#Any social commentary or genuine feeling gets fully lost

[kingedmundsroyalmurder]

Okay, lunch time on Monday, time to bang out some more Kilmeny. This chapter has the usual ableism content warning and an extra strong racism one.

First off, I want to address a point brought up by @gogandmagog, about how this book may have been a satire or a sort of deconstruction of traditional fairy tale romances. I've been thinking it over, and I can see it. It would explain the abrupt tone shift in how Eric treats Kilmeny, if Maud is making a point about how men see women they're not interested in vs. how they see women they want to marry. It's a really bleak point, but honestly I've already noticed that Maud is really unimpressed with marriage in this book and specifically how marriage reduces women. I don't know that the satire angle explains the racism and the abelism -- I think that may just be artifacts of her and the time she lived in -- but it may help a bit with Eric himself.

It's still very unpleasant to read, but it's an interesting perspective to keep in mind.

Anyway. Eric goes back to the orchard to meet Kilmeny, with the understanding that she will introduce him to her aunt and uncle. Only, plot twist, Kilmeny isn't there and it's Neil who meets him instead! Neil, who is fully out of his mind with anger.

“So you’ve come to meet her again. But she isn’t here—you’ll never see her again! I hate you—I hate you—I hate you!”

Scintillating dialog, to be sure.

Eric is, of course, cool and collected in the face of Neil's fury, because why would Eric ever be anything other than detached and superior?

“So you have been making trouble for Kilmeny, Neil, have you?” said Eric contemptuously. “I suppose you have been playing the spy. And I suppose that you have told her uncle and aunt that she has been meeting me here. Well, you have saved me the trouble of doing it, that is all. I was going to tell them myself, tonight. I don’t know what your motive in doing this has been. Was it jealousy of me? Or have you done it out of malice to Kilmeny?”

His contempt cowed Neil more effectually than any display of anger could have done.

The problem with this book... okay, a problem with this book is that, as I think @no-where-new-hero said, LMM doesn't seem to know what to do with her protagonist. He doesn't really have any character traits, he doesn't have any interests, he doesn't really have a personality beyond, like, bored and detached and superior. So when he takes this turn into the monstrous, we have nothing to balance it out. Eric doesn't play music or enjoy gardening or even show an interest in arguing theology. Everything he does -- except visit Kilmeny -- he does out of social obligation. He didn't even go to school because he wanted to, he did it to please his dad. His one thing he actually does because he actually wants to is his relationship with Kilmeny, and now that he is being dreadful to her, there's nothing left. You just go from 'this man is a bit insufferable, isn't he?' to 'wow, I want you dead in a ditch!' with no in between.

Which is a very long-winded way of saying, I hate Eric now and I want him dead in a ditch! And his being smugly superior to Neil -- who is also behaving dreadfully, just to be clear -- is doing nothing to endear him to me.

“She will meet me in her own home then,” said Eric sternly. “Neil, in behaving as you have done you have shown yourself to be a very foolish, undisciplined boy. I am going straightway to Kilmeny’s uncle and aunt to explain everything.”

Neil sprang forward in his path.

“No—no—go away,” he implored wildly. “Oh, sir—oh, Mr. Marshall, please go away. I’ll do anything for you if you will. I love Kilmeny. I’ve loved her all my life. I’d give my life for her. I can’t have you coming here to steal her from me. If you do—I’ll kill you! I wanted to kill you last night when I saw you kiss her. Oh, yes, I saw you. I was watching—spying, if you like. I don’t care what you call it. I had followed her—I suspected something. She was so different—so changed. She never would wear the flowers I picked for her any more. She seemed to forget I was there. I knew something had come between us. And it was you, curse you! Oh, I’ll make you sorry for it.”

We have fully lost control of the craft of storytelling here. This wild shifting in moods might work, if this wasn't the first time we'd ever spoken to Neil on page. There's 'oh, he has an explosive temper', but going from 'oh, I implore you!' to 'I'll fucking kill you!' in a single paragraph needs more setup than just that. 

"He was working himself up into a fury again—the untamed fury of the Italian peasant thwarted in his heart’s desire. It overrode all the restraint of his training and environment. Eric, amid all his anger and annoyance, felt a thrill of pity for him. Neil Gordon was only a boy still; and he was miserable and beside himself."

1- Neil Gordon is 22. Eric himself is only 24. Cool it with your whole, 'oh, he's only a kid!' headpatting.

2- Blood. Will. Out. This is the most strongly established theme in the book at this point.

"Eric, not a little ruffled under all his external composure by this most unexpected and unpleasant encounter, pursued his way along the lane which wound on by the belt of woodland in twist and curve to the Gordon homestead. His heart beat as he thought of Kilmeny. What might she not be suffering? Doubtless Neil had given a very exaggerated and distorted account of what he had seen, and probably her dour relations were very angry with her, poor child. Anxious to avert their wrath as soon as might be, he hurried on, almost forgetting his meeting with Neil. The threats of the latter did not trouble him at all. He thought the angry outburst of a jealous boy mattered but little. What did matter was that Kilmeny was in trouble which his heedlessness had brought upon her."

I am going to very begrudgingly give him a point for actually considering and prioritizing Kilmeny's feelings. He is assuming that he knows what they are, but we've been given enough details thus far that he's probably correct -- Kilmeny clearly did want to keep seeing him, and she probably is quite unhappy about what is happening.

"Presently he found himself before the Gordon house. It was an old building with sharp eaves and dormer windows, its shingles stained a dark gray by long exposure to wind and weather. Faded green shutters hung on the windows of the lower story. Behind it grew a thick wood of spruces. The little yard in front of it was grassy and prim and flowerless; but over the low front door a luxuriant early-flowering rose vine clambered, in a riot of blood-red blossom which contrasted strangely with the general bareness of its surroundings. It seemed to fling itself over the grim old house as if intent on bombarding it with an alien life and joyousness."

There hasn't been a lot of house symbolism in this book, but shall we assume that Kilmeny is the rosebush, the only point of light and beauty in her family?

"The pictured face was a very handsome one, suggestive of velvety dark eyes and vivid colouring; but it was its expression rather than its beauty which fascinated Eric. Never had he seen a countenance indicative of more intense and stubborn will power. Margaret Gordon was dead and buried; the picture was a cheap and inartistic production in an impossible frame of gilt and plush; yet the vitality in that face dominated its surroundings still. What then must have been the power of such a personality in life?"

Margaret Gordon: definitely a witch.

So Eric lays out his case to the Gordons, which is that he met Kilmeny on accident and befriended her, but belated realized that he should tell her grownups about it and so has come to formally ask their permission to continue seeing Kilmeny. Thomas Gordon then says this, and I roll my eyes out of their sockets and into space:

“I don’t need to do that,” said Thomas Gordon, quietly. “I know more of you than you think, Master. I know your father well by reputation and I have seen him. I know you are a rich man’s son, whatever your whim in teaching a country school may be. Since you have kept your own counsel about your affairs I supposed you didn’t want your true position generally known, and so I have held my tongue about you. I know no ill of you, Master, and I think none, now that I believe you were not beguiling Kilmeny to meet you unknown to her friends of set purpose. But all this doesn’t make you a suitable friend for her, sir—it makes you all the more unsuitable. The less she sees of you the better.”

Of course they like him instantly. Of course they do.

And, of course, the reason they think he shouldn't see Kilmeny is the same reason Mrs. Williamson thought he shouldn't. She is young and sheltered and might fall in love with him and be heartbroken, because of course he couldn't mary Kilmeny, she's mute!

Honestly this story would have almost been more interesting if Kilmeny had been ugly. Not that 'oh, you can't marry her, she's ugly!' is any better, but it would require some actual character growth from Eric. Because -- and again, I hate to give this man any credit -- he isn't saying, 'oh, I trust she can be cured so it's fine.' He would like her to be able to speak, but he is fully prepared to marry her even if she remains mute her entire life. As of currently, he seems to see Kilmeny's disability in the same way she sees it: a little inconvenient and mildly unfortunate, but not, like, an insurmountable problem.

"Janet Gordon had hitherto spoken no word. She had sat rigidly upright on one of the old chairs under Margaret Gordon’s insistent picture, with her knotted, toil-worn hands grasping the carved arms tightly, and her eyes fastened on Eric’s face. At first their expression had been guarded and hostile, but as the conversation proceeded they lost this gradually and became almost kindly. Now, when her brother appealed to her, she leaned forward and said eagerly,

“Do you know that there is a stain on Kilmeny’s birth, Master?”

Janet Gordon: also a witch? Definitely a woman who would enjoy a true crime podcast in this the year 2023.

So the Gordons give Eric permission to court Kilmeny, because of course they do. The problem with having a protagonist that everyone loves is that you can't then set up, 'but someone will be mad at them!' as a conflict and have it land. The Gordons were set up as mini-bosses, as it were, but Eric didn't do anything to get on their good side. He just showed up and they went, 'welp, we like you now, if you're sure you want to marry Kilmeny despite her disability and her parantage, then you have our blessing.' It's just a really unsatisfying narrative.

Luckily for me, any good feeling I might have had towards Eric for his being almost decent about Kilmeny's disability vanishes when he gets to see her again and is immediately condescending!

"She did not tell him how glad she was, and how unhappy she had been over the thought that she was never to see him again. Yesterday she would have told him all frankly and fully; but for her yesterday was a lifetime away—a lifetime in which she had come into her heritage of womanly dignity and reserve. The kiss which Eric had left on her lips, the words her uncle and aunt had said to her, the tears she had shed for the first time on a sleepless pillow—all had conspired to reveal her to herself. She did not yet dream that she loved Eric Marshall, or that he loved her. But she was no longer the child to be made a dear comrade of. She was, though quite unconsciously, the woman to be wooed and won, exacting, with sweet, innate pride, her dues of allegiance."

Thesis: Wives and Friends are two different species of women. Friends may be spoken to as equals and confided in and allowed their own way. Wives are meek and demure and do not make eye contact and submit sweetly to your every whim.

I think perhaps Lucy Maud Montgomery was not very excited to get married.

[arecomicsevengood]

QUARANTINE MOVIES PART FOUR

It’s wild to watch any movie knowing that none will be made for the foreseeable future, and that the whole collective experience of filmgoing might be dead. I tend to have a certain sad, scared lonely feeling when I contemplate the future at night, and while I attempt to put off by watching movies, it only partly works. Now, more than ever, movies are a larger part of my processing of the world than the ongoing conversations I have with friends.

Smithereens (1982) dir. Susan Seidelman

There is something particularly powerful about movies where people run around, socializing. These things are pretty resonant with my youth, but “youth” in this broad sense that just means “the before times,” because if there’s anything quarantine is bringing home it’s the importance of a form of adulthood based around domestic partnerships with someone you like and having “real jobs” that can translate to telecommuting. Of course, socializing of the sort no longer allowed is really useful, and shouldn’t be written off as youthful frivolity. Smithereens is not a particularly romantic movie: While it might be famous for being “punk” in a “cool” way, documenting young New York nightlife in a way where David Wojnarowicz’s band 3 Teens Kill 4 is on a club’s marquee, it’s really about young people as these sort of upwardly-mobile opportunists with no real talent trying to exploit one another for a mixture of sex and social clout, and ignoring those who are not actively useful to them. It’s a useful document of people being shitty where the appeal now is how cool they look, and it’s interesting to watch in this moment where I’m worried that the whole idea of community will be lost very soon, in a way we won’t even be able to articulate. We’ll all be scrambling for jobs and security but everything will be further hollowed out, and we’ll be left with an even more vicious and dog-eat-dog citizenry. So a movie like this has nostalgic appealing, but by depicting the seeds of what will only become more widespread problems, it avoids feeling dated or idealistic.

Gloria (1980) dir. John Cassavetes

Oh shit this movie rules! I was under the impression I disliked Cassavetes, based on the others I had seen, and watching the first twenty-odd minutes reminded me of why: Sort of circular conversations, involving a lot of people being upset with one another. But this ends up feeling more like a movie, and less like a play. Once Gena Rowlands kills a carful of people I was completely on board. She’s great in this, playing opposite a child, who is also amazing in it, tons of dialogue that should be quotable: “You’re not my mother, my mother was beautiful” being but one amazing bit of poetry. Both extremely cute and extremely badass from moment to moment, the parts of this movie are in tension with one another where it also feels like it’s going from strength to strength, and ever scene, every moment, is great. Incredible music, and also great documentation of a world that doesn’t exist anymore, of telephone booths, smoking sections, and places that’ll develop photos for you. Highest possible recommendation.

The Naked City (1948) dir. Jules Dassin

Seemingly the first movie to be shot on location throughout New York, rather than studio backlots, and it milks the city for all its worth, shifting frequently from one location to another, introducing to new characters. Initially guided by omniscient narration but quickly focusing to become a police procedural. I knew Dassin from Rififi but this feels more exciting, I would gladly watch movies bite the techniques from this every few decades, though Gloria does a good job of moving through the streets of New York in a less-contrived way. There was a Naked City TV show ten years later, shot on location and focusing on a police precinct.

Near Dark (1987) dir. Kathryn Bigelow

I consider this Kathryn Bigelow’s best movie, but circumstances have not led me to watch it as many times as I’ve seen Point Break, so the memories I’ve retained of it were kind of inaccurate: Specifically, the thing I thought of as the climax, the part at the hotel where light is getting shot through the blankets taped up to cover windows, happens like halfway through. Screenwriter Eric Red wrote this at the same time as he wrote The Hitcher, and that’s another one that just GOES, moving from one scene to another where they all have this climactic intensity constantly but the scale is shifting of what you’re invested in? The Hitcher is a nightmare and this is more of an action movie. People point out this movie has a bunch of the cast from Aliens but I didn’t realize there’s a shot where Aliens is actually on the marquee of a theater. I also wonder if this whole horror/action/western/but with vampires thing was an inspiration to Garth Ennis? I kinda feel like the pacing I find so powerful could not really be sustained over the length of an extended comic run.

Hero (1992) dir. Stephen Frears

Dustin Hoffman plays a criminal schlub, doing a weird voice. It’s almost like he was told that the role was written for Sylvester Stallone, but Stallone’s insistence on getting a writing credit on every movie he acts in complicated the premise in a weird way, so Hoffman just attempts a Stallone impression. One of his few redeeming characteristics is he’s a loving father, but that isn’t why he’ll remind you of your dad. Maybe most men are just Dustin Hoffman doing impersonations of Sylvester Stallone! From 1992, so Hoffman’s I guess in a post-Rain-Man mode, but the film also feels very early nineties in its commentary on television news turning stories into celebrities, and an analysis of the problems with professional cynicism that seem very much of their time. It’s not like a more sophisticated critique has found its way into any mainstream film I can think of, we’ve just stopped thinking about these issues, as they’ve become much worse. Joan Cusack’s good as his Hoffman’s ex-wife, and Susie Cusack’s good as his lawyer. I would like to see Susie Cusack in more things! Geena Davis plays a television reporter, Andy Garcia plays a decent guy who is a contrast to Hoffman, there’s also small roles for the likes of Stephen Tobolowsky and Tom Arnold, really placing this in a moment of time.

The Age Of Innocence (1993) dir. Martin Scorsese

I didn’t like this one, for all the obvious reasons: I don’t like costume dramas about rich people, and I don’t like Daniel Day-Lewis. It’s an Edith Wharton adaptation, all about a world of well-mannered old money with very rigidly defined rules of behavior. Michelle Pfeiffer plays the true love Day-Lewis is kept from by the mores of the day, and part of her romantic appeal is she’s able to see through the rituals and make fun of them, while Winona Ryder fully buys into them, and thus reaps the benefits. Everything is repressed, all behavior is affect, this is of course the point but very much not my thing. There’s also a lot of a narrator reading the text of the book while the camerawork fades between lavishly composed image, while the cinematography probably looked great on a big screen I would still be very anxious about getting to the storytelling.

Experiment In Terror (1962) dir. Blake Edwards

This one starts off super-intensely, with a home invasion scene, the sense of horror in this is palpable but the fear is just used as this blackmail structure for some noir stuff? It straggles the genre line pretty well, feeling weird because of this horror energy of sheer creeping malevolence defines it. This is also considerably longer than most of the other film noir I’ve watched recently, because those moments extend and take away from the sense of a building plot, to instead feel like they might derail it. Lee Remick is the lead, and she is this terrified victim, which makes the film more interesting than if it were focused on the cop played by Glenn Ford. The main character’s younger sister gets kidnapped at one point, it gets creepy. The climax occurs at a end of a crowded baseball game, and there’s shots that I assume were done via helicopter, which seems like it would’ve upped the budget considerably.

The Harder They Fall (1956) dir. Mark Robson

Humphrey Bogart stars as a former sports writer, working to drum up publicity for a fresh-off-the-boat boxer who does not know how to fight, but is naively participating in fixed matches, for the economic benefit of the mob. While the boxer is being exploited and making no money, despite his celebrity; Bogart is being well-compensated to sell out his conscience and he is very good at playing a dude in moral conflict with himself, struggling to do the decent thing. While this isn’t the best boxing movie, or the best Bogart, it’s still pretty good.

The Devil And Miss Jones (1941) dir. Sam Wood

Heard about this one in the context of it having good politics. It’s about a rich guy who goes undercover at a department store hoping to bust the union only to realize that the guy organizing the union is supremely decent and the middle manager should get fired. It has some scenes that feel like they might play for “cringe comedy” but also are just so fucked up? One where the rich dude is forcing shoes onto the feet of little girl who is crying saying “I don’t like it! I don’t like it!” feels way too much like a pervert’s fetish for me to be comfortable with. The female lead is played by Jean Arthur, who is very good at playing a genuine, kind, and idealistic person. I am very grateful she dates the union organizer and the old rich dude’s love interest is someone age-appropriate. Interesting to see a pro-union movie from a time when unions were popular, so it functions as populist entertainment while Sorry To Bother You gestures at being radical propaganda for self-congratulation’s sake.

Human Desire (1954) dir. Fritz Lang

Another noir from Lang, with the same leads as The Big Heat. This one made me worried about age-inappropriate relationships too, as it begins with a dude being back from war, moving in with his friends, and their daughter having “become a woman” while he was away. Luckily the title refers  to a desire he ends up feeling for a married woman who as an accomplice to a murder committed by her abusive husband. Glenn Ford stars in this one, and he has this very boring morally upstanding male lead quality that makes these well-made movies feel generic. This thing is happening to me watching movies where I get kind of hung up on how no one ever explains themselves or their feelings: I don’t think they should, I think the whole thing of watching a movie where you watch it thinking like “Why don’t you just tell her you love her??” is interesting because… a writer doesn’t need the characters to explain their feelings to each other if the viewers understand them, these feelings are the most obvious things and so can go unspoken, and so you would really only have them say these things if they were lying or being manipulative? But maybe in more modern movies people really do state their motivations because screenwriters are dumber now? I don’t know.

Fail Safe (1964) dir. Sidney Lumet

I have talked about this movie a lot since watching it, and in a way that doesn’t even mention that the opening is amazing, and the title and credits sequence are all-time greats. Instead I mention that Henry Fonda’s performance seems to have inspired David Lynch’s performance of Gordon Cole, and how the weird, fucked up nightmarish ending doesn’t really change the fact that watching it in 2020 it feels like a sort of pornography of competence when contrasted against our own reality. The whole movie is about an accident that leads to a U.S. military plane flying to Moscow to drop a nuke, and everyone (except for the pilots) realizing this is a mistake and trying to avert global nuclear war. The ending is pretty astounding in its darkness. Walter Matthau plays a guy whose role is to argue for the pragmatic value of mass death, but the moral calculus that ends up being embraced is far beyond the nihilistic death drive he advocates for. Mutually assured destruction is such a motherfucker of a concept. I am really hung up on the idea that unilateral nuclear disarmament never became a thing really set a precedent for how political parties in this country will never unilaterally dismantle their propaganda machines. 24-hour news is a nightmare, not really on a par with nuclear weapons, but similarly something that should be illegal, but for the calculations made. We would be a different country if we were willing to make these kinds of sacrifices but we really are not.

The Deadly Affair (1967) dir. Sidney Lumet

James Mason stars in this John Le Carre adaptation. He plays a spy whose wife is cheating on him, with another spy. None of the twists in this are unforeseen, in fact, the title alone explains a bunch, but the title is also so generic you might forget what the movie is called while you’re watching it. James Mason is good in it, although it’s weird that he’s playing a likable guy who sort of doesn’t seem to understand why everyone can’t get along or be honest adults with one another considering his work in the intelligence community. Another solid Sidney Lumet movie.

Three Days Of The Condor (1975) dir. Sydney Pollack

This movie does a very good job of not explaining things up front, and then portioning out understanding as it goes on. The movie begins with Robert Redford getting his office getting shot up, and we eventually learn he works for the CIA, but he cannot rely on them for his protection. It doesn’t introduce the female lead, played by Faye Dunaway, until like halfway through the movie, when our hero takes her hostage. Redford can’t really explain the situation to her, and just sort of acts like a psychopath, but they are able to have a quasi-romantic relationship where she trusts him because he’s played by Robert Redford, who is in some ways the seventies’ answer to Glenn Ford. The movie star aspect allows him to sell his agreeability, although he’s also supposed to be something of a nerd, a guy whose job is just to read books and analyze the information. Max Von Sydow plays the villain.

The Third Shadow Warrior (1963) dir. Umetsugu Inoue

Watched this because it’s made by the dude who made Black Lizard, it’s a samurai thing about a warrior who employs body doubles. It follows one such body double, overshadowed by the man whose existence he supports, at the expense of his own individuality or happiness. Interesting enough, feels like it occupies the solid middle of samurai movies- Something sort of common to stuff on Criterion is something that doesn’t blow you away but it is definitely a “real movie” at the very least.

La Cienaga, (2001) dir. Lucrecia Martel

That said, you kind of do need to be careful with newer Criterion channel stuff, because some things feel more like they’re just trying to engage with an art house history in order to earn their place in the canon. This movie isn’t bad, but I do feel like the reason it’s interesting stems from a context the film itself has nothing to do with: After Martel made Zama (2017), there was talk of her being asked by Marvel to do a Black Widow movie, which is insane. The studio also volunteered to handle the action for her, which she said she would actually be interested in learning how to do herself, but she had no interest in working with Marvel. Let Lucrecia Martel make a big-budget action movie without corporate properties you cowards! This movie is pretty difficult to follow, with no clear narrative thread, a lot of characters, weird pacing, etc. There’s moments of poetry or tension but this is one of those things that’s just beyond my preferences enough to remind me of a certain aesthetic conservatism I possess. I didn’t finish Zama, though I had read the book. It’s honestly tough to imagine Martel making a movie with straightforward plot that can easily be followed, it doesn’t seem to be what she’s interested in, even in terms of editing a movie so that you have a sense of where scenes stand in relation to one another in time. Many scenes still maintain a sense of beauty or mystery but at there’s no velocity. She’s closer to Apichatpong Weerasethakul or Carlos Reygadas or Bi Gan, to name three people whose names I absolutely had to Google because I couldn’t think of them off the top of my head.

All these movies are streaming on The Criterion Channel, if you want me to recommend things on other streaming services, please DM me your login information.

[aion-rsa]

Shameless Series Finale Review: Father Frank, Full of Grace

https://ift.tt/eA8V8J

This Shameless review contains spoilers.

Shameless Season 11 Episode 12

“We’re still here. We’re surviving, right?” 

Most people would likely not argue that Shameless’s best years are behind it. Showtime, its cable network, even briefly had a reputation for bleeding series dry long after they should have ended. However, even the most egregious examples of this like Weeds, Californication, and Dexter still pale in comparison to Shameless‘s episode count and none of them ever lost their series’ lead. It’s fair to say that Shameless is not as good as when it started or even how it was a few seasons back, but it’s always remained true to itself. It hasn’t resorted to radical time jumps or a revolving door of new premises and locations as a way to inject steroids into a withering corpse. 

Shameless set out to depict the flawed lives of a lower-class family and it’s done that for 11 seasons and allowed a full generation of characters to grow up before the audience’s eyes. Shameless might not have always been a top tier television program, but it’s emblematic of Showtime’s early ideology and the growth that they’ve experienced over the past decade. Shameless is their longest running program and with it gone there’s a substantial piece of Showtime’s past that leaves with it. The final lingering brick from the old guard is finally dislodged. 

In a way, “Father Frank, Full of Grace” becomes an even more poetic finale because the Gallaghers’ loss of Frank also functions as a metaphor for Showtime’s loss of Shameless. “Father Frank, Full of Grace” is a celebratory finale that’s emotional, beautiful, crude, and chaotic more than it’s a metatextual conversation about Showtime’s legacy. However, it all contributes to an overwhelming sense of closure and fresh beginnings, which is exactly what Shameless’ series finale needed to deliver.

Frank’s nagging mortality is a major catalyst for this series finale, but it’s also remarkable to see how most of the Gallaghers have already moved on. Frank may not technically be dead at the start of the episode, but he’s metaphorically been a ghost for decades. Any love is lost at this point and Frank’s belabored transition to the other side is treated like a temporary nuisance, as if it’s a toilet that needs to be unclogged. 

Frank lets out a surprised, “Well, fuck,” upon the realization that he’s not dead and that was also pretty much my reaction to this news. Frank’s death feels like a foregone conclusion and the cyclical nature of his story in this finale steps on the toes of the past few episodes. It’s an emotional moment when Frank does pass on, but it also turns this finale into a prolonged waiting game whereas last week’s conclusion came as a legitimate shock.

Frank’s detached actions as his ailing body moves on autopilot are a frustrating component from this finale. The material feels sloppy and like it’s just another opportunity to get more of a morose, haunting performance from out of Macy. I’m still not convinced that it’s the best decision for this last episode, but Frank’s out of body experience and his flashbacks contain some of the finale’s most touching moments. 

Frank’s thoughts on his family and these glimpses of the cast back in season one aren’t overused and their impact is felt. Even the brief return to a shut down Patsy’s Pies connects as Frank takes in the South Side with fresh eyes for one last time. It’s a messy storyline, but thematically it’s sound. It’s no coincidence that Frank is there, but he isn’t, through most of this episode. It’s the perfect distillation of his involvement as a father for his kids. Frank’s spirit is ever present, but he spends this final episode in a cathartic form of isolation. 

Frank spends this installment lost in the past while everyone else braces for the future. There’s still residual Gallagher drama, but “Father Frank, Full of Grace” largely waves a magic wand to either fix all of these problems or at least provide a solid roadplan for what lies ahead. This finale makes a very conscious decision to be about celebration and unity rather than stress and conflict. All of the Gallaghers’ dilemmas aren’t solved, but they never will be, and the acceptance of this allows this finale to confidently conclude and not get lost in the weeds. A lot of ground gets covered, some of which doesn’t necessarily feel like the best use of time in a series finale, but”Father Frank, Full of Grace” never feels rushed and it allows each Gallagher–even an unconscious Frank–several opportunities to shine.

Lip enters this finale with the most stress and arguably exits with the most support and prospects for the future. It’s genuinely nice to see Tami and Lip reach a place where they’re able to healthily communicate, listen to each other, and work as a team. Tami is almost a little too understanding considering how much recent instability has entered their lives. It’s a little convenient that several of Lip’s delivery runs are also situations where technologically impaired people benefit from Lip’s knowledge in the area. It’s left unresolved if this is enough to kickstart Lip into some tech-based job where he heads down a different direction in his life, but it offers a sliver of hope in the area.

This finale offers teases, not answers, for what’s to come for Lip and this open-ended attitude carries over to the rest of the Gallaghers. Debbie’s accelerating relationship with Heidi sticks out the most here and it feels strange to spend so much time on a completely new character in the series finale. The red flags from Debbie’s relationship get balanced out with how enjoyable everything is with Mickey and Ian. They engage in several real, vulnerable conversations here that reflect how functional they’ve become. The baby talk is really pleasant, but the surprise wedding anniversary is even better and not made super obvious.

This season of Shameless, more than any other, has pulled from reality for a lot of its material regarding Chicago’s social climate. This is typically strong material for the series’ satirical perspective and it’s naturally integrated into the story.  However, the injection of current politics and conspiracy theories that Mickey and Ian are briefly exposed to feels less subtle and like the show just wants to fit in some “Sleepy Joe” commentary before it’s over. Similarly, it seems kind of unnecessarily loaded that after a lifetime of recklessness it’s ultimately COVID-19 complications that takes out Frank and not his rampant alcoholism or drug use. These moments are brushed past quickly and don’t derail the narrative, but they feel awkward in the moment.

“Father Frank, Full of Grace” is a rather safe finale that doesn’t have any major surprises. Those that were expecting a Fiona cameo may be irritated over the finale’s direction, but it should have been pretty obvious that Shameless wasn’t interested in this type of finish. Fiona wouldn’t have radically changed this finale, but I’m genuinely curious if John Wells reached out and did attempt a brief return or if they’ve both fully moved on by now.

I’m also a huge Spoon fan, but even I thought it was jarring that the Gallaghers and the Alibi patrons just happen to know all of the words to “The Way We Get By.” I understand that it’s meant to offer some connection with the pilot episode’s ending, but diegetically the Gallaghers have never had a connection to the song. It seems like there would be plenty of more appropriate songs, with Chicago origins, that would actually have significance to these people. It’s still a very sweet moment for Shameless to end on, even if the logistics are slightly flawed.

All of this is to say that “Father Frank, Full of Grace” is a convoluted episode, but its final ten minutes where the Gallaghers are deep in the throes of celebration is exactly how this series needed to go out. All of these characters bask in each other’s company, demonstrate their appreciation for each other, and reflect on how much they’ve matured. Lip and Ian’s brief heart-to-hearts have been a highlight from this season and their final chat here where the gratitude for Lip’s role as a surrogate father figure for the family is conveyed becomes even more powerful considering the nature of the episode.

This series finale features Frank’s death and significant life changes for characters, but “Father Frank, Full of Grace” still has a very lowkey energy that makes it feel like many of its other finales. This is the end, but it’s not difficult to picture another season of the show that picks up these loose threads and everything reverts back to “normal” after a few episodes. Sometimes finales that check every box and go out of their way for endless closure can feel manufactured and contrived. It’s appreciated that Shameless doesn’t take this route. 

Hopefully these new decisions will stick, but the problem with Shameless is that it’s conditioned its audience to frequent changes and a return to the status quo. “Father Frank, Full of Grace” works hard to buck that trend, and it’s largely successful, but it’s also easy to picture these characters consumed with stress and doubt on the day after the events of this finale. This final season builds new futures for all of the Gallaghers and they all still have a lot to learn, but “Father Frank, Full of Grace” leaves most of the characters in empowered positions where lasting change feels achievable and not just a pipe dream.

Shameless’s final season has functioned as a showcase for Frank and it’s always been “his” show, even though he hasn’t always been the series’ focal point. “Father Frank, Full of Grace” underscores this and becomes a lowkey tribute to Frank with how it paints a bright and happy future for his family. The opening minutes of Shameless begin with Frank Gallagher’s voice over as he dotes over his family, all of which have become wonderful despite Frank. Shameless’ series finale concludes in the same manner of reflection and the Gallaghers are even united around another communal fire this time around.

The major lesson that Frank pushes in his parting words are to appreciate the time that you have, even if it’s stupid, and to not waste your life. Shameless’ final season didn’t always use its time in the most effective manner, but they clearly had fun every step of the way. Shameless’ final season is a shell of the poignant and challenging family drama that emerged in season one, but they’ve always appreciated their time and the stories that they’ve gotten to tell. Shameless, much like the Gallaghers themselves, was messy, but never lacking in love. That sentiment has never been more true than with “Father Frank, Full of Grace,” which goes out on its own imperfect terms.

cnx.cmd.push(function() { cnx({ playerId: "106e33c0-3911-473c-b599-b1426db57530", }).render("0270c398a82f44f49c23c16122516796"); });

See you later, Shameless. Love you too, asshole.

The post Shameless Series Finale Review: Father Frank, Full of Grace appeared first on Den of Geek.

from Den of Geek https://ift.tt/3tnieOg

[astyle-alex]

Slavery is Not the Sith You’re Looking for...

(AKA: this is why I HATE pretentious grown-up books that try to pass themselves off as Literature) --_--’

This was an excellent summer-story beach-read. I deeply enjoyed it. The pacing was not my favorite, but it was the expected vibe from a grown-up purportedly High Literary historical fiction novel.

In a few too many ways, it was your standard 'slavery is bad ' story, and it took the grown-up route of utter ignorance in pushing that line further to say 'slavery is evil and it's inconceivable that anyone ever thought otherwise unless they, too, were evil humans' which is just plain modernist and pathetically essential-ist.

Yes. Slavery (particularly in the ‘New World’) was atrocious.

And Yes. To say otherwise today makes a person pretty much straight up evil.

But that is not a truism. It should not be treated like one.

Especially, not in a novel that comports itself like High Lit...

Now, this is gonna get long and a bit ranty, but I am an Academic and I will DIE before I don’t ARGUE, dang it!

Now, consider the facts:

It was not always the case that to believe in slavery as a sort of 'natural order' made you a morally bankrupt person. That is putting a modern lens on things that modern people cannot fully comprehend. Just like a grown up does NOT genuinely remember what it was like to be 16 or to be 10, a 21st century person cannot even recognize that they are viewing history through a very rosy lens. The truth of the matter is that in 1812, slavery in some form or other had been a fact of how society functioned for over 6 thousand years and it was honestly far more bizarre for someone to say, 'You know what? This is probably bad...' and a lot of that even had to come from how New World took the established order and heaped an unbelievable list of extra abuses onto it.

Slavery, in most nations, came to a natural end as the societal system it supported evolved. In the Americas, that societal system was artificially and intentionally maintained by a sort of aggressive racism unique to the West. In most slave-nations prior to the West's development, slaves were not racially inferior or species-separate or anything like that. People of all races owned people of all races. It was just a money thing.

This is not to say racism, wasn't a Huge Thing (Imperialism is a very terrible thing itself, and the subjugation of others based on country of origin is a long-standing terror of our humanity), but that's a separate statement. Racism and Slavery were not intrinsically bound together outside of direct and immediate conquest. Once a new place was conquered by the Empire, the old lowest-people rose up in the ranks, and if you had enough money you could buy a slave of any race even ones theoretically high up the ladder than you.

That does, admittedly, vastly over simplify things. But I'm not trying to make a nuanced argument (at least no more nuanced than to make it clear I find both racism and slavery abhorrent).

What I'm saying here is that this story should have had a few characters, both black and white, who believed in the institutions they were raised within without that believe automatically forcing them into villain roles. Fear of change, belief in the status quo, confusion about why it mattered so much to some people... All of that should've been more prevalent in this novel.

The fact that there wasn't a single character in 1812 Barbados that fully believed in the current Natural Order who was not ultimately painted as an utterly depraved and immoral individual was just plain creepy.

The concept of slavery didn't survive for SIX THOUSAND YEARS because everyone always knew, deep down, that it was wrong. We aren't a species of creatures so heinous that we can look at something we know is wrong for SIX THOUSAND YEARS without doing anything about it.

We didn't do anything because we didn't see it as wrong.

Honestly, at the heart of it, we sorta still don't.

The concept of free labor hasn't gone away. Unpaid Internships are the modern indentured servitude. The requirement of X years of experience to allow you access to a job force you need to be involved with in order to survive is heinous.

Yes, Interns have things like rights and safety guarantees and legal backstops, but they're pretty basic rights. Your employer isn't even required to feed you, just give you time not-working to feed yourself, buying food to do so with money you aren't allowed to make.

Slavery, through most of its history, included ASPCA levels of animal-abuse protections. Food, provided freely and regularly; body security and autonomy (ie, no direct injury or sexual abuses); recognition for good service and the ability to be a person with a name and a backstory and HEALTHCARE (instead of just an employee number with the last-line protection of company liability pay if you get grievously injured on the job you don't get paid for).

Were there abuses? Yes.

Was most of human history a string of abuse after abuse? No.

People voluntarily sold themselves into slavery, or at the very least, term-indentured themselves, pretty dang regularly throughout history.

Because sometimes, the promise of regular meals and decent healthcare was legitimately preferable to starving to death. Like right now.

Not kidding. There are legitimately countless studies out there of how MODERN PRISON is a preferable state of being for human than getting shunted into an unpaid internship. (Some of them are even legitimately academic and peer reviewed, but those take longer to find for free-viewing than I want to spend right now, so: here, here, here, and here, will have to do, though most of these are just about the poor ethics of the Unpaid Internship concept).

And yet, thousands of people in America alone don't see the problem with it.

So, likewise, thousands of people in 1812 Barbados should've not been able to see the problem with it. And as a pretty well-researched author, Willig should have known that and accommodated for including it.

It is NOT COMFORTABLE to be lead through a story where slavery is just okay, I wholly admit that (and am frankly, glad for it).

But literature is not supposed to be comfortable.

It's supposed to make you FEEL what the author thinks you should be able to SEE, because its right in front of your face and wrong but not acknowledged.

I am not saying, in any way, that a slave-believer should have been the hero. But someone should've been, at least sympathetic, to the Status Quo.

Also, there was just such a fixation on the 'Slavery as an evil institution thing', that the little love stories didn't get much attention which made them feel cute but rather hollow. I loved the moments we got to see the two couples being cute, but they were so few and far between that I got lost.

I LOVED the comments on being so unsure of your own feelings that you make the mistake of wanting your partner to be sure enough for the both of you, but that was the only message in the whole story besides 'slavery is bad'.

It was good, and a great beach read. Really goo. I deeply enjoyed it.

To be perfectly frank, while reading, I couldn't put my finger on why I didn't love it. And I couldn't figure out why I didn't want to review it until I sat down and forced myself to actually get started with reviewing it, (I actually read this over my little vacation in the second week in August, and put off reviewing it until a few days before you guys see this post).

But it wasn't literature, and I'm pretty disappointed in the lack of legitimate social commentary.

Still, I do recommend it as a casual slide of simple, summery fun.

- Alex (^_~)<3

[brokehorrorfan]

Best New Horror Movies on Netflix: Autumn 2017

There's an overwhelming amount of horror movies to sift through on Netflix, so I've decided to take out some of the legwork by compiling a list of the season's best new genre titles on Netflix's instant streaming service.

Please feel free to leave a comment with any I may have missed and share your thoughts on any of the films you watch. You can also peruse past installments of Best New Horror Moves on Netflix for more suggestions.

1. The Void

Not afraid to wear its influences on its sleeve, The Void is a fun amalgam of genre favorites such as The Thing, Hellraiser, Prince of Darkness, The Beyond, and Assault on Precinct 13, along with a healthy dose of H.P. Lovecraft for good measure. The '80s inspiration is furthered by a plethora of practical effects and a pulsating, John Carpenter-esque synthesizer score. Set in the most understaffed hospital since Halloween 2, a small group of people fight to survive against Lovecraftian monsters and cultists. A lot of the plot points are familiar, but the astonishing effects are more than enough to make it feel fresh and exciting.

2. The Transfiguration

Like a modern take on George A. Romero's Martin, The Transfiguration is a subversive vampire film. It's also an urban coming-of-age tale with social commentary. The plot concerns an adolescent boy (Eric Ruffin, The Good Wife) who is a practicing vampire in New York City. Not just an avid watcher of horror films - although he name-checks plenty of them - he partakes in murder to drink blood. He begins to question his outlook on life when he befriends a girl who's also an outcast (Chloe Levine, The Defenders). Although largely a somber, dramatic film, there are a couple of truly shocking moments. Due to how raw and real it feels, this one will stick with you.

3. The Devil's Candy

Written and directed by Sean Byrne (The Loved Ones), The Devil's Candy combines elements of haunted house, demonic possession, and home invasion movies, all with a lean toward heavy metal music. It follows a struggling artist (a nearly unrecognizable Ethan Embry, Can’t Hardly Wait), his wife (Shiri Appleby, Roswell), and their teenage daughter (Kiara Glasco, Map to the Stars) as they move into a new home. Meanwhile, the house's disturbed former resident (the great Pruitt Taylor Vince, Constantine) returns, and he takes a liking to the young girl. It's akin to a 1970s slow-burner with modern sensibilities. The restrained approach allows the audience to become more invested in the characters, building toward an unpredictable and emotionally draining final act. Read my full review of the film here.

4. A Dark Song

A Dark Song is an engrossing slow-burn horror film predominantly told with two actors in one location. The story involves a grieving woman (Catherine Walker, Ferocious Planet) who seeks the aid of an unstable cultist (Steve Oram, Sightseers) to perform an elaborate ritual that allows you to ask a guardian angel for a favor. She wants her deceased child back, but this is far from a Pet Sematary retread. It's all about the build-up, with some genuinely creepy moments along the way before it culminates in a tense finale. Irish writer-director Liam Gavin makes a powerful debut anchored by strong performances.

5. What Happened to Monday

What Happened to Monday is set in the not too distant future, when a strict one-child policy is enforced in an effort to preserve the planet. Noomi Rapace (Prometheus) stars as septuplets, who hide from the government by sharing a life; each one only goes out during the day of the week for which they’re named. When Monday disappears, the other six siblings must track her down before someone else does. Rapace wonderfully diversifies the seven parts, and it's quite impressive to see them all seamlessly interacting with one another in the same shot. Willem Dafoe (Spider-Man) plays the girls' grandfather who raised them, while Glenn Close (Fatal Attraction) is the head of the agency stripping families of their children. Tommy Wirkola (Dead Snow) directs some superb action sequences in this sci-fi mystery thriller.

6. American Fable

American Fable is true to its name, often playing out like something of a dark fairy tale in the country’s heartland, but its fantastical elements largely take a backseat to a rural drama with mystery/thriller elements. Writer-director Anne Hamilton, who got her start as an intern on Terrence Malick’s The Tree of Life, makes a dynamic feature debut. Set in the 1980s, the story revolves around Gitty (Peyton Kennedy, Odd Squad), an 11-year-old girl with an affinity for storytelling. She finds herself in a real-life fairy tale upon discovering a man (Richard Schiff, The West Wing) imprisoned in a silo on her family's struggling farm. The picture is an admirable American complement to Guillermo del Toro's Pan's Labyrinth; not only are their stories thematically analogous, but they also share a similar horned creature. Read my full review of the film here.

7. Here Alone

Here Alone is a zombie movie in which the zombies are almost never on screen - and that's not a bad thing. It depicts the hardships Ann (Lucy Walters, Power) must endure and the elaborate precautions she must take in order to survive, weaving between two different points in time: early in the apocalypse with her husband (Shane West, A Walk to Remember) and their baby, and the present when she befriends a fellow survivor (Adam David Thompson, Mozart in the Jungle) and his teenage daughter. Director Rod Blackhurst (Amanda Knox) delivers a subtle, dramatic character piece with shades of The Walking Dead by crafting dynamic characters backed by engaging performances.

8. Little Evil

Tucker and Dale vs Evil writer-director Eli Craig returns to horror-comedy with Little Evil. Having perfected his deadpan delivery on Parks and Recreation, Adam Scott makes awkward an artform as a man who believes his new wife's (Evangeline Lilly, Lost) 6-year-old son is the literal Antrichrist. The supporting cast, underutilized as they may be, is also great, including Bridget Everett (Patti Cakes), Clancy Brown (The Shawshank Redemption), Tyler Labine (Tucker and Dale vs Evil), Donald Faison (Scrubs), and Sally Field (Forrest Gump), who is Craig's mother. The most obvious influence is The Omen - it's even name-dropped in the movie - but there are also references to the likes of Poltergeist, Ghostbusters, Children of the Corn, Rosemary's Baby, Child's Play, and The Shining. It's not always laugh-out-loud funny, but it remains entertaining throughout.

9. Patchwork

Patchwork is like a modern take on Frankenhooker with a dash of Re-Animator for good measure. It may not be as masterful a blend of horror and comedy as those '80s classics, but it's delightfully absurd just the same. It also offers a bit of social commentary, namely regarding the issues modern dating women face. Three girls - stuck up Jennifer (Tory Stolper), naive Ellie (Tracey Fairaway, Hellraiser: Revelations), and weird Madeline (Maria Blasucci) - are murdered, sewn together, and brought back to life by a mad scientist. They must learn to coexist in the same body in order to exact revenge. Cleverly conceived by director Tyler MacIntyre (Tragedy Girls), the girls are portrayed as one Frankenstein-ed creature in some shots and as three individual women in others.

10. Death Note

While purists decry the changes that Death Note made from the popular Japanese manga on which it's based, those with an open mind (or, like me, unfamiliar with the source material) ought to enjoy this Netflix original film. A book labeled Death Note literally falls from the sky to the feet of Light (Nat Wolff, Paper Towns), granting the high school student the power to take the life of anyone whose name he writes inside. Quickly realizing its power without fully recognizing the responsibility, Light dishes out vigilante justice remotely, killing criminals and becoming a worldwide phenomenon. Also mixed up in it are Light's love interest (Margaret Qualley, The Leftovers), his detective father (Shea Whigham, American Hustle), a mysterious man trying to catch him (Lakeith Stanfield, Get Out), and Ryuk (Willem Dafoe, Spider-Man), the monstrous keeper of the book. There's a definite sense that the story has been condensed, things may have been lost in translation, and the fast pacing takes away from the weight of the situation. It may not be a highlight of his filmography, but director Adam Wingard (Blair Witch, You’re Next) delivers a fun, stylish movie with some gory, Rube Goldbergian deaths a la Final Destination.

Bonus: Castlevania: Season 1

Castlevania is a Netflix original animated series based on the classic Konami video game series. Season 1 consists of only four episodes totaling around 90 minutes, resembling more of an anime film than a show, but it ends without a conclusion to the story. Thankfully, a second season is already in the works. Following the murder of his wife, Dracula summons a scourge of goblins to destroy the region of Wallachia and dismember every person along the way. Trevor Belmont, the last in an infamous family excommunicated for dealing in black magic while slaying monsters, leads the charge to bring down the legendary vampire. It's heavy on exposition, but each episode contains a couple of big action scenes to hold viewers over through the abundance of dialogue. Adult language, violence, and gore are on full display, looking great in old-school-style animation. The series is written by comic book scribe Warren Ellis (Red) and stars the voice talents of Richard Armitage (The Hobbit), James Callis (Battlestar Galactica), and Graham McTavish (Preacher).

[dailyaudiobible]

10/31/2017 DAB Transcript

Lamentations 4:1-5:22; Hebrews 2:1-18; Psalms 103:1-22; Proverbs 26:23

Today is the 31st day of October. Welcome to the Daily Audio Bible. I’m Brian. Of course, it's awesome to be here with you today as we prepare to close down the 10th month of the year. Today is the 304th day of the year, which leaves us with 61 steps to go to the finish line. And, also today, we will conclude the book of Lamentations. So, let's get to that. We are reading from the Good News translation this week. Lamentations chapter 4 verse 1 through 5 verse 22 today.

Commentary:

Okay. So, we’re quite a bit of ways into the book of Proverbs and we have been dispensed. Each day, a bit of wisdom has been given to us that is practical and usable and true. And we also notice that it deals with all of the different postures and issues of our lives, encouraging us in the path that leads to and operates within wisdom. But we also have to acknowledge that where it is taking is now, the territory that we are going through right now, is pretty close to home, because its dealing with the things that were saying and how that affects things and it uses metaphors that we can understand to show us what we’re doing, which gives us a great opportunity to ask ourselves, ‘is that what I want to be doing with my words’. In other words, if this is what is happening, is that who I want to be? So, let's look at this proverb. Insincere talk is how this proverb begins. So, what are we talking about we talk about insincere talk? We’re talking about language or the portrayal of an emotion that is not authentic, that is not genuine. In other words, we don't mean what we’re actually saying and we don't feel what we’re actually portraying or saying it because it's what we feel like we should say or we’re exaggerating what we’re saying or what we’re portraying ourselves to be feeling, we’re exaggerating and stretching that beyond what is true and authentic. And the proverb says this is cheap talk. And we know that euphemism. We know that proverb - talk is cheap. This is what we’re talking about. But underneath that, we have to understand that it's a sham. It's not true. It's not genuine. It's not authentic. It’s not real. It veils the truth. It hides what you’re really thinking. So, as the proverb goes, ‘insincere talk that hides what you really thinking is like a fine glaze on a cheap clay pot’. So, if we’re looking at the metaphor, then the clay pot is made of cheap materials is maybe poorly constructed, isn’t going to hold together all that well, maybe it's porous and actually won’t hold liquid, and so there's a glaze that’s put over the top but that's going to break down and it's going to leak, which probably brings us to another euphemism -  that won’t hold water. That’s what we’re talking about here. So, this glaze is slapped on top of it to make it look like it's a finely crafted piece, but it's not. It's cheap. It’s going to hold up. It's not what it's being presented to be. So, put that starkly, as the Proverbs are prone to do, we immediately have the mirror that the Scriptures become up in front of our faces and we have to examine ourselves. That’s the invitation of the proverb. Do you want to live wise or not? If you do, then this is this is what you need to pay attention to. This is what the Proverbs teach us. So, we have to look at ourselves and say, am I true, am I real, am I authentic and genuine in the things that I communicate or is most of this a sham? I don't think there's anyone listening right now that's like yes, yes, every day I roll out of bed and see how fake I can possibly be and when I lay my head down at night, if I can feel like I fooled everyone, then mission accomplished. Like, I don't think we live our lives that way. But using this proverb and the metaphor that it presents us, we might find that we very much are participating in insincere talk throughout any given day. And according to the proverb, we’re trying to pass off something as valuable that is cheap. And if we’ll pay attention to this proverb, if we’ll put it in our hearts and walk through this day observing ourselves, we’ll probably catch ourselves. And as we observe ourselves being this way, then we have the opportunity to name it and change it.

Prayer:

Father, we come into Your presence asking for Your help with this, the false places inside of us that just come spilling out all kinds of social situations. How is it that we can be true and sincere and present in our language, in our speech, rather than peddling something off that isn't true? Come Jesus we pray, we need Your help, and we ask for in Your name. Amen.

Announcements:

dailyaudiobible.com is the website. It’s home base. It’s where you find out what's going on around here.

What has been going on around here for the last week is the Global Campfire Initiative and that initiative will be concluded today. It was our hope to move through a week of the initiative and then be able to move forward in the development that we’ve been talking about. And, so, before the days out, the Hatch Prints will be gone. There are a few left. You can still certainly get involved. I don't know what else to say to say that I am humbled that we can do this together and that we have done this together and that you’ve cared that were in this together and were doing this together. That is so heartening to know that there are passions about the spoken word of God in community that are beyond my own. So, thank you. And if you do want to participate, dailyaudiobible.com is the place to go. Just scroll down and you'll find the Global Campfire Initiative. And thank you for helping us finish this strong and completely. From the bottom of my heart and the heart of all of the team, everybody who's involved in writing lines of code or praying or whiteboarding or dreaming, thank you.

Of course, one of the things that we do very well around here is pray for each other. If you have a prayer request or comment, if you’re shouldering burdens, there’s a place to bring them and have them shouldered together in community. 877-942-4253 is the number you can dial.

And that's it for today. This concludes the 10th month of our year together, concludes the month of October. I'm Brian I love you and I'll be waiting for you here tomorrow as we begin a new month.

Community Prayers and Praise Reports:

Good morning my Daily Audio Bible family. I hope you are well. This is Erin in Michigan and I am calling with a prayer request for my niece, that she would turn back to God and also to take care of yourself. She has health issues and needs to eat well and sleep well and then do her college work. So, just lifting her up and holding her out to God because I know that she's been chosen by him and has a great purpose in life. Lord, just ask for truth, health, and strength to get there. And my main request, Lord, and family, is to pray for me. I am embarking on a path that leads towards working towards racial reconciliation and I want to arrive in a church that believes that this is the church's work and I totally and fully believe that as the body of Christ we are the ones to heal the divisions that have long been not even recognized as a division. So, Lord, I lift up our churches. I lift up our brothers and sisters of color, Lord. And I lift up those of us in the church, as it is our work to heal the racial divide that has scared our country since its inception. So, thank you for praying with me family. I love you and I hope you have a wonderful day. Bye.

Hello Daily Audio Bible DABbers. This is Dianne B. from Newburg, Indiana and I’m calling to mainly pray for Rayna from LA. Sister, I am in your shoes right now and want you to know that hang in there and just obey Psalm 91 -  the secret place. Get in the secret place every day. Focus on that. Focus on the word. Focus on worship. And I hear your pain and you feel hopeless. And people are saying, ‘what's wrong with you’? And you love your job and you were free of fibromyalgia once but it’s come back full force. And I stand with you sister. I stand with you and I am fighting with you in my own battles in similar ways. So, every single day I am going to lift up your name to the Lord and I am going to pray that you be restored better than you were before because it is (singing) Him whom we love, it is Him whom we follow, it is Him whom we trust, it is Him, Jesus (singing stops). God bless you sister. I am going to pray every day. Shalom, shalom. Nothing is missing. Nothing is broken.

Good morning DAB family. This is Cheryl from Arkansas. And I have a prayer request today and ask that all of you guys, myself included, that we pray for our sisters and brothers in Puerto Rico. I pray that we the Spirt of Jesus and the love of Jesus when we think of them and our hearts go out to them and that we treat them as one of us and that we treat them as the sisters and the brothers that they are, just like the sisters and the brothers to the right of us and to the left of us in the different states and cities within the United States. I ask that you pray with me, that we pray for the love that we have unconditionally and that we not treat them any differently because they’re not different. And that's my prayer. And I just thank you guys are praying with me. Thank you, have a good day. Bye-bye.

Almighty and powerful God, I come to you tonight on behalf of Lee, who confessed his sin of anger to the DAB family. We are told to confess our sins, one to another, and to pray for one another and as the DAB family we do that right now. At the same time, You tell us, if we confess that You are faithful and just to forgive us and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. Father God, Lee’s anger must have been like a powder keg, he lost control and the flames were explosive, not just singing the relationship with his wife and his 13-year-old daughter but charring the relationship to the point of ashes. Oh, Father the family is deeply hurt. Lee is depleted, feeling unworthy of love and respect and a place within the family. Oh God, I pray that Lee’s anger will not go unchecked, the festering great bitterness. I pray Father, by the power of the Holy Spirit that Lee will embrace as the elective God always because of confession and beloved. Because he is Your child, that he will put on tender mercy, that he will put on kindness, that he will put on humility and meekness and longsuffering as You tell all of us, all of us as Your servants, and as the servants of our family. Father, we can’t do it without the powerful work of the spirit within. Grant it, I pray. At the same time, I ask, that in time that his wife and his daughter and his little son will see that Lee is repentant and they will have listening ears and open hearts and that by Your Spirit You will grant supernatural willingness to forgive and that restoration of the family will be Lees gift from You. Oh, Father I pray in the strong name of Jesus. I leave this petition with You and thank You.