#'i don't know if the general audience can accept such vile...' the general audience love the guy man

[talesfromthecrypts]

The way some people talk about Lestat like he isn't one of the most popular vampire characters of all time and one of the most popular characters in modern literature is wild

[moviefestuk]

The Beach Bum, 2019 • 6.5/10

.

You ever been to a party with a friend who is off-the-scales slaughtered, and thinks everything they say or do is comedy gold, when in fact they're unbearably annoying 95% of the time and occasionally funny for that teenie tiny 5%, well, 'Beach Bum' is that, and considering I've been that "friend" a fair few times myself, I know first-hand how hard it can be to endure at times.

.

Mr. McConaughey stars in a role that generally feels like it was written for the Texan stoner, and he dons the character like it's second nature: a womanizing, burnout poet who's loved by all and phased by nothing. But although it's a role which seems like it was meant for McConaughey, it's a slight deviation to the characters we accustom him with, meaning, he talks a lot slower and a lot less.

.

Moondog really doesn't give a shit about anything or anyone, and that includes family, whether it's failing to keep up with his daughter, or staying out of jail, being faithful to his wife, or even writing his next book, which is what earns him a living, he relentlessly fails to put others first or care about what's important, so audiences face a constant barrage of unlikeable traits and scenarios, and it's not easy to handle. The most compassion the man can muster up is with a bloody stray cat, like come on man, get your priorities right! He's only committed to one thing, and that's having fun, and while that's okay for a teen or young adult, its not acceptable for a 40-50 year old man with a wife, kids and a career. He's essentially high on life, as well as everything else he can get his grubby little hands on.

.

Life is a nonstop party for Moondog, and the audience is pulled into his world and all its craziness, at times its involuntary, but you're still sucked in. He's like marmite, you'll either love or hate him, but whether you hate him or not, you cannot take away the fact that he's living life his way, and he won't let no man, woman, rules or regulations get in the way of that. But, what is the point in this film or Moondog? Given, sometimes it makes you feel envious of Moondog and his way of life, especially if you live a life with barely anytime to think, let alone party, but then as you begin to contemplate the thought of leaving your life for his, you abruptly snap out of it because one of his vile actions will make you realize you don't want to be anything like him, and you wouldn't even trade your hectic work schedules and caffeinated kids for one second of his pathetic life.

.

Director Harmony Korine has made another movie with outrageous characters who live in total excess, but unfortunately 'The Beach Bum' doesn't quite work like 'Spring Breakers.' As I try to admire the fact that Korine's writing and character development, or lack there of, really got under my skin, its outweighed by the pretentious-ness of it all. He also re-teamed with "Spring Breakers" cinematographer Benoît Debie, who gives the film a much needed glow, and he brings with him his trademark beautiful, hazy atmosphere.

.

All in all, I'm all for the next best stoner flick, and yeah, McConaughey did the best with what he had, Benoît Debie shone the brightest, the outfits are colourful and outrageous, and Martin Lawrence has a brilliant cameo with a truly hilarious scene! But other than that, this film doesn't really have much else going for it, unless you can relate to the lesson of; "don't give a fuck about anything, period!"

[ouathinktank-metacommentary]

One big issue with tv shows is that unlike with books, the message is incomplete. So they might temporarily put out the opposite message of what they will be saying in the end. Or not. Which is the issue. We don't know. What does your tv Utopia look like in regards to this issue? How do we combine accountability with artistic integrity and freedom? What framing should there be? What would it look like for Once Upon a Time?

Oo-kay. Forstarters, there’s a world of difference between message being incomplete (whichcan indicate less than adequate narrative development, to put it mildly) or if itis left to interpretation (which can vary between being clever, thoughtprovoking–even subversive) so I guess we can approach appraisal of OUaTfrom radically different angles–depending on our individual assessment of that starting point? So, I assume youalready know ours. It just cannot not start from the need to rationalizetheir ‘origins’ into the continuity, and it being–the accolades (or criticism,depending who you ask) they got for Lost. Because as we know, they have been praisedfor it–for all those explorations of that notion of multiplicity(alternative timeline/versions, etc) so we must take into account thepossibility of that affecting theirarrogance to start with–and that we have (possibly? probably? maybe?) giventhem undeserved ‘headstart’ so they took themselves too seriously–and approachedtheir new project (and their attitude/response to audience feedback, or lack thereof) in suchway? Also, more importantly–that they have naturally attracted the ‘intelligent’ followingfor it to begin with (because participatory culture surpasses basic passiveconsumerism, offers enriched dynamic, more lifelike experience–all thatjazz) thus ‘burdening’ themselves with a significantly more demanding audience, andit–affecting a more resounding feeling of our general discontent now?

Eitherway, that could explain the game of one-upmanship, of them striving to (andaround S3 starting to fail miserably, IMO) to stay two steps ahead of the audience.Hence the tactics of opposite message of what they will probably be saying in the end that you mention–so yes of course, false clues, red herrings, logicalfallacies or any other devices that lead audiences towards misleadingconclusions. Because it’s really hard to know anything in the middle? Andwhich now reminds me, I remember reading when someone was talking about Lost (perhapsJenkins, I think I also talked about it here, or somewhere–but just can’t go around diggingfor references, the archives became overwhelming, so–I just might repeatmyself, for which I apologise in advance :) and them trying to account for the things they invented in earlierseasons without too much thought of what they actually might mean and/or wherethey might lead (which sounds WAY too familiar now?) Dickens was mentioned. As in, how his works are nowseen as really well-structured novels because we read them in a bounded form,but in fact–he sometimes radically rewrote his ‘vision’ (which, retconning?) ofthe characters. So if the middle point is supposedly the most ‘productive’ space(because universally, fans also generate alternative versions of the narrativeas they theorize about what’s going on, versions which are very generative,very rich and interesting–like say, what you have been doing?) and while theyare exploring all the alternatives (which alas, usually manifest as randomness/retconningin their writing, these days?) shouldn’t it be, well–the most productive part?Instead of this… disastrous mash of pacing/contrivance, riddled with alarminglyhorrible messages–basically a pile of stinking heterosexist, racist, misogynistand homophobic shite? And all after that beginning that was so staggeringlypromising–and/or dangerously misleading?

Which brings me to, yes, fundamentally–the media industry (broadly defined) and the TV entertainmentindustry in particular, need to be far more accountable when it comes to themessage they create, both in the content itself, and the ways in which it is distributed.But if we try to combine accountability and artistic integrity and freedom–wecannot but question what IS Brothers Dim’s primary drive here? Free expression,pursuit of a vision, consistent and brilliant narrative (the ‘modern’re-envisioning of fairytales, subverting the old dogmatic tropes and all that)or are they driven purely by commerce, designed to build a brand that will multiplyrevenue streams or drive eyes toward a central moneymaking mothership? Because that’s the crux of the problem here.

And sinceyou asked, yes–my personal TV Utopia is of course all about the former. I do believe infree expression and I do believe that the showrunners have the right to createwhatever content they want–no creative limits or boundaries whatsoever. Hell,at one point I did believe that theory, that they were actually giving us twoparallel narratives, an obvious/direct one for the casual/superficialviewership (showing the cautionary tale of what’s not supposed to bea well-accepted normative) and the ‘hidden’ and yet obvious multi-layered onethat challenged the hegemony–and developed that ‘subversive’modern fairtytale about two mothers sharing a son, sense of understanding, acceptanceand ultimately, love. But as a rule, the issue becomes problematic when the show is aired–how it’s distributed and to which audiences. Because while the industry shouldbe far more vigilant, oftentimes they aren’t–because they go for pandering, asit is what (they think) sells. So inevitably the question arises,where does the ‘vision’ start being altered, twisted and is eventuallycompletely forgone–in favour of a product served/tailored by market target (whose age was drastically reduced in S4 with Frozen, in this case)audience? Inthe end leaving it to us, the more demanding crowds–tobelieve that we’ve either been misled (they tried, tested, enticed, and well–queerbaiting’s all we got left with?) or it was where they wereheading, but–they got yanked back by the PTB? And now basically giving way tothe biggest disagreement we might have here now: have we given WAY too much depthand meaning to this product than it really deserves (or was originally meant tohave, anyway) and thus credit to its authors, or are they (or well, were they–before PTBs trimmed theirwings) really intrepid and brave show runners with a brilliant vision?

You can guess what we here believe. Because sixyears later, the result is schizophrenic to say the least. For instance,sure–Hood might be a ‘prop’ for Regina but it looks like they keep hiring the idiot back (andthe story goes on and on and on?) and sure, Hook might just be a commentary oneverything that is screwed up about fairytale sexist dogma… but again, they’redragging it all way past the point of logic, no? So as a result we have here now is anintense, even toxic part of the audience (online fandom) while a whole other partof it is just as immersed in the story–but the story they think is being toldis far less subversive and actually far more dangerous. And the real problem has been the marketing of that kindof story–the story that tells you that Hook is your dream lad, 50 Shades of Rapecultureis the best romance ever written, and lesbians are mean and angry people whoshould just go away. Because bottom line: to go there by sacrificing your twostrongest female characters when the context you’re writing stories within–neithernecessitates nor justifies the undermining (or defiling) of these ‘strong women’, and… well. Onetruth is being told at the expense of the other?

Sooo… purelytextual analysis whilst ignoring all other factors including basic marketing issuesjust isn’t how television works. Because them writing all the negative and harmfulthings is something they SHOULDas showrunners be accounted for, and on a much larger scale. And they should, you know, either justify it or face the consequences far more seriousthan just dwindling ratings of the product they’re now having difficulties tosell. While in the meantime, the ‘mixed’ result of their struggle to balance and pander (they know it can’t be about just Hook, but nothing they wrote about him made people as disgusted as Regina’s stomach-churning shagging scene did–which was a crime against those of us who wantedto see that shirt unbuttoned for any bloody reason–what we can’t stop reiterating) leaves the ultimatequestion, not related to ships/shipping/endgames but rather aboutcharacter journeys–if we as large chunk of theaudience cannot ‘enjoy the ride’ (some of the stuff they wrote was/isdecidedly vile, even more than their collective treatment of an incrediblypersistent/masochistic fanbase that still have hope for Reginaand Emma, who despite what’s been shoved down our throats–stillare the core of this show) then someone please tell me…

What ISthe point? Because I seem to be… missing it.

[theliterateape]

Why Don't You Recognize Your Own Story, Evangelicals?

By Chris Churchill Listen, I was raised in a relatively fundamentalist Christian Church. I understand a strict interpretation of the Bible but I also understand there are parts of the Bible, namely the prophetic parts that are (conveniently) highly metaphorical. So Christians listen to those who’ve studied the Bible, presumably their pastors, preachers, elders, ministers; whatever it is they call themselves. I’m certain that 99 percent of Bible believers don’t have any understanding of the symbolism in these prophetic books.

I tried to tackle them a couple times and it seemed about as arbitrary as reading tea leaves or finding shapes in the clouds. But over the centuries a lot of these meanings have become accepted by the authorities in our churches. Those leaders then pass those meanings onto the masses. So really, most well-meaning religious folk can only honestly report that “I’ve been told by a preacher that that Bible section means—”or really, as I’ll be saying for the rest of this piece: “This is what I heard.”

This is what I heard, growing up, in regards to “the end of the world” as predicted in the Bible. I heard that there would be a “Rapture” where all God’s chosen would be swept up to be with God “in the twinkling of an eye.” That “no one would know the time or the hour” of Jesus’ return. That there would be a great tribulation, lasting seven years, for those left behind. During that tribulation, people would only be able to do business if they had the mark of the beast, “666” on their “forehead” or their hand. 

I’d always heard that Jesus would return in the same generation that saw Israel become its own nation once again. I’d always heard that the world would unite against Jerusalem. 

I’d always heard that there would be an Anti-Christ, also know as the “Great Deceiver” and the “Prince Of The Power Of The Air,” or even the Whore of Babylon. This person would be so charismatic that he could fool legions of people.  This stuff probably sounds familiar to anyone still involved in a fundamentalist church or still with vivid memories of a childhood raised in it.  I know this digital magazine isn’t generally the forum for anything bordering on religion but I have found I have quite the talent for belaboring a metaphor. Allow me to do that several times more in this piece for the purpose of making a very large point. The point being, “When Did You Stop Believing Your Own Story, Evangelicals?” And “When don’t you recognize your own Beast?” Let’s look at these prophecies that the most devoted, self-proclaimed Christians have believed with their very beings since they first sobbed at the altar in front of a tithing audience.  “The Rapture” is always portrayed as like a magic trick. One day, without warning, Jesus will come down out of the sky and, “in the twinkling of an eye,” the good people will be raised up to Heaven to be with God. Well, what if “in the twinkling of an eye” wasn’t in reference to a measure of time (i.e. an instant) but rather a way that the event was seen by all those watching. The twinkling of an eye that occurs when we are watching any of our chosen screens. All the stories we watch twinkle their lights in our eyes. Maybe we already watched it happen. That’s the only way that no one could have known the hour or the day for these events; we didn’t recognize it when it was actually happening. Come on, evangelicals. Sounds as true as anything, doesn’t it?

What about this 666 number? There are two ways to go here. If you like satisfying numerical conclusions in your prophecy, try this one on for size: 666+666+666+6+6+6=2016.  That’s when the Rapture happened and no one recognized it. Good job, Jesus. What am I talking about? First: what have we always said the Rapture would be? All of God’s chosen going to join Him “in the twinkling of an eye.”

Go back and look at the sheer number and quality of celebrities and personal relations we lost that year. Also, think back to how you felt as story after story of this amazing artist, leader, thinker after another were gone too soon. They all disappeared to be “with God” (because “to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord”) in “the twinkling of an eye” (i.e.on tv). There are those of you that will try to call these conclusions based on technicalities and little known new information. You might be right but that would be irrelevant. If the point was just to make people perceive a thing then the perception of the thing is the point, not the facts. It’s a secret message to you, evangelicals, isn’t it?

Here’s the other thing about 666. People “in the church” are always looking for 666, “The Mark of the Beast” so they’ll be able to warn everyone about the end being near. I remember people saying it was Ronald Wilson Reagan just because of the number of letters in each of his names. I also saw a clip floating around the Internet where a woman was trying to show us that the logo for “Monster” energy drink was 666. Then it occurred to me that the Hebrew letters “www” have the numerical value of 666.

I’d always been taught that all of humanity would gladly accept the “mark of the beast” on their forehead or their hands because, without the mark, no one can participate in society. And, look, evangelicals, we can barely communicate, eat, do business without the internet either in our head or in our hands (computers, smartphones, etc.) Just like I always heard growing up in the church, we all participate and have taken this Mark of the Beast. In fact, I think Apple will tempt us with a new Mark of the Beast next spring. 

So Jesus was supposed to return in the same generation that Israel was restored to its people. Of course, any good apocalyptic evangelical knows that happened in 1948 when modern Israel was established. So it’s been 70 years. Psalm 90 even says “The days of our years are threescore and 10”. That’s 70 years. So He should be back anytime. Only no one can know when, right? But like I said, it will happen and no one will recognize it. That’s how that will work. 

Then Israel will have the whole world opposed to it. Well, recent news in Gaza has Israel doing things that have the world furious with them. Netanyahu would have us believe that we in the USA are their only ally. Maybe the USA is that “New Jerusalem” the Bible takes about? Maybe not. 

So who would fit the bill as this Anti-Christ? Maybe, as I was always taught, he’d be someone who claimed to be Christian but served a different master. As Jesus said, “One cannot serve two masters. You cannot serve God and money.” That one, evangelicals conveniently forget all the time.

God, as the Bible clearly states, is Love. It’s money or Love. So I’ve heard people say they voted for Trump because he was already rich and so he couldn’t be bought. To those people I’ll say, I agree that he can’t be bought...because he’s already owned...by money. He’s owned by the master of the thing that is the opposite of Love. The AntiChrist. Sure. I guess that could be any rich businessman but let’s keep going.

The Anti-Christ is to be “The Prince Of The Power Of The Air.” I remember as a kid truly wanting to understand what they could mean. What did it mean when they first wrote it? Maybe it didn’t mean anything when they first wrote it because it was meant to be understood by the people reading about it in the future time when it would all happen.

If that’s the case, then it would have to be a “Great Deceiver” (the best liar the world has ever known) that did the bulk of his deception through mediated channels, I.e. the airwaves. The air. That’s TV. That’s the internet. That’s the media. Someone who is a master manipulator of media would be “The Prince Of The Power Of The Air.” But if he’s the prince, then he wouldn’t be the AntiChrist I’d always been taught about, would he? Correct.

He’d be the “False Prophet” that serves the agenda of a more powerful King that stands against Love. Putin seems the obvious choice here, evangelicals. He rules a place that you have called Godless for the last 100 years. He’s never denied or renounced it’s atheism. But, suddenly, because Trump says it’s fine, you’re fine with it. (“Trump” or “Trump/Pence” by the way. Like the “Trump”s or “Trumpets” mentioned in Revelation.) 

I feel like a lot of this stuff should seem pretty obvious to those who learned it in church. But why is it ignored when it so clearly matches your own prophecy? Because you want to ignore it. There’s a small, selfish, fearful spot inside you that blinds you to your own weaknesses.  But seriously, maybe this piece can lift the veil for you. 

I’ve seen a few focus group style interviews with “Christians” who blindly support our president even though they know he’s a vile human being. Some say it’s because “He’s ordained by God.” Doesn’t mean you have to be complicit with the Devil just because it’s supposed to happen. You’re supposed to resist evil, even when you think you might lose. 

I’ve heard others say, “he fulfills our agenda”, in which case, you’re making a deal with the devil.  Or don’t you recognize your own “Beast” as the “Beast”?