#(and it would probably have been a lot less contraversial if it had)

[homosexuhauls]

Uuuuh I don't disagree with this - we have to acknowledge the messed up beliefs of radfems past and present (*ahem* Posie Parker) - but I think it divorces a lot of these women's words from their context.

Take Germaine Greer for example. Her actual words were:

"Most rapes don't involve any injury whatsoever. We are told that it is a sexually violent crime... [that] it is one of the most violent crimes in the world.

Most rape is just lazy, just careless, insensitive. Every time a man rolls over on his exhausted wife and insists on enjoying his conjugal rights he is raping her. It will never end up in a court of law.

Instead of thinking of rape as a spectacularly violent crime, and some rapes are, think about it as non-consensual - that is, bad sex. Sex where there is no communication, no tenderness, no mention of love.

If we are going to say 'trust us, believe us', if we do say that our accusation should stand as evidence, then we do have to reduce the tariff for rape."

Source

(Emphasis mine)

I could make a disingenuous interpretation of her point, and say she's minimising rape. Or I could take her arguments in good faith and see that arguing for a distinction to be made between violent/forced rape, and coercive rape. Society rightly perceives one as insidious yet the other is so common in heterosexual relationships it can be considered a feature rather than a bug. I might not agree with her conclusion that a reduced tariff for coerced sex/rape is necessary as a trade-off to increase convictions. And I definitely don't agree that coercive sex shouldn't be defined as a form of rape in law. But her position is rooted in feminist observations and goals (and selling books, as is noted in the BBC article - controversy sells), as well as her own traumatic experience.

Similarly, I'd say characterising Julie Bindel (I know less about Sheila Jeffreys so I can't speak there) as "wildly polilez" is unfair. I think this article makes it clear that her affinity for the ideology of political lesbianism comes from her experiences of being a young lesbian in the 70's. In her own words, political lesbians were the first people to posit lesbianism as something to celebrate rather than a source of shame. And honestly, I think her perspective on political lesbianism is pretty well-reasoned and, while not exactly balanced, acknowledges most of the flaws in the ideology.

And honestly, as a lesbian, I kinda take offense to the idea that political lesbianism is on a level with like, rape apologism and defending paedophilia. It's a flawed position, and straight/bi women who call themselves lesbians make me uncomfortable, but that's just semantics. If the concept had a different name would we still react so strongly against it? Who's really harmed by women choosing relationships with other women and rejecting the theory of innate heterosexuality? Because I don't think it's women.

Ultimately I think we need to show a little bit more empathy for the radfems who've come before us, and understand where their more contraversial remarks have come from and why they might hold those positions having lived the lives they have. We hold 82 year old Germaine Greer or 58 year old Julie Bindel to far higher standards than their male peers have ever been subject to. And that's weird to me because so often, these women are already so hated by their male peers already, for being too radical and man-hating and feminist? Isn't that a clue that they probably are working to further women's interests, even if they make arguments or hold opinions we disagree with.

absolutely won’t discount their valuable contributions to radical feminist theory and activism, i’m no genderist, i can acknowledge that, but my god, none of the second wave radfems were/are normal and sane. germaine greer minimises rape, says that it’s not rape that hurts women, women let themselves get hurt over it, and even tried to get the crime of rape reduced to sexual assault in law, catherine mckinnon jumped to the trans side and threw radfems under the bus to avoid rocking the boat, dworkin and de beauvoir were pro pedophilia, and sheila jeffreys and julie bindel are both wildly poliliz, telling straight women to “throw off heterosexuality and join lesbianism, it’s what we did”. 

this gen can we PLEASE have some normal people represent our movement? like, just a normal woman with normal radfem views? would that be possible? thank GOD that tras are so allergic to looking at anything about us that they haven’t found this shit. once they learn to read properly, it’s gonna be a nightmare.

[cookie-waffle]

Why I honestly cannot see OOT Zelda/Sheik as a cis girl

I'm gonna start off by saying this topic is very toutchy because weather she's genderfluid or not is really never fully explained and I have a feeling that it's largely to do with Nintendo's tendancy to dodge around contraversial topics especially when it comes to american localization. (which can be good for some topics but when it causes LGBT represtenation to be erased or even just flat out never included then it becomes a problem.) And of course the fans get really over offended by the mere thought of Zelda being genderfluid even though it would literally not harm or change the story or her/his character in any way but hey that's transphobia and video game fandoms for you.

Personally I'm one of the fans that strongly supports the genderfluid theory. Because for one, it honestly doesn't make much sense that Zelda/Sheik would be cis in OOT. That incarnation of Zelda had the ability to change her own physical features such as eye color, hair (without cutting it), and even facial bone structre. And no that last one was not a headcanon or theroy, it's actually canon. There is a hack you can use in OOT to take off Shiek's mask, and it's his face looks a lot more masculine than his female self's. In fact his face doesn't even remotely look like Zelda's. And this isn't just a face copied from another NPC either, no other character in the game has that same face meaning that the devs actually intended this. So my point is, if Zelda had the ability to do this, if she was cis then why would she present as male at all? She could have disguised herself just as well as a sheikah female but instead she chose to be male. And for 7 whole years no less! Being misgendered for such a long period of time can take a huge mental toll on you, and if you're trans yourself you probably know what I mean. So if Zelda was cis then why would she/he even bother to put up with all discomfort if she/he could disguise themselves as a girl just as well? Unless, oh I dunno, maybe they were okay with or maybe even wanted to be seen as male. And you can't say that Zelda only dressed as a male in order to cope with an oppressive society because Hyrule is an equal society, not a patriachy that sees women as less than men, as much as a lot of fanworks tend to portray it like that, in not one of the games has it been shown that women don't have the same rights or opertunities as men. (And yes I am aware that you can spot some casual misogyny every so often but that's just a thing that's very common with a lot of fictional worlds that are supossed to be equal societies and is something that fiction will hopefully someday devolpe out of). So there would be no reason for Zelda to disguise as a male in order to have the same rights as men, because they wouldn't need to. And you also can't say that Zelda only became Sheik in order to make themselves harder to spot by the enemy. Now that could make sense if Zelda didn't literally have the ability to change their own physical body and make themselves not look even remotely like the same person. But like I said, they do have that ability so to me it wouldn't make sense for someone with that kind of power to disguise as male for such a long period of time unless they actually WANTED to.

So yea, that's why I can't see OOT Zelda/Sheik as a cis girl. I will say that wether this is canon or not may still be up for debate but there certainly is real in-game evidence supporting the genderfluid theory. Too much evidence to just call it a "headcanon" imo. It's more of an unconfirmed theory with actual evidence backing it up.

[thesffcorner]

Once Upon a Time in Hollywood

Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is written and directed by Quentin Tarantino and it follows Rick Dalton (Leonardo Di Caprio) and Cliff Booth (Brad Pit), an actor and his stuntman as they struggle to get work and stay relevant in the film industry at the precipice of the 70s. Dalton was a former TV star, who after a mediocre stunt in film is now trying to score a pilot, this time as the heavy, while Cliff is his stunt double, who really doesn’t have a lot of motivation outside of work and whatever Rick wants him to do. 

If that synopsis sounded kind of weak and vague, that’s because this film is the purest definition of slice of life I can think of. It’s not a film with an overarching plot or a 3 act structure; it’s a series of vignettes that are loosely tied by circumstance and location, and we follow a wide set of characters, not just Rick and Cliff, living their lives and making do in Hollywood. The vignettes are all well written and excellently acted, with some heavy league performers in bit parts, but for the most part, the film’s narrative structure is very loose and at points aimless. 

Out of Tarantino’s own body of work, the film this most reminded me of was Pulp Fiction; the meandering plot, the expansive cast of characters, and the distinct lack of forward momentum. The difference is that all the plots we follow in Pulp Fiction get tied up in an explosive ending, and though this film attempts to do the same, it’s really not successful; more than Reservoir Dogs, this is a film that feels like Tarantino’s first effort, which is concerning since this is his 9th official release. 

In terms of filmmaking the film is excellent; the attention to period detail from the sets to the clothes is impeccable. Los Angeles and especially Hollywood likes like a postcard of it’s Golden Age, and I especially loved the little details like the labels on the food, the plastic beer bottle holders, the boxes in which the demo reels are kept. Even the way the characters speak felt authentic, and there were numerous references to the Vietnam War, and a prominent subplot involved hippies. 

Tarantino is also a master of the filmmaking craft itself; I loved the way he presented the different styles of shooting, the aspect ratio, the way a take is carried out in TV vs in film. My two favorite moments were the interview for the Dick Van Dyke show where the double camera setup was perfectly visualised and the weird, ‘improper’ cuts in the conversation between Rick and Timothy Oliphant’s character. This is a film for filmmakers and lovers of the medium; there is a lot of love for the craft itself and I absolutely loved that aspect of the film. 

Where this film faltered for me were the characters and the plot. Now, I don’t need a film to have a commercial structure or strong throughline to like it; some of my favorite films are The Nice Guys, The Brothers Bloom, Last Night and the Fall, which have very loose plots. I even like Coffee and Cigarettes which is even more aimless than this. What I took issue in this film was that it was inconsistent; it tried to be a slice of life drama, while also having Tarantino’s staple suspense and explosive ending, and as a result, neither part was very well done. 

I think it will be easiest to explain if I talk about the characters. First, as a blanket statement all the performances were excellent; the stand out for me was Brad Pit, but everyone else, even the bit parts were stellar. That’s actually where my first gripe comes in: the bit parts. This film has a lot of characters and a lot of them are completely unnecessary, episodic parts, some played by Tarantino regulars like Kurt Russel, Michael Maddsen, and Bruce Dern, and others by big league actors like Luke Perry, Dakota Fanning and Al Pacino. The two most egregious examples of wasted scenes/characters were Luke Perry and Mike Moh. Luke Perry plays Charlie (cough cough), who ends up being crucial to the film’s ending, and he’s mentioned a few times throughout the film, but we only see him in one super brief scene where he drives an ice cream truck, asks a question and leaves. He’s such a bit part, I would have completely forgotten about him, had I not known that Perry played this part, because I wanted to see what his role in the film was. 

Poor Mike Moh; it’s been a while since a scene has caused this much dumb contraversy. Let’s start with the obvious: Bruce Lee never said anything about making Cassius Clay a cripple, and he never even remotely implied he could beat him. The fact that he would be so easily beaten in a fight by a random tall white dude is also iffy, even if the whole point is that his arrogance blinds him to Cliff’s abilities (which is a whole other can of worms). The real kicker is that this scene is completely and utterly UNNECESSARY. Yes, it’s a fun scene, especially Kurt Russel’s bit at the end, but it could have easily been a daydream, or any other martial artist working at the time. It’s inclusion is dumb, and I wasn’t a fan. 

The second wasted character was Margot Robbie. She plays Sharon Tate, whose inclusion I thought would cause more controversy, but for whatever reason Bruce Lee was the worse of the two. First off her entire character could have easily been cut from the film, and not only would have the film not lost anything, it probably would have been better. Her character barely interacts with Rick, and never with Booth, she doesn’t do anything in the film, and her being Sharon Tate means nothing. We never see her life with Polanski, and because of the alternate ending, unless you already know exactly who she is, you wouldn’t even find out why the film focused on her so much. If you DO know who she is and what happened to her, you will just mostly be uncomfortable, because the way the film focuses on her in the last bit you think it’s going somewhere you’d rather not see.

Then we have the hippy subplot which we can group with Cliff, because they tie together. Even though it’s the plot that is closest to tying up the ending, it’s both absent from most of the film, and significantly less interesting than Rick’s plot. It’s also full of plot threads that come out of nowhere and go nowhere. 

First, if Cliff wasn’t interested in sleeping with Pussy (barf), and knew she wasn’t 18 (which was obvious from the first scene we see her in), then why would he give her a ride? Because he wanted to see the ranch? The scene where he wants to check on Joe was great; the suspense of the ranch, him meeting all the characters, going to the house and seeing the state it was in, it was all excellent. But ultimately, it didn’t contribute to anything; it was funny at the end that he recognized Tex while he was high, but the hippies weren’t there for him, they weren’t even in the right house! 

Second, as a character Cliff didn’t make much sense. He has no motivations or goals; he more or less does Rick’s bidding, and it’s not clear if it is because they are friends, or Rick pays him, or there are some unresolved feelings between them. The movie tries to cover it’s ass by hinting that both men are interested in women, but the women are barely present in the film, and in Cliff’s case, he goes out of his way NOT to have sex with her (probably the only good decision he’s made the whole film). Also, for a stuntman, and the freaking astounding shape that Pit got in, he does 0 stunts. 

Finally we have Rick. Rick had the strongest character motivations in the film, and the most interesting plotline, but by the end he gets no real resolution. His character isn’t a real person, but he doesn’t need to be; plenty of actors have been in the same situation of wanting to expand beyond the material that made them famous and potentially destroying their career in the process. I really liked Rick overall; he was emotional and dramatic, and the few scenes where he just loses it were both hilarious and kind of heartbreaking. He even gets some moments to shine acting wise; I was so interested in the plot of Lanser, the show he was filming that I would have been ok with the whole film just being him and Timothy Oliphant taking the pilot away from the real Lanser who we never see on screen. 

His interactions with the rest of the crew were great; I really enjoyed his banter with the actress (sorry actor) who plays Lanser’s daughter. She was really sharp and funny and I wish the film focused more on their friendship. I also enjoyed all his scenes with Booth and looking back now I’m surprised how few scenes they actually share together. 

Overall, this wasn’t a bad film. I find it to be one of Tarantino’s weakest, but it’s still an entertaining glimpse at a specific time in film history. I think you should watch it and make up your own mind; just don’t expect a masterpiece.

letterboxd

[endgamespoilersbecauseimmad]

steve

a lot of people are incredibly mad about his ending in this movie. contraversially, and true to my trend, i’m going to defend it.

steve’s arch since the first avengers movie has been about him being less ‘ill give up my life for the many’ and more ‘i need some me time’. in his first movie, he’s Captain America™️, branded patriotism sold to the masses to support the war effort. he maintains this role both in the campy tv show character and in the actual soldier fighting with the howling commandos character. even the 70 years in the ice he’s probably still marketed as the embodiment of america’s success. also important is the establishment of peggy as a key element to Steve’s story. we see bucky, we know he’s important, but he’s not as integral as peggy in the first movie. the first avenger establishes him as a selfless and very easily manupilated character and provides a complete opposite to tony’s incredibly selfish and arrogant character at the beginning of his series.

the winter soldier has such a quick curve in his character from ‘needs of the many bugs’ to ‘needs of the few, or the one buck’. he learns more about the modern world and you bet your ass steve will have an issue with how people be these days. when he’s in the museum, he doesn’t smile once. he’s a veteran. his sacrifice and that of his friends is being sold and eaten up by the public as a spectacle as he’s left to deal with the trauma of war and missing out on 70 years of the world. i’m p sure it’s in this movie where we have that moment with him and peggy where’s she’s in the hospital, so again we know she’s still incredibly important to him and his story. but bucky is the central villain to the plot, so now we learn why he’s so important to steve. bucky coming back gives some level of reassurance to steve to see another person he knows, but his best friend is trying to kill him. thus the plot thickens. steve’s mission is to eradicate hydra for the whole movie, he just also wants to save bucky. he doesn’t yeet himself onto two helicarriers to put in those chips just to save bucky, he does it to protect the potential victims of the insight programme, the potential of getting his best friend back is just a bonus. steve is still kinda in the ‘needs of the many’ state of mind in this movie but we see small shifts in how he treats fury’s desires to maintain shield by immediately turning them down, and he’s less naïve from the first movie by distrusting natasha. but again remember that his story almost directly parallels tony’s in their subtle overarching plots regarding selfishness verses selflessness. they’re shifting in their perspectives across their movies to be what each other was.

civil war was an adventure, but it’s also where steve becomes completely self indulgent. he starts a war defending his position, beliefs, and bucky at the cost of a lot of public safety and discourse. (please note the avengers movies never really added anything to caps character n just sorta made him campy so they’re not that integral here) sokovia killed a lot of people, but steve has seen all that before in the wars so it doesn’t bother him as much as it does tony. so steve is against the sokovia accords limiting his freedom in his actions, which would probably also affect his ability to find bucky if it was properly monitored, and goes against his personal interests but might actually be better for the greater good. steve literally gives up on tony and their friendship at the end for bucky, to protect him. by doing this he also gives up his role as an avenger for a while, becoming a threat because he was more interested in his own affairs than what he could do to help the masses. while tony signs the accords, both because of his own guilt but he also makes a lot of smart decisions to try and make the world a safer place, and every attempt by tony is meddled with by steve until it crumbles. but despite all his troubles with bucky, we can’t forget the scenes of peggy’s funeral (gonna forget about sharon carter here as well bc that was a bit of a yikes). reminding the audience of how much he’s lost of his old life and how important peggy is to his character. even whedon had a moment in aou to show how much steve truly wants to see peggy again in the mind manipulation scene with wanda.

in infinity war we don’t get much time to do any real character development for anyone but it’s because it was sort of like a filler chapter to get to the good stuff in endgame. which is where steve’s arc finishes. he is the only one who’s had to deal with this kind of loss before. to loose everything you know and be in a completely different reality from the one you know. so he’s not affected, and he’s trying to get everyone to think like him because he knows there’s no point in wallowing. the rest of the movie we see the old selfless steve come out more and be more dominant because they have the chance to bring back bucky and fix everything.

but then we have the ending, that everyone hates. at this point we have to remember, steve knows bucky is safe, bucky already knows what steve is going to do through some heavily implications in the scene, and steve was the only one not to interact with his designated lost one during their time travel when the opportunity arose. he didn’t sacrifice it because he know it would affect too much. tony and thor? fuck time i wanna see my dead parent (which is fair and i don’t blame them and the scenes were incredibly moving but i’m proving a point), and there is a steve under the ice in this world as well, who will fix all the hydra stuff when his time comes. steve goes to peggy to live the life he always wanted. i can’t exactly imagine he’d be running around changing everything with everyone recognising him as the Captain America™️. he went to spend the time with peggy that he missed by sacrificing himself the first time. he went to have the family steve has always wanted at his core. he saved the universe, he was just about ready to do it single handedly before those portals opened, and now he just wants peace. he gets to be selfish now. and he deserves it! he’s done being the hero, and his contract is up, so the most satisfying and canonical ending we could get is the one that we were given. yes i think steve would probably have spent more time with bucky, but it was the end of a very heavy and long movie, having a steve and bucky montage would not have worked.

we got an ending where steve got that dance, finally, and the role of captain america has been handed down to a really good choice (i thought it was gonna be bucky too, but i’m strangely more happy with sam and i think it fits better). steve finally got to be selfish, he didn’t even kiss and tell. he’s finally an old man who lived his life with the longest running love interest he’s had. be happy for him for five minutes and you’ll realise he deserves it.

[didimau90]

Movie Review 213 - 11/27/18

Birth of the Dragon

Hi, Welcome to Richard’s Reviews.

Today's review is Birth of the Dragon. This movie would focus on Bruce Lee's fight againts the famous monk Wong Jack Man, but it doesn't. The portrayals and events that occur before and after the fight would be contraversial. The portrayal of Bruce Lee and Wong Jack Man would only be an interpretation. The movie protrays Bruce as a flashy jerk, and Man as a cool collected person all the time. All of this would sidebar to a weak story that developes midway.

The Good - There were interesting fight scenes. Nothing over the top except maybe the fight between them. They kept it real and down to earth short of the main fight or 2nd to the main fight.

The Bad - The character representation. Maybe they were set at too far of the spectrums to make a point. You expect the growth would change them a bit, but it pretty much holds true through out the movie. You will probably like Bruce less. Wonder who Wong Jack Man is, and then question why they had the student glue them all together.

The Ugly - The movies idea of how Bruce Lee evolved is shifted to some randome sidestory about his student getting involved with a girl that is connected to gangs. Mostly as a slave worker. Bruce Lee and Wong Jack Man get involved to free them. So the final fight was not their fight but a random brawl in a restaurant. This may have been better connected to how maybe Bruce Lee's past and why he never wants to get involved.

What you get - This is the Blu Ray, DVD Combo with Digital Copy. There is a slip cover with an image of Bruce and Man. On the back is more images of the characters in the movie. The inside are the disks, no special printing.

Rating - 3 Stars out of 5

Check it out if you are a fan of martial arts. This movie is more of a drama overall. There are a few fight scenes, but its a lot of talking.

This movie does not show anything about the student that seems to bring them together anywhere on the box. They inflate the fight between masters, and then end it with the yellow fever that the student has for an enslaved girl. Bruce and Man end up saving them all. If Bruce was supposed to bring them forward in the martial arts, why did all of his students suck so bad through out the movie? Bruce had to save them all the time.

Don't like to read? Watch it at - https://youtu.be/bWzUrsI6Nt8 Remember to Subscribe

Original Movie: https://www.facebook.com/BirthOfTheDragon/

Like more informational videos check out: YelpTube - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC7Fe4Iyg8VZkcxfjNW4nQMw or MathGuy - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC40iAxsP7gSAaUQUKZFY5vA