#(it was mike mills)

[mdemn]

someone has to leave first. this is a very old story. there is no other version of it.

rien ne va plus - margarita karapanou / ghost, zero, suitcase, and the moon - richard siken, beginners (2010) dir. mike mills, glue - richard siken, beginners (2010) dir. mike mills, the absolutely true story of a part-time indian - sherman alexie, tumblr user lalallorona, fuck it i love you - lana del rey, the worm king’s lullaby - richard siken

buy me a coffee? <3

[kathrahender]

Some people always get angry when a villain is redeemed. They say things like "Stop redeeming the villain" "Villain redemption is such a terrible trope" "Not all villains deserve redemption" "Villains redemption are ruining media" "You are afraid of villanous characters because you can't bear people making mistakes" "Villain redemption is toxic/unhealthy" "You shouldn't try to fix someone!" and- Well- I have to talk about this because I seriously don't understand why people don't want to accept villains redemption.

"Villain redemption is such a terrible trope" "Villains redemption are ruining media". No, it's not a bad trope. Is not ruining media. It's an awesome trope, a wholesome trope, and I'm gonna say why. A villain redemption means nothing more than a person realizing they did bad things. It means a villain becoming a better person, a villain leaving the Dark Side because humanity and honor were more important than evilness and cruelty for them. And that's a beautiful concept. A villain becoming good? A villain who stops being bad because after all, they have a good side, because they are human? Where's the bad thing there? Where's the bad thing in realizing how much pain you've caused, and changing your morals for good? Seriously, people who hate villains redemption, where's the problem in this trope?

"Not all villains deserve redemption". Again with this tiring argument. When will you understand it? A villain redemption is not based on if they deserve it or not. It's based on the villain himself. It's based on their thoughts, on their morals. It's based on them changing from "I want to hurt/kill everyone who is against me" to "Oh God I'm a monster, what have I done?". Villains don't "deserve" redemption. They just redeem, or they don't, and it has nothing to do with "deserving" it. Some of you could think "Not all villains should be redeemed then!". I will talk about that argument in the last paragraph.

"You are afraid of villanous characters because you can't bear people making mistakes". That's definitely not true. That's bullshit. We're not afraid of people making mistakes. If that was true, we would be afraid of a hero making mistakes. And we aren't afraid of heroes who make mistakes. Because making mistakes makes you human. But- realizing you made a mistake also makes you human. That's what we like about this trope. A bad person, a villain or an anti-villain being actually human deep down.

"Villain redemption is toxic/unhealthy!" Actually- you know what's actually toxic? Hate. Hate is actually toxic. Hating someone is unhealthy. Of all the things you can do in your life, hating someone is the worst thing you can do. Why losing time hating when you can do better things for your heart and for your soul? Because the only thing you will get with hate is your heart/soul corrupted. A villain redeemed is not toxic nor unhealthy. Why a person changing for the better would be toxic or unhealthy?

"You shouldn't try to fix someone". Why? Why shouldn't I try to fix someone? Why shouldn't I want a bad person to turn good? Why shouldn't I want a villain becoming a hero? Why should I want the hate in this world to grow? Why should I want evilness to win? What you're saying doesn't make any sense. I want to fix villains because I believe in goodness! Because I want the good side to win! I want people having a happy ending, and the only way a villain can get a happy ending is being redeemed. And I want the villains to have a happy ending too because dying or getting tortured/being imprisioned after being suffering in your past is horrible. Yeah, I know villains hurt people, but some of them also were hurt, and although I don't justify them, I still want their pain to end and I want them to live, not just survive. I want them to change for the good, why is that so bad?

And even if they were "born evil" (what I doubt because for me villains are made not born) and "didn't suffered"- I want them to have a happy ending after redeeming because I want to believe in their goodness, in their humanity, and I don't want them to die because I think they also deserve a second chance in life and a chance to be happy (because if you can't be happy in this life, what's even the point?).

"But why would you want a villain having a happy ending after all they did????" Because I don't want them to suffer. "They made other people suffer, why would you want them to have a happy ending?" Because I believe no one deserves to have a bad ending in life. "So you defend the monsters in real life??? You support the real killers?? You are a murder apologist!!" Now hold on a fucking second. There's a fucking difference between liking a villain in fiction and want them to have a happy ending and want the real life villains to have a happy ending. Fiction is not fucking reality and you should know that. I want villains in fiction to redeem because I want to believe in their goodness, because I want to believe everyone is capable of being good, because I want to believe love and goodness can conquer all. Because I want to believe that no matter what, the good side will always win. Besides, most of the villains live in magic worlds, where sometimes death is not permanent, where you can see your loved ones even if it's not for a long time. And in fiction time-travel also exist. None of these things happen in reality. There's no magic, there's no time turner who can help you travel back in time to erase the villain's actions, there aren't Force Ghosts of your family or friends. Real life villains' actions are irrevocable and unforgivable. You can't bring back the dead because in this world once a person dies, that's the end of the line. But that doesn't happen in fiction. So stop comparing a real life villain actions with a fictional villain actions. They're not the same.

To end this post I want to say that the ones who like villains redemption (I'm a part of those people, of course) don't want all villains to be redeemed. There are villains we hate with all our heart, villains who are pure evil who doesn't deserve anything good. Villains like Gerard Argent, Dolores Umbridge, Sheev Palpatine, Captain Turner, Sebastian Shaw and Azulon. And more villains like those. So yeah, we do not want to see every villain redeemed.

[silverscreencaps]

20th Century Women (2016) dir. Mike Mills

[frenchcurious]

Mike Hawthorn & Azelio Cappi. Ferrari 250 MM Vignale Spyder Series II - Mille Miglia 1953. - source JD Classics.

[ulliell]

Beginners (2010) dir. Mike Mills

[grrlferrari]

EXTRA-SPECIAL EDITION: CUSTOMIZING THE ICONIC DUCATI MHR MILLE

[astralbondpro]

R.E.M. // Losing My Religion

[theresa-thegalwhocriedrizz]

miniongate byler art!🥰

i worked very gard on this❤️

[sslimbo]

[boy-with-camera]

20th century women (2016) by mike mills cinematography by sean porter production design by chris jones

[tavolgisvist]

The suits

Think, I don't want to clog the idontwanttospoiltheparty's post so put my comments here. @idontwanttospoiltheparty wrote good tags

I was just thinking about the suits too. And I came to the same conclusion: the suits as a way to express dissatisfaction with something else. Look,

1971 (the trial for the dissolution of The Beatles etc):

He was a theatrical man rather than a businessman, and with us he was a bit like that. He literally fucking cleaned us up. And there were great fights between him and me, over years and years, of me not wanting to dress up. He and Paul had some kind of collusion... to keep me straight. Because I kept spoiling the image, like the time I beat up a guy at Paul's twenty-first (birthday). I nearly killed him, because he insinuated that me and Brian had an affair in Spain. I was out of me mind.

(John Lennon, September 5th, 1971, St. Regis Hotel in New York City, interview with Peter McCabe and Robert Schonfeld)

and 1975 (meeting with Paul in 1974 and after):

Q: How true is the myth that Brian Epstein packaged the Beatles? А: Everything is true and not true about everything. That’s one thing I’ve learned. Both things are both true. Q: That’s a very Yoko answer … But was there a point where you four were very naive? А: Oh, we weren’t naive. We were no more naive than he was. I mean what was he, he was serving in a record shop. And he saw this group of sort of rockers … or greasers playing loud music and a lot of kids paying attention to it. So he thought well, this is a business to be in. He liked the look of us, and thought, I’ll be a manager. It was as simple as that. He said, I think I can manage you, and we had nobody better, and we said, All right, you can do it. Then he went shopping around, getting us work, and then there came to a bit when he said, Look, if you cut your hair… Q: How long was it? А: For then, it was longer than any of the photographs. Normally, in any photograph, it had been trimmed or cut. Even school photographs—have you noticed that— your hair always seemed to be cut the day before they took the school photograph. Or whenever you had a photograph of your holidays, somehow the parents or somebody always managed to cut your hair. But there’s some private pictures where it was pretty long for those days, longer than the early pictures. And it was still greased back, and outside of Liverpool, when we went down South in the leather outfits, the dance-hall promoters didn’t really like us, because they thought we looked like a gang of thugs. So Epstein said, Look, if you wear this suit … and we liked suits, everybody wanted a good suit, a nice black, sharp suit, man … you know, yeah, man, I’ll have a suit. So, if you wear a suit, you get this much money. All right, wear a suit, you get more money, wear a suit, I’ll wear a fucking balloon if they’re going to pay me. He was our salesman. He was our front. If you notice, another quirk of life is that self-made men usually have someone with education to front for them. Epstein had enough education to go in and talk to the hobnobs in their own language, and it’s the same now. If I have a lawsuit, I have to get a lawyer to talk to them. Epstein fronted for the Beatles. He played a great part at whatever he did; he was theatrical, that was for sure, and he believed in us. But he certainly didn’t package us the way they said [he did]. Look, we weren’t picked up off the street, we allowed him to take us. Paul wasn’t so keen [on him], Paul’s more conservative in the way he approaches things, and that’s all well and good—maybe he’ll end up with more yachts.

(John Lennon, FEB 19, 1975, interview with Lisa Robinson)

Different years, different circumstances - and different reactions to the suits.

And we remember Brian wasn't the first person who dressed John in a suit (haha I have a reason to quote Len Garry and add a link to amoralto):

“Yeah yeah, it’s all very well, Paul,” muttered John. “Just because your Dad played in some old time music hall in the thirties doesn’t mean we should go on stage wearing white coats. People will think we’re a bunch of fairies.” “Wait a minute, John, I’m burning the toast.” Paul, clattering about in the kitchen, seemed oblivious to John’s emphatic statement. He then came out of the kitchen with a pile of buttered toast on a large plate for the ravenous horde waiting. “What did you say? I couldn’t hear you properly; oh, the white coats, is that what you’re on about? What’s your problem with that? Look John, it’s about time we started smartening up our image because we can’t go on looking like a gang of ruffians just dragged off the streets,” retorted Paul. “We must look professional – we’re on the stage, in the public eye, and appearances are important. If we start looking the part then perhaps you may even be able to get your chords right.” Paul said this last point in a jovial manner, not wishing to rouse John’s temper, as he knew even after short acquaintance with John that he could soon ‘fly off the handle’ if provoked. John seemed unperturbed by the insinuation that Paul was making about his professionalism (or lack of it). There was a silence for a couple of minutes as we all munched on our buttered toast. “Yeah okay – but white coats? I can’t see myself in one of those. Anyway, where would we get them from?” “Never mind that �� Nigel will sort that out. Look, it will be you and me up front from now on as main guitarists and vocalists so it’ll look good, the both of us wearing the same gear. It will be white coats, white shirts and black bow ties – the rest of the group can wear white shirts and black bow ties.” John still seemed undecided and looked to me for support. “What do you think, Len?” he asked. “I think the answer lies in the soil,” I said, trying to bring a bit of humour into what seemed to me a contest building up between two strong personalities, each having been used to getting their own way. Continuing in a none-too-serious vein, “But then again I think that you two don’t need us anymore, we’re has-beens.” [...] “Come on, Len, be serious for a minute. What do you think?” repeated John, who was by this time desperate for support. “I honestly think it’s worth a try and it will probably improve our image,” I said half-heartedly. Suddenly John resorted to his lighter mode. “Ooh, eh! We will look smart. Why don’t we hire a limousine and dress up as undertakers instead?” he quipped. “Don’t be thick, John, we’d all have to wear black for that,” Eric Griffiths suddenly interjected. “Okay, we’ll all be in white then – it’s agreed,” said Paul. John then started up with a song that had recently been popularised: “A white sport coat and a pink carnation, I’m getting dressed up for a dance.” With that John did a little dance around the room. The Quarrymen Committee had arrived at another major decision without too much rancour.

(John, Paul and Me: Before The Beatles by Len Garry, 1997)

It's interesting, I didn't know:

1963 was the year of the now iconic collarless suit – created for the band by UK tailor, Dougie Millings, whom we learn went on to make over 500 outfits for the group. His collarless creation was conceived in a brainstorming session involving Paul McCartney, who’d originally proposed the idea. Their suits were modeled on an original design by Pierre Cardin, but tweaked to make it a distinctively Beatles’ garment.

(from review of Fashioning the Beatles – The Looks That Shook the World (2023, by Deirdre Kelly)

And the Paul's reason to wear the same suits (from Conversations With McCartney by Paul Du Noyer, 2012):

Later, not long before he died in April 1962, Sutcliffe visited his former group in Liverpool, with Kirchherr on his arm. “He was looking thin and pale, and he must’ve been taking medication, because, like the letter from him reproduced in the book, which is very James Joyce-y and surreal, he was sometimes just floating, and then all of a sudden, he wasn’t,” McCartney recalls. “There’s a picture in the book of Astrid, with her very short, Mia Farrow-type hair, John and Stu outside the Cavern. Not long after that, we were all down there, in the Cavern, and I remember Stu and Astrid walking in, and Stu had this ordinary jacket, but without the collar. We all pissed ourselves laughing. He was not happy, because we didn’t get it, the style. But then, when he died, those famous Beatles collarless jackets, they’re in homage. They weren’t Beatles jackets. They were Stu’s jacket.”

(Mike McCartney, June 2022, interview with Jeff Slate)

[filmap]

C’mon C’mon Mike Mills. 2021

Street 31-19 Forsyth St, New York, NY 10002, USA See in map

See in imdb

[silverscreencaps]

20th Century Women (2016) dir. Mike Mills

[worldwidewandress]

" whatever you think your life is going to be like just know it's not gonna be anything like that "

[cinematicmasterpiece]

beginners (2010)

[in-love-with-movies]

Beginners (2010)