#Hammie Nixon
Explore tagged Tumblr posts
Text
Sleepy John Estes with Hammie Nixon and Yank Rachell.
43 notes
·
View notes
Text
"Sleepy" John Estes' Near Death Experience
What happens when a man who's blind in one eye almost drowns after a bridge collapses? We get one of the most harrowing songs about a near death experience.
Background:
Sleepy John Estes was born on January 25th, 1899 in Ripley Tennessee. He was 14 years old when he lost sight in his right eye when a friend threw a rock at him. By age 19 he was performing locally at medicine shows with friends Hammie Nixon and Yank Rachell. In 1937, he was travelling with these friends over country roads when they drove over a folding bridge. The bridge collapsed and the car sank to the bottom. Thankfully, Hammie Nixon rescued him from the car and he was able to be revived.
The Song:
youtube
The first group of lyrics is great because it sets the scene perfectly.
Well, I never will forget that floating bridge Well, I never will forget that floating bridge Well, I never will forget that floating bridge Tell me five minutes time underwater, when I was hid
When I was going down, I throwed up my hands Yeah, when I was going down, I throwed up my hands Now when I was going down, I throwed up my hands Lord, please, please take me on dry land"
Underwater for five minutes, John likely thought he was going to die in that sunken car. He began to think of the moments of regret in his life. Particularly when his mother told him that needed to make something of himself and get his life together.
Now my mother often taught me quit playing a bum
Now my mother often taught me quit playing a bum Go somewhere settle down and make a crum
We don't get a resolution to these thoughts as John's life was saved and the only thing on his mind is the fact that everyone survived the experience and what will happen to them next
All the people on the bridge was screaming and crying. Well all the people on the bridge was screaming and crying. All the people on the bridge stood screaming and crying, Saying, "Lord have mercy, wher's we g'wine?"
3 notes
·
View notes
Text
Here’s the whole article, for those who want it without the paywall:
Good Omens’ Michael Sheen and David Tennant — TV’s new odd couple
by Dan Einav MAY 31 2019
The words “apocalypse”, “Antichrist” and “demon” are not exactly synonymous with romance, but for Michael Sheen the new TV series Good Omens is largely defined by the “same material that underpins romantic comedies”. The actor is alluding to the fact that the six-part adaptation of Neil Gaiman and Terry Pratchett’s beloved Armageddon-set novel revolves around the unlikely relationship between his character, Aziraphale, an effete and eccentric angel, and the Satanic nogoodnik Crowley, played by David Tennant, as they conspire to prevent an end-of-days battle between Heaven and Hell.
I meet Sheen and Tennant in a fittingly infernally overheated room in a London hotel. For Sheen, the two supernatural beings they play are “the ultimate odd couple”, who have sustained a friendship over six millennia despite everything indicating that they should be mortal (or rather immortal) enemies. Not only because they embody the dichotomy between good and evil, but because they are essentially cosmic versions of the bickering, codependent pair played by Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau in the film Sheen references.
Aziraphale is the prim and proper one, modelling himself on an 18th-century dandy, while Crowley is impish and louche, more like a faded rock star than a disseminator of iniquity. They are unapologetically hammy roles — unlike the meatier ones in which the two actors have excelled in the likes of Frost/Nixon, The Damned United (Sheen), Broadchurch (Tennant) and Hamlet (both) — that could have felt contrived if it weren’t for the lively on-screen rapport the two have cultivated.
Their compatibility as a comedy double act is especially impressive considering that they had never shared a scene or stage before. When I ask how they set about creating a chemistry that we’re to believe has developed over 6,000 years, both are quick to deflect attention from their efforts, conferring praise instead on Gaiman, who wrote the scripts for all six episodes. “The chemistry is on the page. Those characters feel alive when you read them”, Tennant says, “[the rest] is being responsive to the person you’re playing with.”
This receptiveness is clear when we meet. Sounds of approval from one punctuate answers given by the other, and appreciative laughter meets every quip. Occasionally they bypass me altogether, directing their responses to each other. They’re terrific actors, so you never know, but this closeness feels entirely genuine.
Seeing this friendship in action I wonder whether they’d had a notably enjoyable shoot, one that made it difficult to heed the advice a young Sheen was once given by the venerable actor and director Fiona Shaw, to be careful not to enjoy himself too much.
��He’s not taken Fiona’s advice!” Tennant chuckles gleefully, but Sheen insists that he does indeed follow Shaw’s gentle admonition to this day. “Here’s the trick: you want people to think you’re having a good time, and we were, but the worst thing is seeing people enjoying themselves too much in the wrong way. It’s our job to make it look like there’s a sense of playfulness and life. What Fiona was getting at is ‘don’t enjoy your [own performance] too much’, don’t let it become indulgent.”
Tennant agrees. For him, it’s lighter roles in particular that demand a considered deftness, even if the characters are as cartoonish as they are in Good Omens. “Trying to make a soufflé can be harder than making sourdough!” he says, visibly pleased with his analogy, before continuing. “The death of comedy is when you start being terribly aware of funny lines. You just have to key into it and keep it real. The minute I try just to be funny is the death of it”.
But Sheen dismisses such self-effacement: “[David] has an innate sense of comic timing,” he assures me. Anyone who saw Tennant’s Hamlet for the RSC in 2008 will already know how skilled he is at disarming audiences by injecting unexpected humour into moments of gravity. “That’s the human experience isn’t it?” says Tennant. “We’re always trying to find the light in everything we can, because otherwise the monotony will take over”.
Despite sending up weighty themes such as religion and morality, Good Omens is at its sharpest when it focuses on the supernatural beings as they immerse themselves — even revel in — the relative banality of human life. They team up to save the world from destruction because they’ve grown fond of all its small delights: gravlax and Glyndebourne for Aziraphale; fast cars and the Velvet Underground for Crowley — far more appetising than anything transcendental. In fact, they are so attached to each other because they don’t quite belong on earth or with their peers in Heaven and Hell.
I put it to Sheen and Tennant that the celestial could be compared to celebrity, and I wonder whether they too have felt alienated by their status. “They’re in between worlds and have gone a bit rogue. I’ve definitely felt that for many years when I lived in America as my daughter was growing up, but I never felt quite at home there,” Sheen reveals. “I’d then go back to my hometown in Wales, but I’d never feel like I’m quite of anywhere. It’s hard to describe certain experiences that you have as an actor”. Tennant adds: “As an actor you can get cosseted and treated in a way that deludes you. You have to ensure the insanity doesn’t get you. I do cherish normality.”
The flipside is that stars are usually personally held accountable when a series fails to meet the expectations of the fans — and lovers of fantasy and sci-fi are often notoriously implacable. To say that a screen adaptation of Good Omens has been hotly anticipated is to understate the extent of the fervour Gaiman’s devotees have for his work.
Do the actors feel anxious about a potential backlash? “I read the book when it first came out, so I’m one of those fans and I’ve felt that weight of expectation,” says Sheen. “But Neil has said all the way through that he’s not making it for the fans, he’s making it for Terry [Pratchett, who died in 2015].”
Tennant, who is no stranger to opinionated fans from his days as Doctor Who, is a little more blunt. “You can’t make TV which pleases what people’s preconceived notions might be. You just have to make something you feel proud of and works for people who haven’t read the book”. Such viewers may find the show a little too winkingly arch and idiosyncratic at times; after all, it revolves around the hunt for the harbinger of Doomsday — an 11-year-old boy who’s mistakenly grown up in a sleepy Oxfordshire village, following a clerical error by an order of Satanic nuns.
But it’s this most absurd of plot devices that Sheen perhaps has in mind when we wrap up by talking about whether the show’s apocalyptic setting may resonate with our volatile world. “The major risk is not some demagogue waging war, it’s people not doing the basics. It’s the everyday mundane stuff that will get us in the end.” That’s a pretty sobering takeaway from what is at heart just a romcom.
This interview that goes back to the premiere of season 1 just details how even reporters feel the chemistry of Michael and David in the room.
This receptiveness is clear when we meet. Sounds of approval from one punctuate answers given by the other, and appreciative laughter meets every quip. Occasionally they bypass me altogether, directing their responses to each other. They re terrific actors, so you never know, but this closeness feels entirely genuine.
#good omens#michael sheen#david tennant#crowley#aziraphale#ineffable motherfuckers#ineffable husbands#ineffable*#gomens*#aziracrow#interview#financial times#David Tennant interview#michael sheen interview#full text#odd couple
271 notes
·
View notes
Video
youtube
hammie nixon -- it’s a good place to go
3 notes
·
View notes
Audio
Sleepy John Estes - Drop Down Mama (1962) John Adam Estes (Sleepy John Estes) / Hammie Nixon from: "The Legend of Sleepy John Estes" LP
Blues | Acoustic Blues
JukehostUK (left click = play) (320kbps)
Personnel: Sleepy John Estes: Vocals / Guitar Hammie Nixon: Harmonica John "Knocky" Parker: Piano Ed Wilkinson: Bass
Produced by Robert G. Koester
Recorded: @ The Women's Club Hall on March 24, 1962 in Milwaukee, Wisconsin USA
Released: in January of 1963 Delmark Records
"The Legend of Sleepy John Estes" is certainly among the Chicago indie label's (Delmark Records) greatest accomplishments. - Alex Henderson (AllMusicCom)
#Sleepy John Estes#The Legend of Sleepy John Estes#Blues#Acoustic Blues#Delmark Records#1960's#Hammie Nixon#John Knocky Parker#Ed Wilkinson#Robert G. Koester#Drop Down Mama#John Adam Estes
10 notes
·
View notes
Photo
88 notes
·
View notes
Text
Batman Movie Villains Ranked from Worst to Best
Recently, a YouTuber I follow by the name of Mr. Rogues released a list of Batman villains ranked from worst to best. I have nothing but the utmost of respect for Mr. Rogues as a content creator, but I took issue with his list because his long-standing biases were often the deciding factor in many of his rankings. So, I decided to do a list of my own.
I’ll be going over every Batman villain to appear in the movies, briefly analyzing their portrayals and ranking them on a scale of 1 to 5. To prevent the list from being too cluttered, I’ll be separating the villains by which movie series they’re part of. Here we go!
Burton/Schumacher Tetralogy
Bane: Perhaps the only villain in this series I’d call “bad.” The calculating tactician of the comics is nowhere to be found here; instead, he’s reduced to a monosyllabic, brain-dead stooge for the other villains. Overall, he does nothing that couldn’t be done by a random henchman. 1/5
Two-Face: A deeply layered villain in the comics, Two-Face sadly gets upstaged by the other major rogue in the movie, but that’s not to say he doesn’t leave an impression. Tommy Lee Jones gives him a manic and mercurial demeanor that, combined with his colorful design, wouldn’t be out of place in the Adam West series. The size and scope of his criminal organization make him a genuine threat, and there’s something darkly fitting about Batman’s former ally being responsible for the creation of Robin. 3/5
Poison Ivy: Mr. Rogues for some reason ranked her as the worst Batman movie villain of all time, and frankly, I don’t see why. Like Tommy Lee Jones as Two-Face, Uma Thurman gives this character a delightfully over-the-top demeanor that combines with a colorful, comic-booky ensemble to make for another great “what-if-this-character-appeared-in-the-Adam-West-series” take. She does a good job juggling the differing facets of Ivy’s character: she’s the put-upon cynic, the craven opportunist, the radical eco-terrorist, and the suave seductress all in one package. 3.5/5
The Penguin: Fuck the Razzies. Danny DeVito made this role his own and set the stage for the character for years to come. He’s a bit of a departure, but a welcome one: far from the refined gentleman of crime Burgess Meredith portrayed, this Penguin is an animalistic thug warped by a lifetime of anger and hatred of the society who rejected him due to his deformities. His signature wardrobe, trick umbrellas, and Penguin gimmick are all there, but DeVito sells the role by showing amazing versatility: he can go from a comical and pitiable weirdo to a terrifying sociopath at the drop of a stovepipe hat. 4/5
Mr. Freeze: I honestly can’t say much about this character that my mutual @wonderfulworldofmichaelford hasn’t already. Arnold Schwarzenegger perfectly encapsulates both popular versions of this character: the flamboyant, pun-loving criminal genius from the Adam West series and the Animated Series’ traumatized scientist desperate to cure his loving wife of her terminal illness. Sure, the puns and hammy one-liners are what this version character is known for, but Ahnold definitely knows when to apply the brakes and give a greatly emotional performance as he tries desperately to cure his wife. 4.5/5
Max Shreck: Probably the only time you’ll see a movie-exclusive character on this list, and deservedly so. Corrupt businessmen are dime-a-dozen in Batman stories, and most of them have little personality outside of being greedy scumbags who either get defeated by the hero or betrayed by the other villains. Shreck, however, is different. Not only does he have an eye-catching fashion sense on par with any of Batman’s famous rogues, but Christopher Walken brings his signature manic intensity to the role, creating a character that’s as wicked and sinister as he is cool and stylish. You totally buy that the general public sees him as the good guy. His warm relationship with his son is also a delight to watch. 4.5/5
Catwoman: Michelle Pfeiffer does a lot to really make the character her own. She gets a lot of genuinely badass moments, but underneath all of her coolness lies the undercurrent that she’s a broken, traumatized character lashing out at the people who abused her and took her for granted. Even when she takes these ideals to unreasonable extremes, you never stop feeling like the retribution she brings on her enemies is at least a little warranted. Also, she has amazing romantic chemistry with Batman and her costume is fucking metal. 5/5
The Ridder: It’s Jim Carrey. 5/5
The Joker: This role is perhaps the one that set the standard for future Jokers to follow: Jack Nicholson’s humorous yet unnerving performance signaled to audiences early on that this would not be the goofy trickster of the Silver Age, but a different beast entirely. This Joker is a film noir gangster on crack: a disfigured mob hitman who quickly takes the entire criminal underworld by storm and unleashes his special brand of chaos and destruction across Gotham. He’s an artist, a showman, a charismatic leader, and the man responsible for ruining Bruce Wayne’s life. 5/5
Christopher Nolan Trilogy
Talia al Ghul: You know that recent trend in Disney movies where a side character we thought was harmless and inconsequential turned out to have been the villain all along in a twist with no buildup or foreshadowing with the reveal happening too late in the movie for this character to really do anything cool or impressive before being unceremoniously defeated? That’s Talia. DKR is the weakest of the three Nolan films, and I feel like it would’ve been much better received without this twist villain contrivedly shoehorned in. Also, while I could kinda forgive the trilogy’s whitewashing of other villains like Ra’s al Ghul and Bane due to the talent their actors display, Marion Cotillard doesn’t get a pass because she just doesn’t have the charisma or screen presence needed to pull it off. 1/5
Victor Zsasz: While the idea of redefining Zsasz as an over enthusiastic mob hitman instead of a serial killer is very interesting, it’s ruined by the fact that he barely even appears in the movie and doesn’t really do or say much of anything despite the buildup he gets. 1.5/5
Two-Face: Aaron Eckhart portrays Harvey Dent as a character of tragedy in a slightly different way than other tragic villains in superhero movies: he’s lashing out at a society he feels wronged him, but instead of being a lifelong outcast or put-upon loser, he was a handsome, successful crusader for the common good who lost everything he once held dear all in one fell swoop. You really feel for him even as he does horrible things. If I had to nitpick, though, I am slightly bothered by the fact that he plays some comic book movie cliches straight (i.e. they never call him by his alias and he dies at the end,) but it’s a solid performance overall. 3/5
Scarecrow: I’ll be upfront and admit that I’m more than a little annoyed that certain facets of the character had been changed in the name of “realism” — once again, they never call him by his villain name and he never wears a comic-accurate costume — but other than that, I can’t complain. Cillian Murphy plays the character with a smarmy, eerie charm that really makes his scenes stand out, his willingness to ally himself with other villains suits his character well, and the fact that he appears in three consecutive films with a different evil scheme in each really helps tie the movies together. 3.5/5
Catwoman: Much like other secondary villains in this trilogy, she really doesn’t get a chance to shine compared to the main antagonist — and, once again, it pisses me off a little that they do the whole “never refer to her as Catwoman but vaguely hint at it” thing — but she’s everything a modern Catwoman should be. She’s sly, manipulative, really holds her own in a fight, has great chemistry with Bruce Wayne... it’s all there. It’s also great to see Anne Hathaway break away from her usual type casting to play a role this dynamic. 4/5
Ra’s al Ghul: He’s a character that was in desperate need of mainstream exposure, and by God that’s what he got. Making him Bruce Wayne’s mentor adds a layer of personal tragedy to the climax where our hero has to stop the man who made him who he is from destroying Gotham with his admittedly brilliant plan. Add in a strong, captivating performance from Liam Neeson before we found out he was a racist asshole, and we’ve got one hell of an overarching villain. 4.5/5
The Joker: Everybody’s already discussed this version of the character to hell and back and likely will for years to come, so I’ll keep it very brief. He’s funny, he’s badass, he’s terrifying, he has great dialogue, it sucks that Heath Ledger didn’t live to see his performance reach the audience it got, and he basically makes the entire film. 5/5
Bane: Mr. Rogues actually ranked Bane higher than Joker on his list, and keeping it 100, I actually agree with him here. Finally, after decades of being dumbed down and misrepresented outside of comics, Bane is finally portrayed as the tactical genius from the comics. Tom Hardy plays Bane to perfection, being very believable as the peak of human physical and mental achievement, the man who broke Batman physically and emotionally. His design is iconic, his every line is quotable, his voice is weirdly fitting, and the memes are funny. 5/5
DC Extended Universe
KGBeast: Another point where I agree wholeheartedly with Mr. Rogues. He is absolutely wasted in BVS, being nothing but a generic henchman for Lex Luthor. He doesn’t wear his costume from the comics, he’s never referred to by his alias, he doesn’t have his signature cybernetic enhancements, and he never does or says anything noteworthy. 1/5
The Joker: Ugh. I don’t know what’s worst: the tacky clothes, the stupid tattoos, the weird Richard Nixon impression that passes as his voice, the fact that promotional material hyped him up as a “beautiful tragedy” of a character even though he’s only in the movie for like 10 minutes and barely does anything, Jared Leto’s toxic edgelord behavior on set done with the flimsy pretense of “getting into character,” or the fact that he’s just trying to copy Heath Ledger instead of making the role his own. 1/5
Victor Zsasz: Chris Messina proves undoubtedly that Zsasz CAN work as a secondary villain in a Batman movie. He’s once again a mob assassin who enjoys his job a little too much, but unlike Batman Begins, he really gets time to shine. He’s just as sadistic and depraved as in the comics, but he also has this disarming, casual demeanor about him like he’s just indulging a hobby instead of slicing innocent people’s faces off. His close friendship with his boss Black Mask adds some depth to the character as well. 3/5
Killer Croc: Sadly, he doesn’t get much time in the spotlight, but he’s pretty cool nonetheless. The makeup and prosthetics used to create him look amazing, and Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje’s deep voice and imposing body language make him really stand out as an intimidating presence. He’s often in the background, which fits his role as an outcast by choice and a man of few words, but whenever he does get focus, he has everyone’s attention. It really would be a shame if this character’s only appearance was in a mediocre schlock action movie, but he makes the most of what he has. 3.5/5
Deadshot: Another highlight of what would otherwise be a forgettable film, Deadshot is just as cool and competent as he’s always been in other media, but this portrayal stands out for one simple reason. Will Smith was a very odd choice to play the role, but it worked out for the best here because you get the sense he truly understands the characters. He’s ruthless and pragmatic, but has just as enough charm and depth to make him likable. 4/5
Black Mask: I, like many, was skeptical when I saw early trailers depicting Roman Sionis as a foppish weirdo who doesn’t wear his signature mask, but upon seeing the final movie, I really feel like he has the high ground over other DCEU villains. Ewan McGregor is endlessly captivating in the role, portraying him as a swaggering dandy who is nevertheless dangerous due to his boundless narcissism and explosive temper. Sure, those who deal in absolutes would be put off from the differences with his comic counterpart — who is far more cold and humorless — but from a certain point of view, this flamboyant take on the character isn’t so much a departure as it is an addition to make him stand out while keeping his role the same. Black Mask has always been a middleman between the traditional mobsters of yesteryear and the colorful rogues that plague Gotham today, and this portrayal perfectly encapsulates that. He works in the shadows, but isn’t afraid to get his hands dirty; he flies off the handle and gets reckless at times, but there’s no question that the whole operation was his idea. 5/5
Harley Quinn: Margot Robbie owns this role. She’s unbelievably dazzling as a badass, funny, sexy antihero who deals greatly with tragedy and proves that there’s always been more to her than her initial role as the Joker’s sidekick. Again, not much to say, but she’s almost perfect. 5/5
34 notes
·
View notes
Text
From the 1964 Newport Folk Festival. From left to right: Rev. Robert Wilkins, Gaither Carlton, Skip James, Arnold Watson, Mississippi John Hurt, Yank Rachell, Sleepy John Estes, Hammie Nixon, and Doc Watson.
38 notes
·
View notes
Text
Star Trek: A Product of the Times
Miniskirts, beehives and bowlcuts, goodness gracious, is there any time that Star Trek could have been made but the 1960s?
The short answer? Not really.
Star Trek was made at quite an interesting time. The Civil Rights Movement, the space race, Vietnam, the Cold War, the hippie movement, and the new wave of feminism was all coming in a wave that swept the nation, turning the country on its head and plunging its people into turmoil. The 1960s were an uncertain time: President John F. Kennedy was assassinated at the beginning of the decade after dealing with the Cuban Missile Crisis, Martin Luthor King Jr. was assassinated near the end, just in time to see the Civil Rights and Voting Act of the mid-’60s come to pass, ensuring equal rights for all. In 1969, America put a man on the moon, Nixon won the election of 1968, and Woodstock closed out the summer of ‘69 with a bang.
This was the world Star Trek was born into: a world full of hope and fear.
You may be wondering why I’m telling you all this, why this all matters.
The answer is extremely simple: to help contextualize, and therefore understand, Star Trek, we have to understand the 1960s.
See, no piece of media is an island. Every movie, every book, tv show and song, is a product of people living in the times, therefore, a product of the times itself. Everything, no matter how much of a ‘classic’, exists as a product of those who created it, people whose thoughts and actions are influenced very heavily by the world they live in, and the culture around them, ‘dating’ them to future viewers.
That’s to be expected.
It makes sense that our culture shapes who we are and what we think, and therefore the kinds of things we create. This, in and of itself, is far from a problem. However, it does leave those of us who enjoy older films with a rather interesting question:
How dated is too dated?
Can we as an audience still enjoy a film that is discernibly made in a time before our own? Is it possible to relate to the content created in a time of different technology, clothes, and, most importantly, a different political and social climate than the one we currently live in?
The fact is, there is nobody and nothing in existence that can stop any piece of media from being ‘dated’ in the sense that, no matter what, whatever is being made will have the impact of the culture it is made in. It simply can’t be avoided. Even films set in the future will feature the hairstyles of the decade it was created in, or use the special effects of the time. This, although sometimes a little odd, does not negatively impact the films that we watch. These things are mere trimming, the external demonstration of the culture of the times. We can watch The Breakfast Club or The Terminator and notice the ‘80s clothes, slang, trends and references, but it does not hurt the core essence of the movie.
So what does?
Ideas.
In my opinion, it is not the styles of a film, but the ideas, the themes, how the world is viewed, that dates a film, more than any beehive or mullet ever could. It is these elements that cause modern viewers to cringe at offensive lines or words, to wince at blatant displays of sexism or prejudice, and sometimes, turn away from older movies forever.
However, ignoring it, and refusing to watch it, doesn’t make anything better. After all, those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it, and although movies and television aren’t quite history, they’re a picture of it.
Looking at the context in which a film was created can help us figure out why decisions were made, and understand how the culture has changed. By looking at where we’ve been, we can better appreciate where we are now, and look to where we are going to be. We can, and indeed, we should look back at older films, and recognize what doesn’t hold up and what is considerably Not Okay, without ignoring what does hold up.
That’s what we’re doing now. Today, we’re answering the question:
How dated is Star Trek?
Let’s take a look.
To be honest, at first glance, it seems like it is. Very much so.
Between very on-the-nose storylines facing off against hippies, racism and the Vietnam war, Uhura’s miniskirt, Yeoman Rand’s beehive, and Chekov’s bowl cut, it seems utterly impossible that this show can exist and hold up in a time period past the 1960s. The special effects are sometimes cheesy, the acting can be hammy, and the moments of ‘progressiveness’ that are so often praised seem rather small.
Uhura was a black woman on the bridge, sure, but she was horrendously underutilized. Female characters regularly wore skimpy outfits and threw themselves at male members of the crew, serving as props, seducers, innocents, and rarely holding any real power. The final episode of the series is about an insane woman who swaps bodies with Captain Kirk because she claimed women weren’t allowed to be starship captains. Evil Kirk’s assault of Janice Rand is brushed off. The main characters are all white, and every minority character is in a supporting role.
It’s easy to look back from the twenty-first century with uncomfortably raised eyebrows and ask: “This was progress?”
All in all, it seems impossible to modern audiences that this show could possibly be as revolutionary as it is often said to be. How can this show be a television game changer, the show that inspired so many and so much good? How can Star Trek be considered so progressive?
Honestly, it’s all dependent on the time.
Looking back, it’s very easy to judge, to turn our backs on a show that is, in a lot of ways, clearly dated. There’s no saving the reputation of the bowl cuts, the campy acting, or the tinfoil bikinis, but, if you will, allow me to contextualize, not just the show, but the culture as well.
The year is 1966, and Star Trek’s first pilot has failed, accused of being ‘too cerebral’, (among other things) and having a woman as the second in command on the ship. The new show, considerably retooled with a whole new crew except for a mixed-race half extra-terrestrial, is set to air, and your crew includes two white American men, the aforementioned half alien, a Scotsman, an Asian man, and a black woman, all in positions of authority on a military ship designed for exploration in deep space.
An Asian man with no stereotypically Asian accent, hobbies, or background was the helmsman for the Enterprise. A black woman was a lieutenant commander, the chief communications officer. They were positioned in such a way that they were unmissable for viewers, and regularly took part in landing parties and missions. They were very smart and very capable.
Now, that’s nothing. Then?
In 1966, that was huge.
While to modern eyes, the show’s claim to progressiveness seemed like the bare minimum, in the time that the show was produced, it was a big deal. The equality on the bridge of the Enterprise, (unquestioned, undiscussed equality) changed television, and subtly forced viewers to question their own prejudices. The idea of a perfect future was one with no prejudice, no distinction among humans.
To quote Kirk himself:
“Leave any bigotry in your quarters; there’s no room for it on the bridge.”
On Star Trek, especially in the Federation, everyone was an equal. No member of the crew was worth more, or treated differently, than any other. Multiple characters (non male, non white) characters are portrayed as high ranking, deserving of equal respect. Sure, now it doesn’t look like a big deal, but in the end, that’s a good thing.
It means that times have changed, and that even in the 1960s, people knew they should change.
In the end, Star Trek remains a good look at a utopian future where everyone is deserving of equal respect and care. Is it perfect? No.
But it was about as good as we can expect: Fair For Its Day.
To quote the TVTropes definition of this specific phrase:
“Something from the past that seems like a huge load of Values Dissonance. It seems laden with, say, a Rose-Tinted Narrative or a Historical Hero or Villain Upgrade.
Only… it turns out it was comparatively Fair for Its Day. Maybe the Historical Hero Upgrade or Historical Villain Upgrade wasn’t that unfair a reflection on the person’s views. Maybe the Rose-Tinted Narrative just wasn’t rose-tinted enough for its original audience. Maybe it was even ripped apart in its own time for being downright insurrectionist, and was brave to go as far as it did. It might even completely agree with modern attitudes, but not do so Anviliciously enough for today’s audiences.”
Such is Star Trek.
The miniskirts? A demonstration of freedom and fashion in the late 1960s. Uhura’s job? As a black woman in the ‘60s in a position of authority, it was groundbreaking. A non-stereotyped Asian man and a non-evil Russian? Unthinkable. Khan, one of the show’s most memorable and well-loved villains? Played by Ricardo Montalbán, a Mexican. Kirk reported to higher-ranking non-white officers.
Does that fix the fact that Janice Rand’s assault was largely brushed off?
No.
But it’s a start.
Star Trek’s legacy is, not in its perfection, but in the fact that it was a product of the times that saw the need for change. It’s impact, it’s importance lies in its guts to push the boundaries of what was acceptable at the time, to be a product of the times that was looking for a better future.
Yes, times have changed, and Star Trek no longer looks as groundbreaking as it did at the time. That’s good. It shouldn’t. But that does not mean that it loses its importance.
Star Trek remains a titan among game-changers in the history of pop-culture, and rightfully so. Very few franchises have the scope of influence and inspiration that Star Trek lays claim to having, and in a true test of its values, continued to expand on them and grow and change with the culture with each version, continuing to strive for the best.
All that leads us to our final question.
Is Star Trek dated?
In some ways, yes. Some of those stories could only have been created in the 1960s. Some interactions were only possible in a bygone era.
In others?
Star Trek’s general concept, and indeed, a lot of its execution, actually does hold up very well. The stories are often just as interesting and compelling as they were when they were first released, and the characters remain as gripping and entertaining, over fifty years later. In terms of storytelling and characters, for the most part, Star Trek is not dated.
After all, the idea of equality, and a better future, is never dated.
Yes, Star Trek is a product of its times. Very much so. However, that fact makes the series no less enjoyable. It was influenced by its culture and its times just as much as it would go on to influence, and even today, it still casts a long shadow on television, and the culture at large. Star Trek stands the test of time, serving as a reminder of times past, while at the same time looking to the future.
In 1966, Star Trek was a visionary concept that ended up changing the world. Just because we’ve seen progress since then doesn’t take away any of its punch, it just shows us that it was on the right track.
Fifty years later, Star Trek is still boldly going, and it will continue to do so as long as people still look for a better, brighter future.
Thanks so much for reading! Don’t forget to use that ask box if you have your own ideas or thoughts that you’d like to share. I hope to see you in the next article.
#Star Trek: The Original Series#Star Trek#Television#TV#TV-PG#60s#Drama#Action#Adventure#Science Fiction#Sci-Fi#William Shatner#Leonard Nimoy#DeForest Kelley#Nichelle Nichols#James Doohan#George Takei#Walter Koenig#Majel Barrett#Gene Roddenberry
5 notes
·
View notes
Text
There’s Something About Movies Interview: Tom Allen
from The Version [link in the notes]
on filming the episodes
It was like… because we’d all been shacked up in our homes for so long, each episode was a few hours, I think! [...] It was just like being at a fabulous dinner party night after night. [...] I don’t know many shows on television where you’ve got Joanna Lumley, Stephen Graham, Gemma Arterton sat there next to Jennifer Saunders, Michael Sheen… and we had all these fabulous comedians, every night was real fun, like a real party. [...] It’s certainly the campest show on television, but it’s also about loving the movies and it taught me to love things I’ve not seen in ages, like E.T., The Grinch, Alien, things I’ve not seen for so long. It was such a scream.
on the movie recreations
Oh god yes, they do throw money behind this show, especially with the film recreations. We recreate moments from Alien. I mean, they recreate these proper film sets from the film and when we look back, if it wasn’t for my completely crap hammy camp acting, you’d think you are watching the film. The way it’s done, the detail is amazing what they do. We did a zombie film, it looked so good. My favourite one was Frost Nixon, which I did with Rob Beckett and Michael Sheen – which of course Michael was in originally. Rob is Nixon in one and then Alan is dressed up as Frost, and he looked the manager of a Bejam. I have this comb-over wig on trying to be President Nixon with an American accent, and I think I sounded more like Cher. Alan is doing an impression of Michael who is doing an impression of David Frost, and he’s taking it very seriously, and that just made us laugh more and more. It was so ridiculous, I generally can’t wait for people to see it.
on anecdotes to look forward to
Joanna Lumley told this wonderful story about David Niven and how she went round to see him with some fish, and how Peter Sellers had a broken heart and she’d taken some fish to mend his broken heart. Only Joanna Lumley would have that experience! [...]
I mean, there’s not really a chat show in the world that would have this mix and calibre of people on it, it’s amazing who we get, and people are really open. Stephen [Graham] was telling us stories about being on the set of The Irishman and working with these amazing actors. He was in a scene with Al Pacino, and there’s a scene where they’re in prison and Pacino’s character has this ice cream and Stephen has to smash it out of his hand, and he said he didn’t tell anybody but he just smashed it out and afterwards… and I’m not doing this story any justice, but wait til you hear Stephen tell it! Rafe Spall tells an amazing story about Madonna.
Actors love telling stories, our show gives them the environment to do that, and everyone gets involved, and I hope that comes across on screen.
3 notes
·
View notes
Photo
Poster for a blues festival in Japan featuring caricatures of Sleepy John Estes with Hammie Nixon and Robert Lockwood with the Aces.
1 note
·
View note
Text
The Tennessee Jugbusters; Mike Bloomfield, Sleepy John Estes, Yank Rachell & Hammie Nixon record with Bob Koester in Chicago, 1963, photograph by Ray Flerlage.
29 notes
·
View notes
Video
vhx
Aside from reviews that consistently drain critics’ supply of superlatives, you’d think it would be hard to find a common thread in Rebecca Hall’s acting career. It’s spanned 25 years (she got her start at 10) with stage, TV and film roles and comprised ingénues, diffident girlfriends, domestic terror victims, troubled career women and manipulative upper-class terrors. Small wonder the Los Angeles Times called her “capable of becoming anybody, anywhere.”
Actually, the thread is easy to spot. You won’t get far into any review of her work before you hit the word “intelligent,” time and again. Most of the women she plays are smart, and the way she plays them is pretty genius, too. Hall doesn’t burn up a screen as much as consume it with quiet intensity, enticing us with slow, subtle reveals of what’s going on inside her characters. The scenery chewing stuff “doesn’t interest me,” she told The Village Voice earlier this year. “One of my unhappiest states is to watch indulgent performances. I’m always looking for a counterintuitive way to do something that doesn’t feel like a repetition of an actor trope.”
Our theory is that she’s an intelligent actor because she’s an intelligent woman. She made her first smart acting choice at age ten. After somewhat reluctantly casting her in his television adaptation of Mary Wesley’s The Camomile Lawn, Hall’s father, legendary British stage director and Royal Shakespeare Company founder Sir Peter Hall, asked her if she wanted to be a child actor or an actor. She chose actor. She’d had her mom’s stash of Betty Davis movies on loop for years and knew exactly what kind of actor she wanted to be, and it wasn’t kids’ stuff. Hall considers her artistic parents (her mom is renowned opera singer Maria Ewing) and complex family life (her dad married four times) a gift; the way she sees it, a nonjudgmental acceptance of life’s ambiguities is one of acting’s primary requirements.
Hall studied English Literature at Cambridge, but dropped out shortly before her final year, ready to get on with what she’d known she was going to do anyway. She was reluctant to trade on her father’s work to secure some of her own but knew the whispers of nepotism would come regardless. So why not take the plunge, get the whispering over with, and prove her own merits, whatever they might be? At 23, she took the role of Rosalind in Sir Peter’s production of As You Like It at the Brooklyn Academy of Music. We’ll let the theatre press tell the rest. On top of calling her “a young actress of glistening freshness and uncanny intuition,” The New York Times wrote, “Not since Vanessa Redgrave’s Rosalind for the Royal Shakespeare Company in 1961 has a performance in the part provoked such feverish, star-making praise…When she finally takes her hat off, letting her hair tumble to her shoulders, she keeps her eyes closed for a second, like a diver before the plunge. She knows that whatever follows isn’t going to be easy. As Ms Hall presents the moment, Rosalind has never seemed braver.” The New Yorker said Hall “exquisitely conveyed the sometimes tremulous combination of knowingness and naïveté that characterizes Rosalind. If you knew and loved Rosalind’s lines, it was thrilling to hear the subtlety with which Hall delivered them.”
A casting director who witnessed the performance encouraged Woody Allen to cast her in Vicky Cristina Barcelona, and suddenly Hall was Hollywood’s new discovery. GQ’s review ran, “In the annals of acting, you won’t find a feat more impressive than the one Rebecca Hall pulled off: almost stealing a movie in which Penélope Cruz and Scarlett Johansson go lesbian. And she did it with fire-eyed soliloquies, not nude shots, and by making her character’s ambivalence about the meaning of betrayal the most heartbreaking conflict in the film.”
Roles in Frost/Nixon, Please Give and The Town followed to equal praise, and the Times doubled down in 2010: “Hall is among the fastest-rising, and most gifted, actresses of her generation.” Never mind she’d been “rising” ever since 2006 with her feature debut in Starter for 10 and The Prestige. Even a risky creep into horror (2011’s The Awakening) paid critical dividends, as did her first truly and deliciously unlikeable turn as Sylvia Tietjens in BBC Two’s Parade’s End(2011).
She topped them all in 2016’s Christine. “In lesser hands, the title role could have been hammy Oscar bait, wrote The Village Voice. ”Instead, Hall portrayed Christine Chubbuck, the Florida newscaster who shot herself to death on live television in 1974, with a low-key intensity that was simultaneously grim and heartbreaking.” And, we’d add, devastatingly human.
Hall has two films (Permission and The Dinner) out this year so far. Her third is Professor Marston and the Wonder Women, a true and fascinating origin story about the creator of Wonder Woman. It’s just now hitting theatres, but by all reports, she’s already stolen it. She’s also writing and painting when she can, and is adapting Nella Larsen’s novella Passing as a screenplay.
That Hall has managed to avoid getting bogged down in any one type of role, or one particular medium, or even in the Hollywood system itself is a tribute to her well-documented intellect. That said, “No matter how crafted or technical a situation is, I still get there through gut feeling.” No real artist operates without the certainty of instinct. She probably knew that all along.
#rebecca hall#video#interview#that's a whole biography right there#could replace the entire biography page for just this lol#off camera#2017
4 notes
·
View notes
Note
Lucas + Sheila (for funsies xD)
IF THEY HAD A KID.@littlelostbluejay
· Name: Hakan, “Hunter” is what his Granddaddy calls him.
· Gender: Male
· General Appearance: look I worked on this meme literally bottom to top you gotta scroll down if you wanna see how this dude looks.
· Personality: Hakan means ‘Fire.’ And he’s had this lit up, sparked up personality since he was a baby. A little older - he is full of mischief and to a less endearing degree, defiance. Even older? Hakan learns he cannot wear his heart on his sleeve. For in worse case scenario, a tail may pop out. And so he learned to play it smooth in his teen years. He presents himself with a charming, chill vibe though his childhood traits (the misbehavior) have yet to leave him. Perhaps they’ll never leave.
· Special Talents: He has a way with - Dogs. (And difficult relationship, with cats. Hammy scratched Hakan once, he still has the scratch over his hand.) Needless to say, the bond he shared with his grandmother’s old Cocker Spaniel was something spiritual. Well, not really spiritual, but still. As a child he would lay on her floor, looking the dog straight in the eyes and vice versa. Humans foolishly think it’s as though Hakan can ‘speak to them.’ Like he’s ‘Doctor Dolittle.’
· Who they like better: Hakan loves his mother in the sense that most young men naturally do. And, Sheila has given him everything he could ever want from the moment of his birth. But, there have been so many moments of arguments and disagreements going as far back as he can remember. Moments where the wolf side comes out when his mother’s up in his face. It’s embarrassing - and when he thinks of the way their interactions can get, he wonders why he behaves the way he does. That being said, he enjoys being with his Father and Grandfather. The type of bond the three men share is truly incomparable to Hakan’s bond with Sheila.
· Who they take aftermore: Sheila. Technically. He has the same firey streak Sheila had in her youth combined with the devil-may-care attitude Granddaddy Lou had before his mother’s birth.
· Personal Head canon: Louis is a cat man – now, he has nothing against his grandson - in fact, he wanted the surname CHILDRESS to be attached to the kid if possible. But he couldn’t help cracking dog jokes which, is where the nickname Hunter came from. Many times, he would lean back in his recliner. Whistle him over, say ‘Hunt me down (X)’ because surely the Wolf Man’s Instincts flowed through him. Sheila hated that shit: because don’t call her child a animal. And so, one of Hakan’s earliest memories is of his mother arguing with his granddad.
· Face Claim: DeVaughn Nixon
Bonus! Him as a Adult. Still DeVaughn Nixon.
#( i hope u like it! )#littlelostbluejay#( DID YOUR FATHER NOT WARN YOU OF THE DANGEROUS WOLF MAN. / LUCAS AND SHEILA. )
2 notes
·
View notes
Text
What day was it, HUMP DAY!!
Yesterday was another day of beautiful weather, errors, dropped pop flies, and pulled hammys.
The Victors and Lenny’s Legends had an epic match up that the sports writers around the country had to cover. Even Lenny, a calm, cool, and collected guy, got fired up in the heat of competition, and threw a cooler onto the field. His team felt his passion and used it to secure a victory. Lenny, your motivation is contagious, but you still get a fine for damaging JetBlue Park property. When Lenny was asked about the fine, his statement pumped up Legends fans far and wide. “It was so worth it”.
Gedman’s Bombers and Stanley’s Steamers were neck and neck fighting for the W to help advance them to the playoffs. For the fans at home, every team qualifies** The Bombers, who were the team to beat at the start of camp, really needed a win to boost team morale, and not let the Steamers steamroll by them. Boy oh boy, they did not disappoint, and scored 2 runs to put them on top, 8-6. With playoffs around the corner, it’s the perfect time for an underdog story. Stay tuned…
Well, it’s a tale as old as time. Corsi’s Fireballers lost, again. And not just by a few runs, but by 12. Nixon’s DirtDogs didn’t hold back, absolutely crushing the Fireballers. Maybe Corsi should stop focusing on roasting campers in Kangaroo Court and start worrying about the standings. FINES FOR THE FIREBALLERS.
Next on the schedule was the Home Run Derby. 8 batters were nominated by their teams to step up and hit the dang ball. It was a battle between rookies (not surprised) Zach Matthay and Brady Fornwald. The crowd was on the edge of their seats at each crack of the bat. “Baby Shark” played loud over the speakers as Zach made his last attempt at the plate. TK was still humming the tune at the crack of dawn this morning. Why, Zach, WHY?!
Brady Fornwald’s performance was one that could not be matched, with 9 points, to win the 2020 Home Run Derby Championship! Brady, a huge congratulations. Wear the belt with pride.
After the campers enjoyed some delicious barbecue, most went back to Crowne Plaza in a state of pure exhaustion and fell asleep until this morning. It was 3 o’clock…. In the afternoon.
The ones who survived, made their way to HeadPinz to enjoy a night of bowling, beers, and banter from Dauber, Trot, and Billy-One-Strike-Mueller. Charley Howe was the expected hot shot, being known around the Fort Myers area as a self-proclaimed semipro bowler. BUT WAIT. Out of the woodwork, with no prior history of bowling expertise, came in FC staff member, Cora Climo. Climo shocked the crowds, bowling a Turkey to start off her game. Climo asked, “What’s a Turkey?” Trot’s mouth dropped to the floor as she then turned around and bowled the ball backwards, through her legs, punishing the pins, and getting the big “X” on the scoreboard. Fantasy Campers in years to come might say that it’s just not possible, maybe an old wives’ tale, but witnesses who saw it will remember it forever. Cora, your story will live on.
Today, we have our first round of playoffs staring at 1:30pm. Tensions are high, muscles are sore, and sights on the Championship are really only in the Legend’s eyes. Follow for more to come…
0 notes
Text
KEEPING IT SIMPLE
Over the weekend we took a road trip and on the way back listened to an old favorite by Blue October: “Jump Rope”.
The chorus goes: “Up. Down. Up. Down. / Life’s like a Jump Rope…”
Feeling that way these days – two weeks ago, we swore off online news and decided to spend the summer reading nothing but (printed) books. And then last week, the Comey Circus comes to town and we’re glued to the newsfeeds, all atwitter with hope and schadenfreude.
So this week we’re taking another swing at simplicity, starting with the new indie release, Maudie.
MAUDIE (2017)
Maudie is a biographical film about Maude Lewis, a woman living in a little Nova Scotia town in Nova Scotia who becomes famous as a folk artist.
Maud Dowly is a small woman with a playful temperament who has been afflicted with rheumatoid arthritis since her teens. In her 30’s she finds herself in need of money and answers a notice placed the local grocery shop by a gruff fish-seller named Everett Lewis. Lewis is looking for a housekeeper, but they end up marrying and living together in his tiny house – giving the locals and Maud’s family plenty to talk about.
Maud starts painting simple, cheerful subjects and gradually becomes famous, first locally and eventually across North America – Richard Nixon buys a painting for the white house.
Everett is played by Ethan Hawke, who has become so entertaining and peripatetic that we keep our eyes peeled for anything he takes on. This is a fun change-up for him. Maud is played by Sally Hawkins, one of those incredibly versatile British actresses who has appeared in everything from Shakespeare to Godzilla. She started out as a Mike Leigh regular, and garnered some buzz as a vaguely similar character in Leigh’s Happy Go Lucky.
The director here is Irishwoman Aisling Walsh, who has been directing prestigious UK TV series for years (Trial and Retribution, Fingersmith, A Poet In New York), but didn’t break out in the feature realm until the 2003 award-winning Song for a Raggy Boy.
HAPPY-GO-LUCKY (2008)
For us, Mike Leigh always conjures kitchen sink realism — Secrets and Lies, Vera Drake. But even Naked is technically a black, black comedy – and then there’s Topsy Turvy, Abigail’s Party, and this one: Happy-Go-Lucky.
Sally Hawkins plays Pauline “Poppy” Cross, a grade school teacher who’s almost pathologically optimistic — Kimmy Schmidt’s even more upbeat British cousin.
When Poppy’s bicycle is stolen, it means it’s time to learn to drive. The driving teacher (Steven Marsan) is her (bi)polar opposite – brimming over with prejudice, bile, and conspiracy theories. Naturally, he falls in love with her. But Leigh’s point isn’t that she’s a fool. Poppy makes it clear that this is not a romance that is meant to be.
The movie leaves you wondering – is it all about serotonin? Or is being ‘realistic’ – as Poppy’s sister urges her to become – a choice? And maybe not such a good one.
This Gerard Depardieu starrer turns the existential question into a critical one. Many writers thought it was contrived and sentimental. But we always check out Amazon reviews too, and “real people” there give it raves and 4.6 stars. Free, incidentally, on Amazon Prime.
The French title is La Tête en Fiche – an expression that means something like “an uncultivated mind”. Depardieu plays a marginally literate handyman with a heart of gold who meets a highly cultured 95-year-old scientist on a park bench.
She is reading Camus’ The Plague, piques his interest, and starts reading it to him. The language and the ideas in the book fire his imagination, and the two start meeting regularly. When her eyesight fails he struggles, with increasing success, to read to her. And when she is sent off to a cheaper retirement home, he tracks her down and brings her to live in his house.
Here at The Thread we tend to fixate on actors, and will watch (almost) anything with Depardieu in it. Marguerite is played by French national treasure Gisèle Casadesus. Casadesus is still alive, now 103. She started acting when she joined the Comédie-Française in 1939 at age 20, and has been at it ever since.
Is the film sentimental? Inevitably. Will you really care? Probably not.
FORREST GUMP (1994)
Since we moved back to the East Coast, Friday nights have become family movie nights, complete with takeout pizza. The challenge is finding titles that everybody will enjoy, from ages 10 to 13 to too-old-to-tell.
As it turns out, John Hughes and Tom Hanks are consistent winners. So a month or so ago we rewatched Forrest Gump.
Home run – and as it turns out, for all concerned. A revelation for the kids and a returning pleasure for us parents.
Like it’s star, the movie accomplishes exactly what it sets out to do. Plus, we realized that we kind of buy the moral of the story: if you just remember that “stupid is as stupid does”, history will take care of itself. Now, if we could just successfully internalize that message…
OF MICE AND MEN (1992)
There are two eminent versions of this Steinbeck classic. One of the things we’ve learned from our Friday night movies is that any film pre-1970 is a gamble and pre-1960 is an extremely specialized taste. If you share that taste, you might want to revisit the 1939 Oscar winner, starring Burgess Meredith and Lon Chaney, Jr.
But for this week’s list, we chose the Gary Sinese’s version. There’s the Sinese/Gump connection; and we like the fact that John Malkovich, who specializes in egghead villains, here plays the simple man-child, Lenny.
Steinbeck’s fable feels inevitably retro – and here we like that tension between the simpler-time, simpler-place and the contemporary actors. And that even with the whiff of anachronism, the story remains inherently heart-wrenching, Steinbeck’s patented tragic disconnect between the moral simplicity we long for and the complexity of the real world.
This was Sinese’s second feature as director and he hasn’t directed anything since. He had loved the novel since boyhood. A few years earlier he played Tom Joad in the 1988 Steppenwolf Theater production (staged by the brilliant Frank Galati, one of our mentors at Northwestern). The screenplay by Horton Foote hews closely to the book. And the acting is appropriately pared down from the sometimes hammy 1939 version.
We didn’t know it until we started researching today, but Sinese is a staunch Republican. He supported both McCain and Romney – but has disavowed Trump.
SLINGBLADE (1996)
As you may have noticed, our subtext has veered from happiness to morality – simplicity as the moral compass in a world of spin.
We keep thinking of couple lines from our favorite Yeats poem: “The best lack all conviction, while the worst/ Are full of passionate intensity.” Which seems to be one of the few sentiments the two ends of the political spectrum share.
Billy Bob Thornton wrote, directed, and starred in Slingblade, another moral fable; and it became his breakthrough achievement. Karl is a simple character whose simplicity is transformed into a superpower: an unerring ability to serve his vision of good with an intensity denied to anyone with a more complex view of the world.
When Karl summarily executes Dwight Yoakam’s abusive redneck boyfriend, he acts with a redemptive purity that these days seems beyond the reach of even superheroes. You have to turn to Clint Eastwood’s Gran Torino for another character who’s so sure of what’s right and so willing to sacrifice his life for it.
KEEPING IT SIMPLE was originally published on FollowTheThread
0 notes