments for why we're probably very close to getting clobbered by superhuman AI, and many more, as well as all the standard counter-arguments and the counter-arguments to those counter arguments.

(Note: I do take some comfort in God, but even if my faith were so rock solid that I would cheerfully bet the world on it - which it's not - there's no real reason why our purpose in God's plan couldn't be to destroy ourselves or be destroyed as an object lesson to some other, more important civilization. There's ample precedent.)

Here's the thing: I'm not doing anything about it, unless you count occasionally, casually talking about it with people online. I'm not even donating to help any of the terrifyingly-few people who are trying to do something about it. Part of why I'm not contributing is, frankly, I don't have a clue what to do, nor do I have much confidence in any of the stuff people are currently doing (although I bloody well hope some of it works.)

And yet I don't actually feel that scared.

I feel more of a visceral chill reading about the nuclear close calls that almost destroyed the world in the recent past than thinking about the stuff that has a serious chance of doing so in a few decades. I'm a neurotic mess, and yet what is objectively the most terrifying thing on my radar does not actually seem to contribute to my neurosis.

#x risk cw #futurism #we live in the future #long #rambly late night posting #history #religion

21 notes · View notes

latenightcinephile · 3 years

Text

#703: 'Marketa Lazarová', dir. František Vláčil, 1967.

Marketa Lazarová is a slightly unusual film for me, because its effects go slightly beyond my ability to articulate or explain them. I originally saw it at a Film Society screening in 2015 or 2016, back when I was able to go to movies at 6 p.m. on a Monday evening, and it enthralled me then, splayed wide across the screen at the Paramount in crisp black and white. I knew very little of Czech cinema at the time and, embarrassingly, still haven't seen very much. Coming back to it five years later, it still holds a lot of that arcane power that it had. Marketa Lazarová is simultaneously a meditative experience and a gut punch.

František Vláčil was one of the Czech filmmakers who was originally trained with the Army Film Division, which surprisingly became a breeding ground for avant-garde filmmaking styles. Vláčil became disillusioned with the types of historical films that were being produced at the time, which seemed to him to feature contemporary people pretending to be characters from the past. What was needed instead, he argued, was a more immediate form of historical cinema that made audiences feel like they were witnessing history rather than a lacklustre interpretation of it. In order to achieve this, he frequently joined his cast and crew on long-term shoots where they lived in the types of conditions that the characters would. Sets were built using traditional methods, and scripts were written using archaic dialects to avoid that common experience of characters speaking in a recognisably modern way. The shoot for Marketa Lazarová lasted almost two years in these conditions.

The film's plot concerns three groups. The Kozlík clan, a family under the helm of a robber baron, robs a noble entourage and takes Kristian, the son of the bishop, hostage. Before Kozlík's sons can return to claim their loot, a neighbouring clan led by Lazar steals the spoils. Lazar is saved from being killed when a vision of a nunnery on a hillside appears. One of the chief themes of this film, alluded to early on, is the conflict between paganism and early Christianity. The two worldviews are muddy and indistinct, but the difference between them is what drives a lot of the retribution in the film. Kristian falls in love with one of Kozlík's daughters, Alexandra, while Kozlík's son, Mikoláš, falls in love with Lazar's daughter, Marketa, whom he has taken as a hostage in retaliation for Lazar refusing to side with Kozlík against the king and the bishop. In addition to the religious dimension, then, there is also an ongoing theme of where one's loyalties lie - with existing morals (family, God) or with the person you love. Over the course of this epic, the fates of all three groups trend downhill: members of each of these bands are slaughtered and betrayed; Kozlík and Alexandra are imprisoned; Marketa is released by Mikoláš but rejected by Lazar. The film's conclusion seems to suggest that it is Marketa, and the future generations she helps to bring into the world, that will be able to overcome the divisions that affected the clans so catastrophically, but also acknowledges that these types of conflicts are part of the human experience.

As vast and interwoven the plot of the film is, it's not what makes the experience of watching quite so transcendent. What makes this film feel like an out-of-body experience is Vláčil's use of non-linear and non-realistic techniques. Parts of the film's story are told in flashback, but without any explicit indication that this is happening. At times we see disconnected, hallucinatory images that only make sense when they are contextualised later on. One example of this is an erotic scene between Alexandra (Pavla Polášková) and a young man, who we assume to be Kristian (Vlastimil Harapes). It's only later that we discover that this is a flashback to an abortive romance between Alexandra and her brother Adam (Ivan Palúch) - a man I had initially disqualified from appearing here because Adam only has one arm in the current scenes. Revealing that it is Adam propels the story forward in traditionally linear fashion, but also causes the viewer to reassess the film's earlier scene to determine why these images are included there. These images are made further alien by their unexpected visual qualities: the sex scene takes place in a field of summer grain, but most of the film's 'present day' takes place in winter and early spring. Rather than ascribe them to an unmotivated flashback, it seems easier to read them as a poetic hallucination, and then Vláčil returns to reorganise what we had previously believed of the narrative.

As well as the narrative structure, Vláčil frequently employs long periods of silence and a seeming mismatch of cinematography, where figures are either oddly close to the camera or absurdly far away. On a deep level, it feels like nobody, even the director, has total control over what is being portrayed - like we've entered a kind of fugue state in which cinema just happens regardless of how legible its results are. Although its filming process was so long, the resulting scenes feel accidental or improvisational, culled down from a vast amount of footage.

While many of these techniques give us the experience of watching a dream of an imagined past, these techniques are also quite violent and confrontational. Even when the shots are distant or filmed in long takes, they're cut together in a jarring way, and the lack of a straightforward narrative makes it difficult on the viewer too. The activity implied in this method of editing, a complicated soundscape and opaque narrative combine to make Marketa Lazarová a film that feels very immediate and present. As Tom Gunning put it, writing for Criterion about his early encounters with the film, "an energized mobile camera and abrasive editing peers into a primitive era of human history." Just as the characters of the film are quick to anger and quick to act, the film also lacks temperance. This is a film of life and death in its most vital forms, and so it makes a certain kind of sense that Vláčil would, in defiance of the typical historical film, try and remove any layer of modern logic or reason that would prevent us from experiencing the film's events in a visceral way. This is also why the myth of the werewolf hangs so heavily over the film - invoked a few times by Kozlík's wife, and present in the appearance of his children and their uncanny survival abilities - it both defies modern logic and refers to a particularly corporeal type of monster.

Vláčil structures Marketa Lazarová with sudden intertitles that refer to the events and themes that we are about to see, in a poetic way that recalls the chapter titles of a 19th-century novel. 'On the Lot of Widows' and 'Who in the Past Brewed with Hops' provide the vantage point of someone placed about the action, narrating it to us in a distant sort of way. The music is similar: both ancient and modern, it frequently uses atonal incantations. Taken together, it feels like this story is being shouted at us from a distant time when things were more tactile. "The presence of animals and plants, the textures of stone and tree bark, of snow and marsh water," Gunning writes, "cling to us as we watch, often overriding the narrative."

The grand experience of watching this film is partly contradictory, then: this is a film that feels very modern, tells a story from the past, alludes to contemporary struggles, and when situated in Czech film history is wildly experimental. Gunning sees this film as being, in some respects, a statement about what Vláčil thought cinema could be, in those days of the 1960s where most national cinemas were experiencing their own variations on the New Wave that had developed in France. The experimental aspects of the films of Godard and Varda would be subsumed into the traditional toolbox of cinema and lose some of their vibrancy as a result - either directors would use them for blockbuster films or extend them into a new type of experimental film that was sterile and aloof.Considering this, it's worth appreciating exactly how daring Vláčil was being here: under a Communist regime, making a film about paganism, bestiality, sadism, incest, and torture. With all this darkness, Marketa Lazarová is a bright film, even funny at times. Humanity is a fallen, self-destructive thing, but there is something about this way of life, before it was layered deep underneath civilisation, reason and enlightenment, that was exciting and vibrant.

Does civilisation mean we lose something of our potential? The final narration of Marketa Lazarová tells us that these cycles of mistrust and anger are likely to repeat through the generations, but is that a price Vláčil thinks is worth paying? The urgency and difficulty of life in the distant past was inseparable from the superstitions of the time, but the urges were easier to sate, at least temporarily. The taming of these clans, like the taming of the avant-garde techniques Vláčil employs here, might have been inevitable, but this film shows that there is something valuable there nonetheless.

#1001 movies #František Vláčil #Marketa Lazarová #Czech film #epic

9 notes · View notes

katiesbooks · 2 years

Text

Thoughts on Conversations with Friends

I hated this book. Let me say that again. I HATED this book.

Content warning for sexual assault, self harm, and shitty age gap relationship power dynamics.

Honestly I’m surprised, because I loved Normal People and enjoyed Beautiful World, Where Are You well enough. And I read this one fast enough, but I really just wanted it to be over faster. I came to hate every main character individually, Bobbi only slightly less than the other three, which is quite the accomplishment for an author! Wow, I despised these characters. And it’s not because they were written to be unlikeable- I have no problem with unlikeable characters, so long as they behave semi-realistically. Every single character read like a deeply toxic and insecure teenager, which would have been fine but they’re supposed to be adults!! In particular I thought Melissa’s characterization was the most flawed. We’re supposed to believe this is some kind of well respected girlboss photographer, and yet she writes passive aggressive emails to her husband’s girlfriend like “hey girlie! I’m SO self aware. AND I’m better than you!” and doesn’t leave her husband? Who she doesn’t even like all that much?

And Frances? What the fuck was that characterization? Okay, she’s very observant, she’s not emotional, fine. But she sees Nick and thinks ‘this is a bland and uninteresting man’ then like a month later she’s in love with him?? It doesn’t make sense to me. And I know there were reasons for her to not tell Bobbi, but if it was me I would be RUNNING to my friends to tell them I’m having an affair. Which is maybe why I’ve never been part of an affair. But also because I have some sense of moral responsibility.

Anyways, Nick. I actually thought his characterization was very well done, he reminded me of some of the men I know in real life the way he refused to take responsibility for his actions or his feelings. I just….reallyyy don’t understand the hype around him. There comes a time in every young woman-who’s-attracted-to-men’s life where you realize that older men who go after younger women are, without exception, kind of gross and fucked up. For some it happens earlier than others. For Frances, well, I’m guessing it won’t happen for at least a few years.

I’m never the person with the most emotional intelligence in any given room. Especially compared with my partner, I’m about as vulnerable and communicative as a rock. But I think I have more emotional intelligence than everyone in this book put together.

There’s a scene near the end of the book in which Frances is “crying very hard” after Nick comes over. It’s made clear that she says it’s fine for them to have sex, and they do, though she continues “crying pretty badly”. This might be a hot take, but I don’t think it was “brave” to write a sex scene in which one partner is sobbing and the other partner keeps having sex with them. This book had so many unhealthy portrayals of sex but this was, in my opinion, the worst. I mean, it was triggering for me personally, and I’m sure other people had similar reactions, but even beyond that sex was portrayed pretty consistently as almost violent throughout this book. Sally Rooney, bestie, do we really need more media that normalizes these awful sexual dynamics?

I will say, the ending bears a lot of resemblance to the ending of Normal People in that it’s left pretty open, but you can still kind of see where the plot would go if the book were to continue. (It would continue careening off a cliff in this case). I really thought as I was reading it the one thing that might have redeemed this book would have been Frances and Bobbi ending up together. And then they did, but it didn’t feel as meaningful as it could have. Refusing to clearly define queer relationships is so 2012. I personally run in anarchist/communist-college-student-circles, and any good leftist knows that clear, healthy communication and boundary setting is critical in any relationship. So you’ll understand why I don’t like how their quasi-relationship was portrayed at the end. It’s not radical to refuse your partner healthy communication- nor is it realistic for a character like Bobbi.

If you want a character driven book centered around women’s relationships that’s not set in the US, do yourself a favor and read Ponti by Sharlene Teo instead. Don’t bother with Conversations with Friends.

#conversations with friends #sally rooney #normal people #katie’s thoughts

5 notes · View notes

gale-gentlepenguin · 3 years

Note

I’m really really sorry to be disrespecting your wishes, but you just struck such a nerve I had to say something. I’m going to use America as an example. Slavery still exists in capitalism. In America they put people in jail for minor reasons and then because the jail is privately owned most of the time, they do everything in their power to keep them there. They then use these people to do free labour, a famous example being prisoners in California being forced to risk their lives and fight the wild fires. This short video explains it in basics if you’re interested (https://youtu.be/gX2R0b_mqrQ)

Slavery in America also didn’t “end” because capitalism let it. It stopped because in the civil war America needed more fighters (slaves volunteered when they knew it meant freedom) and a reason for England to stay out of the war, so they gave the fight a just cause. In fact the reason America was among the last to stop blatant slavery was because people didn’t want the economy failing from a sudden lack of free labour. Capitalism is what kept slavery around then, and still does now. Here’s a kinda long but interesting video summing up the American civil war (https://youtu.be/tsxmyL7TUJg)

Hate communism all you want, your reasons are 100% just. But please try not to spread misinformation. The reason Americans die everyday from easily preventable causes, is because they’ve been brainwashed to refuse anything even slightly to do with communism. People literally have to pay to hold their child after birth because they don’t have a socialised health care system. Here’s a short video on that if you’re interested (https://youtu.be/Kll-yYQwmuM)

(Also people really can’t move up and down the capitalism ladder without the connections you get from being at the top of it. People wouldn’t be homeless or working minimum wage jobs if they could just gain a better job through “hard work”)

Again I’m sorry to be sending you this on a platform where you want to chill, so don’t feel it necessary to respond, but I just couldn’t stay quiet.

I did say I didn't want to talk about this anymore. You clearly put thought into this ask and it isn't just another person raving about something. So I will make ONE exception. This is the last post I will talk about this.

So I am not upset with you sending me this. If anything I am glad you took sources and explained your reasoning. So I will comment on this with Equal respect and my view. I will be adding a read more because I don't want to force any opinions and views down people’s throats. I am completely fine with you disagreeing with me. I just want people to be rational and come to their own conclusions.

Lets take this point by point.

Before starting, I will agree that Capitalism as a concept didn't end slavery, I was saying the governments with that system did. Albeit not directly because it.

1.The For Profit prison system is messed up and it is filled with Corrupt and Bigotted individuals that exploit it. Sadly it isn't classified as Slavery, as the prisoners (while grossly underpaid and exploited) are technically paid and given room and board.) and unless they are on death row, can be released. This prison system is still better then Communist systems, which effectively work their prisoners (who are locked up unjustly by vast margins) to death, or worse. Which is the main point I was making when I made my post (though it was more of an emotional rant.) I will in this response be more calm and explain my rational. Communism always results in more death and is just as corrupt. So in a matter of comparison, I would take being a prisoner in a capitalist society rather than one in a communist society.

2. Capitalism ended slavery in the sense that a Capitalist society had a war and the side with the more advanced technology and willpower managed to win the civil war and establish a written in the constitution law, that made it so people can not legally own slaves. And then at some point most capitalist societies made laws that outlawed slavery. (Of course the prison system is an exploited loophole, which I would 100% to have fixed).

3. The health care system is also a corrupt mess. America’s healthcare system has been exploited by Big Pharma and overcharges its people to insane degrees which I personally hate. And I would not be against some sort of baseline care for everyone. But the problem is that Communism health care isn't what people imagine it would be. It removes people’s choice on the matter. Also socialist Healthcare in places such as Canada do still provide Private Health insurance. So I wouldn't be entirely against having that, (but half the Canadians I know say the system sucks greatly) I think as long as the choice is there I wouldn't mind it.

4. Communist and Socialist healthcare systems do however vastly slow down medical innovation and in the case of Communism, keeps the better care for those at the top. The capitalist system at least allows for some sort of charity system that allows for people to donate, work around certain things to get care and people that can find a way to pay can pay. I wouldn't mind having a baseline healthcare for everyone, but the problem is there is such a thing as limited resources. Even in a PERFECT Social healthcare system, it would still have limited resources and involve the government deciding on who gets what and who has to die. Which is kind of f***ed up.

5. About having connections to move up the capitalist ladder. That is literally the same everywhere. Life is about who you know, I personally believe a meritocracy would be better but that aint how it works. That won't change regardless of the system your in. Though I am the child of immigrants that literally busted their asses when they were dirt poor to be able to provide for my sister and me. They moved up. I will say it is a lot harder nowadays, but people have done it. Hell, I know my buddy is doing it right now. He is working his way through school and studying programing. I am proud of him.

6. As someone who has personally worked at food banks and Homeless shelters. There would still be homeless people. There is a lot of mental illness in the homeless community. Supplying housing does not fix the situation because they don't know how to take care of a house. Also the fact that some people also don't want to live in a place. Everyone paints it as black and white, but the whole homeless crisis has a lot of layers to it and I do believe that at least in this system, they would still be alive. Back in Cuba and In the soviet union the mentally ill were executed...

Lastly, all of the things you listed are valid to an extent, but the problem is that the issues you are referring too come from CORRUPTION of a system not the system itself. I do think I agree with your statements on the flaws of capitalism. I have my own personal beefs with the system, but I am enough of a realist to know that full on socialism ALWAYS ends in authoritarianism. Whether its communism or Facism, it ends poorly.

#communism #capitialism #flawed systems #Last post on this

21 notes · View notes

acti-veg · 4 years

Note

Unrelated question: Being from a relative poor family and from a country that was a communist doctatorship in the past I quite hate both capitalism and communism. Or at least I'm critical of them. I struggle to imagine how they could work or if they could be balanced somehow. I was wondering if there are any good pieces on how the economy should function that you'd recommed me to read. I definitely identify as a leftist anarchist cause I wouldn't tolerate another communist doctatorship. Some say that communism/socialism can't work in the large-scale and that it will always result in dictatorship. Do you think that's true?

There is really no balancing the two ideologies, since they are fundamentally contradictory. The means of production cannot both be run by individuals for private profit, and communally/publicly owned and run for the benefit of the public. Of course, communism and capitalism are not the only options, there is anarchism, socialism, and many other ideologies in-between. You can be anti-capitalist without being an advocate for communism. I myself would not advocate for the kind of dictatorial one-state communism that the USSR achieved, which I assume is what you are referring to here.

The thing to remember, is that capitalism isn’t working in the large-scale, and wealth inequality is worse than it has ever been. Look at the US - the poster child for capitalism is suppressing voters, the sitting head of state is encouraging armed militias and threatening not to leave should he be voted out, as well as trying to censor the media and propagandising with racist rhetoric - all the hallmarks of a budding dictatorship. If you ask most people in capitalist countries like the US and the UK if capitalism working for them, their answers probably wouldn't surprise you. Capitalism is only seen to ‘work’ because it works for those who control the message, and continuously tell the public that it works, despite their own lived experiences to the contrary.

I don’t believe that communism or socialism is any more susceptible to becoming a dictatorship than capitalism is, honestly, it all depends on how the transition is handled during the revolution or transition itself. If you entrust power to a person or a small group, even in an interim capacity, the danger of authoritarianism is obvious. That isn’t a unique feature of socialist ideologies.

It also depends on the form of socialism/communism that you are advocating for. Personally, I advocate for the means of production to be owned by the public, not the state, and, for a rigorous system of de-centralised democracy, where power is given to local councils and worker’s unions, not a centralised government. There is a much lower chance of a dictatorship forming when power and wealth is de-centralised in this way, far lower than under capitalism, I’d argue, where the apparatus of the state is centralised and much easier for a small group to exercise disproportionate control over the people.

In terms of books to read, I’d recommend Inventing the Future: Postcapitalism and a World Without Work, This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs The Climate, Utopia For Realists: And How We Get There, and finally, Postcapitalism: A Guide to Our Future. Have a look at them on Goodreads and see which ones you’d like to explore - I have them all on my politics and history reading list too, which you can find here.

#ask #politics #capitalism #communism #socialism

65 notes · View notes

misterbitches · 3 years

Text

I ship muren and li cheng bc i only saw it through gifs then i watched this episode cos i was like im only starting this show if they kiss im waiting and they did and it was nice and i got so anxious that i was about to fucking vomit. I really like them together. The top/bottom shit is dumb and i hope if they must mention it they all build a bridge and get over it so they can switch cos who gives a shit. I didnt realize how large they all are like most “tall” men on tv are lying. But bc that kid is so thin and tall and the other one (idk the stepbrother) is huge too. Li cheng is shorter than them both but more ~manly~ but still short so why doesnt he take a DICK UP HIS BUTT XD since that’s all that fucking matters and there’s only 2 genders and 2 eays to have sex lmao so nothing else otherwise ur screwed

Hd a terrible past couple of weeks personally and because i keep seeing my peopl eget murdered and things ripped from us ^_____^ anyway here’s Some libertatrian communist dumb bitch discoars so i’ll tag it:

keep in mind these are my opinions’”” when i engage in discourse. I am not the end all be all and I don’t need you to agree. There’s some shit I am non-negotiable on but thsi is just exchanging of information. Any authoratative tone I take on comes from my beliefs, my life, my experiences, and what I choose to cultivate as a person and an artist. I dont have control over your feelings, you do. If it hurts you then either tell me the issue and be PRECISE about it, understand that context matters which is why i type so much in engagement, and do not fucking lie or misconstrue my words. Do not call me western ever in your life either. I am a black-american. I have adhd and bc i am a black woman if ur automatically thinking im brolic i am accepting money in my paypal for ur wellbeing to get me to shut the fuck up.Thanks.

The stepbrothers storyline is stupid and lazy writing. I really want to counter people that say it’s written well and that it’s interesting because it isn’t. Even if it was illicit and fucked we can write a story out about this. Let’s rethink what they could have done shall we:

- become stepbrothers at about 16 and their parents mismanage the relationship and they fail in trying to get an integrated family together (this is what happened in the #iconic transit girls and that was fuckin’ weird but hey dude guess what we watched it and it was weird but not unethical and we know one is like 19 and the other is 21 and a girl so it’s like wow you avoided so much and handled their stepsister story very…….um lightly given the end lmao but it was there and people had AGENCY)

-OR you realize that freak is obsessed with him and then he realizes it and is like “bitch i swear to god” and in typical shtity trope BL fashion they can find a way from obsession, to loss and independence when you lose your obsession, to “love” if they choose

- have the fucked up shit but make it clear what the issues are and you literally cannot write your way out of it so do not try

But why can’t fucked up things be shown? Also this is realistic.

0. Well according to you but no one said that they can’t. So that’s on your interpretation of critique (that is, again, not bullying or harassment.) They can, i just gave plenty of scenarios in which it is affective and not just annoying to witness, trope-y, and frankly ridiculous and offensive. Sorry! They don’t do it well. You can come up with alternatives too. See #2 btw.

1. No it isn’t doing a good job of reflecting life because life has consequences. The exaggeration in drama doesn’t mean the arc shouldn’t be there. Almost always things that aren’t heavy with the message or meant to be sobering in a deep way are COMPELLING. The realism is the basis for art because we are human. This is not the way real humans act.

Someone said Tharn Type was mature and I had to laugh because no, no one acts that way and is “in love” if they act that way that means they fucking hate each other and they’re immature and frankly it’s just not that interesting for many of us to watch because the dramatization of the “realism” is fucking bonkers. That was such poor writing it is unbelievable and someone has the audacityt o say it’s how real adults act. Fucking murder me if I’m with someone for 7 years and we break up over a miscommunication and for some reason I am not as horny as my always horny boyfriend. The fuck? What kind of lives do you lead? Either you are not an adult or you are an adult who needs therapy.

I also hear the “realistic” argument but then people try and temper it with “but also it’s fiction.” What do you think fiction is? Why do you think filmmaking exists? Number one, it’s propaganda in the sense that you want others to buy into your presentation and see what you see. That means that the creators are telling people and influencing them WITH ART BECAUSE THAT’S WHAT IT IS about their feelings around a situation. That’s why it is imperative to be responsible as a filmmaker and artist and underline the deepness of creepiness if that’s what they want. If they want to relay that rape sometimes ok and psychos are crazy so they get boy (??!?!?!? BITCH?) then they achieved it with no innovative information. We know people get raped bc we are human beings and many of us live with that fear. You know, being the target demo and all. And bc BL loves that trope it’s rape fantasy peddled to young people and women. Just like shitty wattpad fics or NYT best sellers. Hooray, what now? Or are you trying to purport that this isn’t glorified fanfiction? Which it literally is

2. This is the issue with these shows. No one is saying that fucked up shit cannot be shown. There’s a film about a woman who is raped and she falls in love with her rapist (because he was masked but i think we find out later that she knows. Binoche is in it.) I have no desire for that film—i think it’s by a man and i extra dont care—but I hear it’s sort of powerful for many. I heard it was a good film. But the act itself is always eschewed and the conflict comes from how fucking ridiculous it is especially finding out that she knows. The power imbalance adn the possibility. They may not have handled it in a way I would have cared for but it was there.

There’s simply no imagination because these people do not care that much and aren’t great writers and filmmakers because they simply do not have to be. Sorry.

The industry doesn’t rely on the best they rely on efficiency (this is everywhere.) You can tell by the camera angles, the editing, the camera itself (idk if it is multicam but the flatness is typical soap flatness without the glowboxes to soften their faces.) Simple constant lighting. Now the surroundings are mostly beautiful. But even to some of the costumes. And those edits are abysmal, some of that camera work.

So with all that said even with the couple I extremely enjoy I see its (H4) faults. Add into that a lazily thrown together “shocking” love and if they are trying to get us to feel a type of way about its sexiness they fail. This is why movies like 50sog, 365 days, etc aren’t enjoyable to people because it’s fucking strange situations that they dont want to entangle or make enjoyable to viewers across the board. They know what people will take. It’s just that bitch what are we here for if even the sexiness isn’t there for ur stupid story.

At least with that teenager and 30 yr old man in MODC (which i do not love but i like them in theory if it wasnt totally repulsive to me and also if it was developed in a way that was good TO ME) they had their, er, “sex appeal” i talk about this as well the main couple in MODC to me, visually, was a miss. Not bc whatshisface was small and stuff but bc he was so sickly and they needed that to propel the story but it was just not appealing given how the story progressed. A missed opportunity in tying the two together besides making him look waif-y and sickly only to have the “did ur mom die in a car crash? No, cancer” type of move in not another teen movie. But the opposite. And not funny. Wayne tho????? GORL. Eggs. Cracked.

fandoms have a very warped sense of harrassment and discourse.

Most fandoms have harassers who are “protecting” the cast and crew who don’t need their protection (or maybe the crew does since they probably dont get paid well but why the fuck would anyone care about that lol) but very few have the people who have concerns or massive critique about the show are not going to be “bullying.”

If people are saying “if you like xyz, u suck” then sure it may suck for you to see but who fucking cares. Either talk to the person or don’t be friends with them. That is not bullying or harrassment. Things that are shitty get criticized. Fuck, things that aren’t shitty don’t. Get away from this idea of cancel culture and people misunderstanding the story. We have the ability to.

Think beyond your noses of personal preference. You don’t have to convince people of what you believe. Discussing it is good but critique is not bullying, harrassment, or hate. Neither is fucking roasting shit because even this shit I like (manner of death lets say) deserves it. Art is meant to be critiqued and if you dont fucking like the bullshit people make then say it. They know stupid stories like this are scandalous and they don’t give a shit in how to present them.

And guess what? You won’t like everybody. Many people can’t stand me i’m sure. Oh well. I mean frankly I don’t like that and I feel very unsettled when I don’t feel understood. That’s ok! I have to temper it. Sometimes calm myself down. I won’t get anything and everything I want. And you won’t like every opinion and sometimes it’s like “man am i a dummy?” But the part of growing up is fucking maanging that and beng honest about “bashing and harrassment” and “bullying” and growing up. Yuo can like what you want the “let people like what they want thing” is so fucking juvenile and THAT is not the real world. Which is probably why so many people feel that way, they dont want to live in the real world. Unfortunately, you do.

Think beyond our noses of personal preference and what we feel emotionally in conjunction with others. You don’t have to convince people of what you believe. And you can say things that you believe to be true but it doesn’t make them so or maybe it isn’t received that way to people. And many times we learn new things in the discussions “oh shit i didn’t see it that way” right? Discussing it is good but critique is not bullying, harrassment, or hate. Neither is fucking roasting shit because even this shit I like (manner of death lets say) deserves it. Art is meant to be critiqued and if you dont fucking like the bullshit people make then say it. They know stupid stories like this are scandalous and they don’t give a shit in how to present them. Usually the “opposition” in these situations aren’t the popular beliefs that permeate through society. Trust me lmao

Antiblackness

Antiblackness is a thing. It permeates everywhere. It permeates in this genre and it permeates in fandom. Get it the fuck together. Also do not conflate cultural relativism with being repsectful. They are not barbarians, they are smart human beings either making work or deciding to. We all have diff cultures but we have fucking sense in what is respectful and not. And if we don’t we fucking learn. You cannot excuse things and say “oh culture” when you have 0 idea of that culture or actual people who are radical etc and are fighting against it. Additionally the word westerner is an ignorant term when referring to people in the US or UK who are black. Because we are not. We extend sympathy to other groups and empathy since we know so there is no inherent power imbalance between a black viewer and their subject. Don’t suggest that because it’s wrong and ahistorical and contextless.

FIRST the fallacy of representation as freedom makes people fucking complacent, individualistic, and doesn’t let them think critically. Consumption and discourse around consumption is not helping material conditions of the marginalized communities in your home, the black ones who are ignored, those intersectionalized in these communities. Groups talk about art and what it means for them outside of just what we see and because we also don’t have access to a bunch of Thai reviews or what movements or going on we are less likely to know if we don’t FUCKING SEARCH for it. Because art is constant...which leads me to....

Representation is difficult. It matters and it doesn’t.

Tthese shows are not meant to overturn the LGBTQ+ community.

There are queer filmmakers and artists in these countries. Deep illustrious film careers or even TV that is moving and deliberate. We can even see it with the dude from “your name engraved” in their short series he was in beforehand. BL is no wa pejorative because it is simply not “qu**r” storytelling whatever that means. But know it has always existed everywhere and there are also out artists or radical artists in all these countries who do no respect mediums that are cash-grabs and poorly made.

ex: As much as “Like in the Movies” sort of isnt for me and is a bit hamfisted you can tell how much love goes into that. Love of the characters, acting, and message. Yes it’s cringey to see some of the lines (like very tbh subtlety wasnt exactly their strong suit) and yea naming them after lenin and marx is just 0ihgoaudgijposkagjihou BUT GUESS WHAT? THEY FUCKING DID IT. THEY TRIED. And class was a large component as well bc u cant fuckin ignore it. The show is aware of the machinations in its world as a show but also in the philippines and for a fuckin reason. And duatarte? Loooooooool so like yea not so sure bl makes him love his ppl but the show isnt trying to do that

It’s not a transgressive genre and it has no reason to be. No ethical anything under the way we live it’s just trying your fucking best to be. That’s it. They serve societal ills and capital’s purposes. Which is fine but it is not revolutionary.

These countries in SEA or even SA do not have as big budget for even mainstream dramas—though things are changing and that’s bc REVENUE like revenue from kpop is fucking huge for SK and again so much about that is bc of what happened in their history from japanese imperialism to WWII to the US—so for “queer” stuff it is sort of now important to make that an export and it sure is one. Not only globally or to the west but a lot of these places make their money within asia (duh!) outside of their countries. OBVIOUSLY. so BL is a way to output and gain money. The thing is, it doesnt seem to be put back into the industry at all. For people in all these countries to make works that aren’t for mainstream or wont reach as many people there’s a difference between trying and just shoving shit in your face and going here it’s gay you like it right? But dont antagonize the inherent patriarchal nature of BL.

Another thing: did you guys know thailand was never colonized? You should look it up. There’s little hints of things in ITSAY to represent french influence still. Isnt that fascinating? Find out why. It’s certainly interesting that the representation, though damaging and dubious many times and also incorrect like any media, is huge in asia and this isnt a commodity here (the US) exactly. A lot of that has to do with colonial ideas of gender of which I am sure. But listen………lmao

Sometimes people dont give a shit. And it very much shows. Here is the thing once again. GOOD TRANSGRESSIVE WORK exists.

Een within the capitalist Bs paradigm or you can see people trying (I can sort of applaud parts of lovely writer) also queer media has always existed everywhere the reason you don’t know about it is because it gets takena nd commodified into a mainstream product. We hvae little incentive, particularly if we are not fans of cinema or art in gen, to search fror others when the output is right here. Being dictated by others and the state and who will give you money. No longer an effort of a cast and crew who want to convey things. But google [any country] independent cinema, radical cinema, queer radical cinema, or even retrospectives on the cinema and rethinking what is queer and radical in film. What if we took that, diluted it, got rid of the creators who put themselves through all the work, ignroe al the nuances and do……………….two actors who are conventionally attractive with no chemistry making out.

It’s the same here lets say daniel kaluuya winning the oscar for the film about the BPP. I heard it was okay and not too offensive but it still isnt’ enough. It still isn’t like hwood isn’t trash, nnati black, misogynistic towards BW and women, and all that other shit. It was pushy but it can’t be enough where we are. Black KKKlansmen i think won an oscar, by circumstance i fuckin hate these award shows they mean nothing, and i like the film a lot but he has his misogynoir still resting in his films even if it is poignant. And it was a film that honestly wasn’t really made for black people. And should all art be a response to direct trauma or trying to make ourselves palatable when we’re just human?

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ and it’s importance (capitalism) but also sorta individual responsibility

Considering a lot of these actors are rich and then just dip that’s another problem. Mainstream isn’t what sustains marginalized art ever. It doesn’t change in the vast ways we think it does. What changes is the people of these groups pushing, fighting, forcing and then capitalism trying to make it work under capitalism. It will not. It cannot.

This is why artists and labels often don’t mix or you see people like Sonic Youth doing whatever they want and pissing off their label but making them give them money. Same with Nirvana. Vince Staples. The thing is they can fight and make good shit but what capitalism helps people….not care? They don’t respect the audience? We’re getting those returns on poor executed product placement, lighting, editing, framing, fucking acting. And you surewon’t see mixed black asians in these shows. WHY R U is the oNLY one i have seen it in and he just disappears (but that was pretty cool.) so who the fuck is this representing? And before you start: asian countries are not homogenous the way we believe them to be. There are marginalized communities outside of even mixed people that are harmed. So you can skrrt cause on that one: you’re wrong buddy. But it gives us the IDEA of a paradise which is what they NEED.With representation and visibility comes consequence and responsibility as artists. What it allows them to do is coast and not think complexly because why should they; it’s mostly the fantasies of some older woman who probably has money and much less interaction with the world. It’s bonkers. And what that allows even further is for them to say YOU ARE THE THING THAT YOU CONSUME and the THING THAT YOU CONSUME IS YOURS. It is not, it is not your identity, form a close bond but figure it the fuck out. Especially for adults who are hellbent on twisting their minds into pretzels and can’t acknowledge what’s just laziness in art and not giving a fucking shit. Truly.

There’s damage that has been done from Parasite as he was supported by CJE&M and the bullshit obsession america had and eveyrone’s poor interpretation of it if they are rich. BJH is a socialist and he is a filmmaker. He has made films that are outstanding and cost a lot of money. But now a fear for indie filmmakers is just not being able to raise that much or have that much attention. Getting funding that helps them instead of expecting the Next Big Thing that is a fad because capitalism is trash. Yes this funneling of money is absolutely harmful to us artists. Even buying in is strategic. Additionally, that film is probs one of the most radical films to have that wide release and accolade (unlike “Sorry to Bother You” which i have a lot of thoughts about. One being that asian exports are acceptable but black ones are not. This is an overall art critique and global media critique. Blackness is removed, not respected.) However, filmmaking isn’t green, it can’t be socialist, and it’s a lot of work. They used tons and tons and TONS of water to do a huge beautiful feat but we still know there is a cost. We have to figure that out because it shouldn’t be. It doesn’t go back into the crew’s pockets the way it should and the work becomes that of the director’s and actors solely. It’s fucking hard. We have to do our part but it doesn’t mean we are doing it perfectly. We just have to try to do better. So does BJH cos he needs to not be a misogynist but anyways i digress.

additionally and this is something some users fail to understand: people in the media sphere generally have fucking money. I went to film school that was international with super fucking rich kids. Taiwanese kids, kids from south asia, china, thailand. They had money. No not upper middle class money, not “rich” money, not some paltry 1m that’s chump change. Fucking money. Fucking RICH-RICH. MILLIONAIRES. BILLIONAIRES. WHICH IS DISGUSTING MIGHT I ADD. The domestic people didn’t have the money for school (in the UK) and i am in a massive amount of debt like every other black student that went there. You do not understand how much money is needed to survive so people who turn to these crew positions even casting etc need this fucking money usually. OKAY. A lot of the people that do well in these dumb shows or even on a larger scale HAVE MONEY. The reason these industries are small and struggling is because of lack of people and lack of resources to independent shit because oh gee it takes money to make things.

Why should I try? Well you don’t have to really if you have money or a name. Yet...

We can tell when like those Tik Tok shows or DCOMs dont give a shit (anymore.) You know how frustrated we get when content for young people is garbage? Well, see, BL is literally that under that system. Occasionally we will get something good now but there is virtually no need in any sector in the world at this point to truly figure out how to make it better and what to do to enhance artistic literacy, outreach, teaching people new things, getting people from these communities there and having true realistic says. Art and culture is IMPERATIVE TO WORLD LIBERATION but not when it is so stiffly trying to bend to capital’s idea of progressiveness. No. Neoliberalism. No.

That’s why in a way ITSAY is a huge feat; it takes from films etc and they clearly had money (the actors rae rich too which….lmaooooo j’aime pas) but it was a respected fucking script, acting was important, blocking, framing. There’s very little to critique as a visual medium for that because I understand what they are trying to do, their market is going to be mostly young girls, but they RESPECT THE FUCKING AUDIENCE. And guess what guys? You can make money from it!!!! WOAH! Since that may be the only goal which is disgusting and repulsive.

HOWEVER AND THIS IS WHAT IS SAD: itsay is an ex of a great show however knowing the actors backgrounds and the pseudo trouble it stirred when they weren’t supporting people protesting against the coup in the summer it really put a damper on my enjoyment. And this is how we can see that:

a) it’s honestly just a show and a good one but b) now what?

These kids (actors, who are like idk 19? 20?) are rich and not saying anything while countless actors, who were filming, did. Even tul who has $$$$ and the thing is the protesting against the coup legitimately attacks the rich. As it should. The protests going on were cries for help, against a dictatorship and fucking coup, asking people to get fucking help for covid, having kids be able to live. There’s a mini on VICE about this and it probably doesnt go too in depth but there’s a kid in there who talks about his friends getting into drugs and how he just wants to make music, have fun, skateboard. And it’s harrowing to see. This is a direct example of what these things do and don’t do. Yea we know a good show is here, we know growing up and slice of life, we know this is a bit of escapism and idealism but the idealism is reflected in the way these actors also choose to live their lives. So what progress? To who? For who? How is this helping me? What purpose does it serve? I say ITSAY serves its purpose as a piece and a glimpse into possibility of growing up but i do not say it antagonizes a broader issue that needs to be relevant in some sense but simply is not. It’s very singleminded and, well, it’s sort of like “besides my sexuality, what do i have to worry about?” But for real humans like....a lot. I do not respect their decision at all.

Why can’t we do our jobs and make something decent and respect our audience? No time, gotta make that sweet sweet sweet cash baybee. Look how progressive we are! Don’t look at history and material conditions. Thanks in advance, management.

History 4 does not have that respect. Many of these shows do not. Sometimes we hit good, sometimes we don’t. But in the end we cannot settle. And I won’t. If I am critiquing something I will not be shy and if I am meant to enjoy something as escapism then these shows NEED to highlight that and it’s rare sometimes (the best twins is a good reminder like that show is bad but man do i Brain Empty when i turn it on and i like that and there’s not much in it that makes me want to kill myself from annoyance but there are transphobic jokes i dont love however the whole show is a comedy about this dude’s crazy homophobic sister and she is constantly positioned as wrong and they talk about the aforementioned trans women as the actor was in drag. Interesting that they can manage that, huh?)

Oh btw.....taiwan has a very complicated history but ignore all the bad stuff it’s good now you can kinda sorta get married and stuff. KMT? You know how i learned that? I care about human beings and read about it lmao. I am not Taiwanese and look at that. So now I have historical and DIALECTICAL~**~*~****~*~*~ context so i can judge it as an artist, a black woman from america, and from the knowledge i have to pick up on their history to see if this fits into a broader picture besides the micro-one of sexuality on an individualized level. And this is kinda where it comes full circle: these shows are not you, you are not them, they do not exist in a vacuum because nothing does. The failure to critique now means continuing on as it has and it will still do so. History and time are not linear in the sense we think it is. Someitmes things are better, sometimes things feel more austere. We are not living under liberation though and these shows are not going to do so. So they are not US nor are they for a nebulous “us” of which the groups are all fractured and have diff opinions anyway (my opinion as a black american is going to vary from an asian woman’s say and that could really clash and i do not feel solidarity with all those in every community i am for several reasons.)

Final thots that have taken up my time and the only thing i actually wanted to write but got distracted:

Anyway my dissertation is that I ilke Muren and LiCheng a lot a lot and i like how cute they are and how truly dumb li cheng is. This is an example of mostly good writing, decent actors, nice chemistry, and sort of a calmness to them. And I super enjoy how Muren is pretty forward with LC in the sense that being together is like very important to truly be together. When he was like “no i didnt forget!” Or when LC asked him something in the office I forget it was 6 am and again i almost threw up and muren nodded and then LC leaned on him. Very cute. I want more of them tho i may have to skip that othre couple (the cameo the ones from MODC) but omfg the younger one HIS HAIR GREW SO MUCH HE LOOKS SO MATURE AND CUTE OMFGIJ0HUG9SAOGIJPKOAGJSIOHUAGIJP hahhaha the one good thing i will say about THEM.idk how old the actor is i figure he was young idk it makes me happy to see him he’s very cute. I hope he’s in something i can watch and not gag at. Is he hot? Who knows but he is a cutie!!

Anyway muren and lc have a good thing going it’s nice to watch ho\pe they dont fuck it up but im truly a sucker for some true finds 2 luvas i think some user on her\e was like i’m not a fan of friends ot lovers bc it doesn’t seem like they’re actually friends and maybe they were referring to this show idk. But it made me think and it was a very good observation. So i think they are friends and also luvrs <3

#history 4 #history 4: close to you #i told sunset about you #a thot #tharntype #lovely writer #bl fandom #idk #lol #long

11 notes · View notes

joinsideke · 3 years

Text

So I just had a fun conversation with a communist. Only, you know, the kind that thinks communism is just everyone coming together, living in harmony with all their needs met, because most people will work solely for the greater good and their own personal enjoyment. (Snips of the convo below. Kinda long, but maybe someone will get something outta it. I mean, they didn’t, but you can’t say I didn’t try.)

I tried to explain that this wouldn’t work on a large scale. If people could just do whatever job they wanted, or work no jobs at all (which they said was perfectly okay), the undesirable jobs wouldn’t get done. Not enough to provide for everyone, at least. Most people don’t become a garbage collector or a factory worker because they like doing those things. So why would they do them for free, when you can do whatever you want? Why should they have to provide for society if a bunch of other people are just doing their own thing?

The rest of that was about how the entire department of my store would quit if we didn’t need the money. Nobody’s there out of the goodness of their hearts. They also said “getting out of the house and socializing” was an incentive to work. And that most of the shitty jobs are only shitty because of capitalism. When I asked them if they would do a shitty, potentially dangerous job for free, they went off about we can just make those jobs safer and that would somehow solve the problem.

https://electricianapprenticehq.com/dangers-of-being-an-electrician/

Note: my brother actually suffered an electric shock, but he’s still alive. Apparently it’s only electrocution if you die. Which, yanno, is still a risk. But hey, who cares? It’s not a big deal. I’m sure tons of people will do the job for no extra benefits. I mean, not our friend here, but someone~

BUT? SOME PEOPLE? COMMIT CRIMES??!

Oh sweetie. Okay, so here I suggested a small commune could work. You and some like minded people can buy your own land, live there together, and provide for yourselves with minimal capitalism involved. No one would bother you over that. But of course, that’s not what they want.

Do you mean...crime? Well I’m sure that will never be an issue that has to be dealt with!

Annnnnd they blocked me. And it should be noted that they reached out to me first. They seemed pretty civil about it, so I figured it was worth a shot discussing. But they’re stuck thinking only ideally, not realistically. They want to live in the Kingdom of Care-o-Lot. I think that’s the problem with a lot these modern “communists”. They get this idea of a perfect society, but don’t want to face the issues of how it would work or how they would even get there. Just get rid of that evil Capitalism and everything will be fine!

But anyway. If you’re reading this hon, no hard feelings. Maybe someday we’ll reach a Star Trek level of future where everything’s automated and we can just materialize our cups of tea. Until then, best of luck to ya.

#long #communism #capitalism #chat #NO CRIME #NO WORK #ONLY HAPPY #I gotta stop doing this #I should know better by now

3 notes · View notes

jorisjurgen · 2 years

Note

Wouldst thou carest to answereth thy ask game with the prompteth of Snatcher?

I KNOW WHO YOU ARE, MUTUAL ON ANON, DFKGHG, and the fact that you sent this in downright Shakespearean is so funny.

[ask game]

1. Headcanon A: realistic

This is also a contestant for 3rd place in this but I think this one is slightly less sad: When he first became what he is, and started needing souls to survive, he hated himself for it and tried to resist the hunger for as long as possible, and maybe just starve. He couldn't. Maybe his first victim was a subconite soul, or a living traveller who heard that Something happened in the kingdom, and was looking for their friends or family, afraid, for that day they had unfortunately traveled there. Either way, he feeds, for the first time, and feels more alive than he had in ages. And he continues to feed, despite guilt and sadness, though not on subconites. Never them, he'd rather go outside to find somebody than do that.

And he continues to survive. Existing, feeling warmth, no matter by which means, feels good, as does becoming more powerful. He hates being powerless, defenceless, and at the full mercy of someone. He can't ever feel that way again, even if he has to become a bad person to avoid it.

I think that the point when he truly and fully stops hating himself for it, and embraces being "evil" though, is when he gave subconites their new bodies. Because now there was a way to at least slightly mend the wound Vanessa left on Subcon and fix it, give a new life to it and it's dwellers, and he had people whom he needed and wanted to protect, besides himself and his desire to continue on living no matter who it takes.

2. Headcanon B: while it may not be realistic it is hilarious

I think that the whole deal with him dying made him rethink a lot of things, by which I mean...What if he's a monarchy abolitionist and an anarho communist jficusjd? Fjdigj. This ideology only working for subcon because literary everybody, including him is: undead, agrees on literary 90% of things, has shared trauma, and directly depends on outsiders dying for survival is even funnier to me.

He NEVER makes any reference to being any sort of royalty or even nobility, even as a joke, no matter how appropriate that would be at any moment, just positioning himself as a leader and a protector to subcon, and an villain to everything else, nothing more. He jokes about being murdered by his abuser, without a single prince nobility pun. Without knowing his history, to people he's just Some Guy, albeit a powerful undead one, who likes making jokes about being 1. a gamer 2. a lawyer, 3. traumatized, while eating people's souls and reading books.

His crown just sits gently abandononed, in a ruined building with his other past belongings, as he lives in a cozy tree with an entirely new life he built from the ground up. He could have taken it as a memento at any point, but he seems to actively choose not to. All of this is fair, considering he is strongly implied to be a prince consort, and in that situation, a crown is kind of like... A wedding ring but much worse, I guess. The place, though, looks well visited, and taken care of, like a gravestone for a scrambled mess of memories and feelings about a cycle of really really good times, tension, and really really bad times, which never made sense and now never will.

Him trying his best to move on from his past, this crown business, and that one "ethical consumption under capitalism" empty book in one of the time rifts, makes this actually somewhat realistic to me, albeit actually extremely hilarious. Sorry for getting a bit waxing poetic about the comrade Snatcher headcanon.

3. Headcanon C: heart-crushing and awful, but fun to inflict on friends

Sometimes he feels like he still loves Vanessa. Maybe he actually still loves her. Maybe he misses her a lot, sometimes. Or at least the person she was when she before they were together, or when she wasn't yet at her worst, or at very least who she was during the good times. Maybe, though he tries to not think about it, he misses the bad parts too. Craves the rush of being afraid and on eggshells and in honeymoon and the tension the panic and the tearful apologies and promises to be Better going forward on her lips left unfulfilled, because something like that just messes with your brain, and not being hurt feels horrible, like you have to pick and scratch apart at an itcing wound.

When he first realized it, it left him wobbly and sick to his core. But he has made peace with it, since. Emotions don't make any sense, eapecially when all you can remember about your youth is just being in at least a little bit of pain all the time. He knows he doesn't actually want back, and he believes in that knowledge almost all the time.

The more he thinks about it, with actual years, and life of other experiences seperating him from that past... Yeah. He does miss her. Not the abuse, obviously. The actual good person in her who he thinks he saw, who may have died when she fell in love with him, or might've not even ever really existed in the first place, not that he could ever know which one it is, if either. He doesn't know if she herself knew, either. It will never make sense, he thinks. But he does know, at the very least, that he misses that person, even if there is nothing he could have ever done for her.

4. Headcanon D: unrealistic, but I will disregard canon about it because I reject canon reality and substitute my own.

He competitively plays fortnite and dark souls but only to inflict suffering on other people. He's really good at video games but only to make people angry. He loves making people Suffer in video games.

I have NO idea where in subcon he hides his gaming rig, but I refuse to believe that considering all the Gamer jokes in Seal the Deal he isn't one.

Another one, since this was kind of short, is that he likes sewing and making things, based on him making subconites their bodies out of fabric and a lot of the rewards in Seal the Deal deathwishes being clothes, maybe he even made Vanessa her dress, as a gift. That way you could explain one of the rewards in Seal the Deal being Vanessa's dress as, well, getting back at her in a couple of different ways, and also him feeling bad abour having come up with such a good design for a dress for the dumb epic divorcewoman who happens to be his ex.

#ask games #I hope this isnt too full of typos...#Made this at 3am #😔😳#I think about him a normal amount of time

1 note · View note

nellie-elizabeth · 3 years

Text

The Falcon and the Winter Soldier: New World Order (1x01)

Watching this show is going to be strange for me because I genuinely ship Bucky Barnes and Sam Wilson with one Steve Rogers... so basically I just want to watch them sitting around being sad about him being dead the whole time. But I'm open to the possibilities, here, I really am...

Cons:

Positioning the bad guys here as... well, as communists who want a world without borders, and then making them into terrorists... let's just say I'm side-eying this pretty hard. You have that twist at the end, where the United States brings forth a new symbolic hero, a new Captain America, and my brain immediately started spinning forward as to where this is going to go. See, we've got anarchist baddies who want to destroy all the flags on one side, then we've got this pretender to the throne on the other side. But the issue won't be that there's something inherently flawed with the whole concept of a militarized heroic folk legend for Americans to idealize... it'll be about how it's the wrong man carrying the shield. At some point, in a moment of triumph, Sam will take the mantle on for himself, and then we can safely and comfortably cheer as our hero takes down the big bad commies who don't love 'Murica enough. I want to be wrong. I want them to mix things up, to challenge things, but all I can see is that the ultimate heroic conclusion is going to be "government control of Captain America is Bad, but Captain America himself, and what he stands for, specifically America, is good."

While I know this episode needed to set up a lot of puzzle pieces, I did think there were moments of somewhat clumsy exposition with both Bucky and Sam's story-lines. We've got Sam who's worried about his sister and her kids losing the family home and boat, and going to get a loan. There were some good moments in here, but it was a bit paint-by-numbers, and some of the dialogue fell into that "as you know..." trap where characters were having a conversation, then needed to stop and tell us it's a conversation they've already had a million times before. They're having the talk for our benefit as the audience only. That's a tough needle to thread, and they didn't quite thread it. The same thing happens during Bucky's therapy appointment. First off, the whole waking up out of a dream thing, cut to a therapist talking about nightmares... another cliché. And then we have the therapist walking him through the three steps, and restating them for the benefit of the audience, even though in the ordinary course they wouldn't lay it all out like that again, since Bucky would already know. It's a small thing, I'm nitpicking, but there were some rough aspects to the start of the show.

Pros:

First off, let's just acknowledge that the show looks great. That whole opening action scene with Sam rescuing the guy, flying around, helicopters blowing up, the base jumping tech... damn. It felt like I could be watching an action sequence on the big screen, in any standard MCU movie. Maybe not the climactic fight, but one of the shorter, introductory ones for sure. And that's what this was, wasn't it? A strong, exciting, high-energy start to the show.

I really love Sam Wilson, y'all. There's something so incredibly powerful about watching a show like this with a black man in the leading role. He's such a good person, he's charming and funny and bad-ass but compassionate. He's a little cocky but nowhere approaching an asshole about his power and fame. He's stubborn but that just shows that he really cares. The movies don't have a ton of screen-time with Sam, if we're being honest, but I already really liked him, and here I'm seeing the chance to flesh out the details and let Anthony Mackie do his thing on the silver screen. It's all really working for me so far.

I like the side characters we're folding in here - his sister seems like an interesting character with a lot to offer, and I love that Sam has these nephews in his life to care for, something to anchor him to the world in a way that Bucky, who I'll talk about in a second, kind of doesn't. It provides a nice contrast between them. I also really liked Torres, the man who helps teach Sam about the Flag Smashers (ugh, that name) and seems like a solid dude who wants to make a positive difference in the world. I hope we see more of him too.

(Also, while I'm sure Rhodey was just a brief appearance in this first episode, it was so good to see him too! I'll miss him in the MCU, if he doesn't keep popping up.)

The last thing I'll mention on Sam's side of the story is that bank loan scene. It was such a punch in the gut to see Sam denied the loan, and one of the reasons being "you don't have any income for the past five years." Well... Sam didn't exist. He got Thanos snapped. This feels so realistic to me, that the system would not pivot to adapt to the new situation, but instead leave more and more people out in the cold. Then you have the bank employee trying to get selfies with the Falcon, all excited to meet an Avenger, all while denying him and his family the money they needed to make ends meet. It was such a devastating scene, and you could see so much hope draining out of Sam's eyes. I'm anxious to see where this goes.

And then you've got Bucky Barnes... let me just say, that despite the fact that he's a super assassin, whenever I see Bucky on the screen I just want to wrap him in a blanket and protect him from all harm. When I saw how Sebastian Stan was debuting on the show, in a flashback to his Winter Solider evil days, I literally said out loud, "oh no, poor Bucky" as if I wasn't watching him murder a bunch of people in cold blood. I have such an intense desire for him to be okay, so seeing him not being okay, but trying in these small ways to atone for his past actions, makes me so proud of him already.

Despite my undying belief that Bucky Barnes is deeply in love with Steve Rogers and that nobody will ever take Steve's place in his heart... I thought the date scene was actually very cute. The flowers, the board game, just chilling in the restaurant... I don't know. I hope that woman is in the show moving forward. I want Bucky to be happy. I want him to make new friends, forge connections in the world. I also really liked the stuff with Yuri, and when the reveal happened about Bucky having killed his son, it was a severe punch to the gut. Maybe I was supposed to have guessed it before the show told me, but I didn't, and when I realized why Bucky had befriended this old grumpy man... oh god. It's all too tragic.

On the one hand, it makes me a little nervous that there are only six episodes in this season, and in the first one we didn't even see Sam and Bucky interact. On the other hand, it's a pretty smart move to keep us waiting, at least a little, for the duo to emerge and develop a rapport. I can't wait for the fun banter, as I think Sam and Bucky are both funny, snarky people albeit with different attitudes and ways of expressing said snark. And I also can't wait for some more serious content between them, as they ruminate on all they've lost in the wars they've fought, on how hard it is to be suddenly missing five years of your life... and on Steve Rogers, a great friend (*ahem* boyfriend *ahem*) that they've both recently lost.

They're also holding back on Sam taking up the mantle of Captain America. I wonder if that will be a point of contention between Bucky and Sam. Bucky was there, Bucky gave his blessing, honestly, when Steve handed over the shield, and it was the only thing about Steve's ending in Endgame that didn't make me insanely furious. I want this to be a point of conflict with them, I want them to argue about the best way to honor Steve. So much juicy material here! And I'm intrigued by this "new Captain America" concept, even though I'm wary about where they're taking it, in terms of theme... we shall have to see!

All in all, this was very standard Marvel fare. I like the characters, the action is creative and enjoyable to watch, there are some emotional gut-punches and some funny lines here and there. Nothing mind-blowing, nothing so innovative and fresh and new, but just more of the same... a same that I've come to really love over the past decade or so.

8/10

#review #falcon and the winter soldier #falcon and the winter soldier review #fatws #fatws review #the falcon and the winter soldier

6 notes · View notes

anhed-nia · 4 years

Text

BLOGTOBER 10/7/2020

I missed THE GOLDEN GLOVE at Fantastic Fest last year. It was one of my only regrets of the whole experience, but it was basically mandatory since the available screenings were opposite the much-hyped PARASITE. As annoying as that sounds, it was actually a major compliment, since what could possibly serve as a consolation prize for the most hotly anticipated movie of the year? Needless to say, I heard great things, but I could never have imagined what it was actually like. I'm still wrapping my mind around it.

Between 1970 and 1975, an exceptionally depraved serial killer named Fritz Honka murdered at least four prostitutes in Hamburg's red light district. Today, we tend to think of the archetypal serial killer in terms of ironic contradictions: The public is attracted by Ted Bundy's dashing looks and suave manner, and John Wayne Gayce's dual careers as politician and party clown. Lacking anything so remarkable, we associate psychopathy with Norman Bates' boy-next-door charm, and repeat "It's always the quiet ones" with a smirk whenever a new Jeffrey Dahmer or Dennis Nilsen is exposed to the public. The popular conception of a bloodthirsty maniac is not the fairytale monster of yore, but a wolf in sheep's clothing, whose hygienic appearance and lifestyle belie his twisted desires. In our post-everything world, the ironic surprise has become the rule. In this light, THE GOLDEN GLOVE represents a refreshing return to naked truth.

To say that writer-director Fatih Akin's version of the Fritz Honka story is shocking, repulsive, and utterly degenerated would be a gross understatement. We first meet the killer frantically trying to dispose of a corpse in his filthy flat, wallpapered with porno pinups, strewn with broken toys, and virtually projecting smell lines off of the screen. One's sense of embodiment is oppressive, even claustrophobic, as the petite Honka tries and fails to collapse the full dead weight of a human corpse into a garbage bag, before giving up and dismembering it, with nearly equal difficulty. The scene is appalling, utterly debased, and yet nothing is as shocking as the killer's visage. When he finally turns to look into the camera, it's hard to believe he's even human: the rolling glass eye, the smashed and inflated nose, the tombstone teeth and cratered skin, are almost too extreme to bear. Actually, suffering from a touch of facial blindness, I had to stare intently at Honka's face for nearly half the movie before I could fully convince myself that I was, in fact, looking at an elaborate prosthetic operation used to transform 23 year old boy band candidate Jonas Dassler into the disfigured 35 year old serial murderer.

Though West Germany remained on a steady economic upturn beginning in the 1950s and throughout the 1970s, you wouldn't know it from THE GOLDEN GLOVE. If Honka's outsides match his insides, they are further matched by his stomping grounds in the Reeperbahn, a dirty, violent, booze-soaked repository for the dregs of humanity. Though its denizens may come from different walks of life, one thing is certain: Whoever winds up there, belongs there. Honka was the child of a communist and grew up in a concentration camp, yet he swills vodka side by side with an ex-SS officer, among other societal rejects, in a crumbling dive called The Golden Glove. The scene is an excellent source of hopeless prostitutes at the end of their career, who are Honka's prime victims, as he is too frightful-looking to ensnare an attractive young girl. These pitiful women all display a peculiarly hypnotic willingness to go along with Honka, no matter how sadistic he becomes; this seems to have less to do with money, which rarely comes up, and more to do with their shared awareness that for them, and for Honka too, it's been all over, for a long time.

Not to reduce someone’s performance to their physical appearance, but ???

To call Dassler's portrayal of Honka "sympathetic" would be a bridge too far, but it is undeniably compelling. He supports the startling impact of his facial prostheses with a performance of rare intensity, a full-body transformation into a person in so much pain that a normal life will never become an option. His physical vocabulary reminded me of the stage version of The Elephant Man, in which the lead actor wears no makeup, but conveys John Merrick's deformities using his body alone. Although there is an abundance of makeup in THE GOLDEN GLOVE, Dassler's silhouette and agonized movements would be recognizable from a mile away. In spite of his near-constant screaming rage, the actor manages to craft a rich and convincing persona. During a chapter in which Honka experiments with sobriety, we find a stunning image of him hunched in the corner of his ordinarily chaotic flat, now deathly still, his eyes gazing at nothing as cigarette smoke seeps from his pores, having no idea what to do with himself when he isn't in a rolling alcoholic rampage. The moment is brief but haunting in its contrast to the rest of the film, having everything to do with Dassler's quietly vibrating anxiety.

Performances are roundly excellent here, not that least of which are from Honka's victims. The cast of middle-aged actresses looking their most disastrous is hugely responsible for the film's impact. These are the kinds of performances people call "brave", which is a euphemism for making audiences uncomfortable with an uncompromising presentation of one's own self, unvarnished by any masturbatory solicitation. Among these women is Margarete Tiesel, herself no stranger to difficult cinema: She was the star of 2012's PARADISE: LOVE, a harrowing drama about a woman who copes with her midlife crisis by pursuing sex tourism in Kenya. Her brilliant, instinctive performance as one of Honka's only survivors--though she nearly meets a fate worse than death--makes her the leading lady of a movie that was never meant to have one.

So, what does all this unpleasantness add up to, you might be asking? It's hard to say. THE GOLDEN GLOVE is a film of enormous power, but it can be difficult to explain what the point of it is, in a world where most people feel that the purpose of art is to produce some form of pleasure. This is the challenge faced by difficult movies throughout history, like THE GOLDEN GLOVE's obvious ancestors, HENRY: PORTRAIT OF A SERIAL KILLER, MANIAC and THE TEXAS CHAIN SAW MASSACRE. Describing unremitting cruelty with relentless realism is not considered a worthy endeavor by many, even if there is real artistry in your execution; some people will even mistake you for advocating and enjoying violence and despair, as we live in a world where huge amount of movie and TV production is devoted to aspirational subjects. (The fact that people won't turn away from the Marvel Cinematic Universe movies, no matter how monotonous and condescending they become, should tell you something) How do you justify to such people, that you want to make or see work that portrays ugliness and evil with as much commitment as other movies seek to portray love, beauty, and family values? Why isn't it enough to say that these things exist, and their existence alone makes them worth contemplation?

A rare, perhaps exclusive “beautiful image” in THE GOLDEN GLOVE, from Fritz Honka’s absurd fantasies.

You may detect that I have attempted to have this frustrating conversation with many people, strangers, enemies, and friends I love and respect. I find that for some, it is simply too hard to divorce themselves from the pleasure principle. I don't say this to demean them; some hold the philosophy that art be reserved for beauty, and others have a more literary feeling that it's ok to show characters in grim circumstances, as long as the ultimate goal is to uplift the human spirit. Even I draw the line somewhere; I appreciate the punk rebellion of Troma movies as a cultural force, but I do not enjoy watching them, because I dislike what I perceive as contempt for the audience and the aestheticization of laziness--making something shitty more or less on purpose. A step or three up from that, you land in Todd Solondz territory, where you find materially gorgeous movies whose explicit statement is that our collective reverence for a quality called "humanity" is based on nothing. I like some of those movies, and sometimes I even like them when I don't like them, because I'm entranced by Solondz's technical proficiency...and maybe, deep down, I'm not completely convinced about "humanity", either. However, I don't fight very hard in arguments about him; I understand the objections. Still, I've been surprised by peers who I think of as bright and tasteful, who absolutely hated movies I thought were unassailable, like OLDBOY and WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT KEVIN. In both cases, the ultimate objection was that they accuse humans of being pretentious and self-deceptive, aspiring to heroism or bemoaning their victimhood while wallowing in their own cowardice and perversity. Ok, I get it...but, not really. Why isn't it ever wholly acceptable to discuss, honestly, what we do not like about ourselves?

The beguiling thing about THE GOLDEN GLOVE is that, although it is instantly horrifying, is it also an impeccable production. The director can't help showing you crime scene photos during the ending credits, and I can't really blame him, when his crew worked so hard to bring us a vision of Fritz Honka's world that approaches virtual reality. But it isn't just slavishly realistic; it is vivid, immersive, an experience of total sensory overload. Not a square inch of this movie has been left to chance, and the product of all this graceful control is totally spellbinding. I started to think to myself that, when you've achieved this level of artifice, what really differentiates a movie like THE GOLDEN GLOVE from something like THE RED SHOES? I mean, aside from their obvious narrative differences. Both films plunge the viewer into a world that is complete beyond imagination, crafted with a rigor and sincerity that is rarely paralleled. And, I will dare to say, both films penetrate to the depths of the human soul. What Fatih Akin finds there is not the same as what Powell and Pressburger found, of course, but I don't think that makes it any less real. Akin's film is adapted from a novel by Heinz Strunk, and apparently, some critics have accused Akin of leaving behind the depth and nuance of the book, to focus instead on all that is gruesome about it. This may be true, on some level; I wouldn't know. For now, I can only insist that on watching THE GOLDEN GLOVE, for all its grotesquerie, I still got the message.

#blogtober #2020 #the golden glove #fatih akın #heinz stronk #jonas dassler #margarete tiesel #difficult cinema #horror #slasher #serial killer #period piece #adaptation #historical #biopic #fritz honka #i may have been watching a lot of powell and pressburger movies recently #sorry...

23 notes · View notes