#Rachelle Appelle

[in-love-with-movies]

Weird: The Al Yankovic Story (2022)

[chazraps]

The Weird Al biopic is fantastic - as in the tremendous extras on the newly released 4K/Blu Ray! Here's my full review - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34A1iFU1Gw0

[jayfinch]

Weird: The Al Yankovic Story

[gameofthunder66]

-watched 4/27/2024- 3 [1/2] stars- on Roku channel (free)

84% Rotten Tomatoes

EVAN RACHEL WOOD AS MADONNA IN WEIRD: THE AL YANKOVIC STORY (2022) 

[remi-wolf-music-enjoyer]

remi wolf's cover of telepatia

technically an amazon music exclusive! link to photoshoot ❤

[dreamcatch22]

Here is my latest film review for Birmingham Public Library!

[halogenwarrior]

This is somewhat of a continuation of the post I made recently: but I think Marco and Cassie’s relationship dynamic is a very interesting one. They are on the surface of it the advocates of opposing ideologies, and the closest emotionally to Jake so that he is always feeling the contrasting pull of both. And by connection they are the resident “smart ones” of the group, the ones that tend to notice things others don’t and make the most cogent intellectual arguments. Except that (in a running theme of the series of the contrast of how each character is viewed by others vs. reality, and how those roles they are stereotyped into in the pressure cooker of war affect them) only Marco is really acknowledged and named by the others as “the smart one”, as an appellation constantly referred to them when they are being introduced (Rachel is the brave one, Jake is the leader, Tobias is the one who is a hawk, etc.). Yes Cassie will sometimes get a shout out as being deep or emotionally understanding, but never “smart”, even if she has about as many moments of finding the intelligent solution or realizing something as Marco does. And I think this speaks to how Cassie’s ideas seem too out-of-left field, she thinks “differently” and is likely to be dogpiled by everyone as a result, while as noted in one of the books (can’t remember which) Marco’s complaining and cautiousness (and by extension his ruthlessness) says what everybody thinks but doesn’t want to say, just on a more intelligent and insightful level, it’s the same “genre” but with more insight. Even Cassie herself internalizes it, referring to Marco as the smartest one and herself as a dumb tree-hugger.

Interestingly, the only time I can think of she is referred to as “the smartest one” the way Marco often is by Marco himself in #45. In this book, Marco wants to rescue his mother but, from his position of logical ruthlessness, thinks it would only harm others for his own personal benefit. And then Cassie is the one who is able to come up with an objective reason why saving her would benefit them and their cause, and Marco responds by thinking that “I just wouldn’t again forget that, in some ways, Cassie is the bravest and smartest of my friends”. He appreciates Cassie and her intelligence because when someone else, like Jake, tries to tell him do act with his heart, there’s not much of an argument to it and it is something he can easily debunk, it’s all just foolish and not pragmatic. But Cassie is smart enough to actually make him believe, by his own logic, that he can dare to hope for himself.

There’s also the dynamic between them of selfishness/personal gain vs. selflessness, where it quickly becomes unclear who is supposed to represent what. But just a recap if you haven’t read that: I talked in my earlier post about how Cassie’s fundamental drive/motivation is that the animal world is cold, running on just survival, of oneself and those genetically close to oneself (as she realizes in #9 and has a bit of a breakdown about), and to prove there is something more and the world is not senseless, every sapient being has to use their ability to morally reason (as she articulates in Megamorphs #2) to do whatever an animal wouldn’t. Marco starts out as the opposite, the one out of all the Animorphs who is most associated with personal “survive and protect one’s family” goals. In the early books, he is the most concerned about the risk of death they run, for himself and how it would emotionally crush his father, and often points out that the people they are helping are not people he personally knows or is related to, so why should he risk his life for them? When he decides to fully commit himself to the war, it’s not out of some far-reaching altruism but because he now knows his mother is a Controller and he might be able to rescue her. Contrasting Cassie’s desire to transcend the reasoning of an animal, the ruthlessness that Marco desires is “animal-coded” in #15, where he loves the shark morph for giving him the simple and ruthless animal instinct that allows him to escape his uncertainties and insecurities. 

But something strange happens along the way. Step by step, Marco transitions from using the shark’s logic, the animal ruthlessness, for its typical purpose of survival of one’s genes to expanding it to the whole planet, being willing to appropriate that animal instinct for the benefit of all of humanity even at the expense of his personal benefit (being willing to sacrifice his mother no matter how much it emotionally destroys him) – appropriating the logic of selfishness for a selfless cause, and taking the same risks even though he’s given up on saving what personally matters to him from it. And Cassie’s fundamental driving principle of avoiding that self-serving logic also means avoiding the “animal’s action” even when it would have a great utilitarian benefit, which gradually starts to look an awful lot like selfishness. In #19, Cassie is willing to risk her friends’ torture and death, and in the long run the enslavement of humanity, so she can convince Aftran that there is another way besides parasitism. This makes perfect sense with her convictions, as the animal logic would say the Yeerks are biologically forced to be humans’ enemies, and humans for their own survival must see them as enemies to kill, but her beliefs means she must try to find a way that they can use their sapience to transcend that, otherwise what would be the point of living and winning in the first place? But it’s still a different kind of selfishness; not a selfishness for one’s own preservation, but that of potentially causing much suffering of others so one can personally feel morally sound and avoid despair. And I just love that dynamic where it quickly becomes unclear within the character foil relationship who is supposed to be the selfish or personally driven one and who is supposed to be the selfless, caring for everyone person. Just a fascinating dynamic.

[jtiktok]

Commande avatars Rachel McAdams

Hello hello tout le monde. Je poste ici en espérant que les créateurs et créatrices qui me suivent seront inspiré(e)s par ma requête. Je fais appel à votre talent aujourd'hui car j'aurai besoin de nouveaux avatars pour la belle Rachel McAdams. Bon pas facile déjà de trouver des photoshoot récents mais j'avoue que ça manque un peu de choix dans les avatars et que j'aime voir un peu tous les styles. Alors si jamais ça vous dit, je vous laisse une petite galerie ci-dessous. Merci d'avance à celles et ceux qui répondront. <3 https://imgbox.com/g/y93DJV0esk

[nellie-elizabeth]

Outlander: Carnal Knowledge (7x12)

You ever watch an episode of TV and actively cackle at the events playing out on your screen? I have been in full-on cackle mode for this entire plot thread of this show. It's everything I could have asked for.

Cons:

So, I think sometimes this show's acting is stronger than its writing, by which I mean a stellar performance from Sam Heughan can often elevate a clunky line of exposition, or the genuine passion in Caitriona Balfe's face can elevate an otherwise cheesy moment in dialogue. That remains the case in this situation as well, but there have been a few moments in Jamie's dialogue specifically that felt kind of awkward. It happened last week when he was explaining about not being on the Euturpe, and it happened again this week when he's explaining to John about why he has soldiers chasing him. Just super clunky moments where he's having to lay out basic tenants of the plot for the audience that don't feel naturalistic.

Also - I need to go back and re-read this section of the book again I think, because I was having trouble following the logic of why Jamie needed to drag John with him all the way out of the city. Once he's clear from the soldiers why doesn't he just say "hey, sorry for the light kidnapping, I'm going to run - just say that I hit you and then gave you the slip, and go back home." Like, what extra protection does John afford Jamie on his way out of the city, if the goal is to get a horse and sneak out? It only makes sense if there are still soldiers with their eyes on him who don't want to take him in by force for fear of harming Lord John. A nitpick, but I was distracted by it.

Pros:

But come on. This episode was SO juicy, where to even begin?

I've been really pleased by William's acting this season, I totally believe his distress. He's an inherently good person and, one might think, fairly open-minded and understanding, but this situation is just beyond the pale for him. I loved his conversation with Claire, where she points out that either way you look at it, she is still his stepmother. He's very reasonable and calm with her as he asks for details about Jamie and Geneva, and then when he finally does lose his cool, he storms off and destroys some property but doesn't actually take anything out on Claire.

Of course, later, he does rather hilariously and horribly take it out on Ian. Poor Ian and Rachel sharing the good news of their betrothal, and William says a strained congrats and then turns away, only for Ian to reach out for him with a smile on his face, likely wanting to invite him to the wedding or something, and William just turns around and socks him full in the face. It's darkly hilarious since Ian has no idea that it's coming. Also, this scene is so sad to me because Ian still believes that Jamie's dead, so when William is being all horrified about being Jamie's son, Ian is like "how dare you, any man would have been lucky to be his son." All the while, William could tell the poor guy that his uncle is alive, but fails to mention it in all the excitement. I also liked Rachel being horrified by the violence but also standing by her man when William allows Ian to be arrested.

We also get to meet Jane, a prostitute who William... befriends? If that's the right word? at the height of his despair over the revelation of his parenthood. He's rather awful to her at first, but then later he protects her from being taken by a man who wants to "bugger" her and likes it when the girls don't enjoy it. He takes her upstairs and offers her a night of repose, saying he won't molest her or anything. Jane, who offers William this plain first name in lieu of the "fancy" appellation of Arabella that she uses at work, seems to find William's honor charming enough that she actually does pursue sex with him, even though he's saying that his honor, his word, is the only thing he has left and he doesn't want to abuse it. It's a messy situation, because on the one hand William is saying no and Jane isn't stopping, but on the other, she's trying to give him a kindness in the only way she understands how, and he's so mixed up in the head about what's right and wrong that he doesn't know how to process anything that's happening. We'll see more of this dynamic later, and I'm anxious to see if they make any changes in adaptation...

Last thing before I turn to the juiciest stuff: we do have a moment where Jamie and William confront each other, but there's actually no opportunity for any sort of emotional catharsis or explanation. Earlier in the episode Jamie says he's sorry to John that William had to find out "our secret" and then says they'll find him and explain... but here, Jamie just shoves his son up against the nearest surface and threatens to expose him as a bastard if he doesn't get Ian free from capture. It's Jamie being very pragmatic and dangerous and very much damaging his already completely destroyed relationship with his biological son. Pour on the angst, why don't you!

The opening scene with John and Jamie - I was having the most fun staring at David Berry's face as John and just watching all the conflicting emotions. Delicious. On the one hand, Jamie's alive, and on the other hand, John has to tell him that he's had sex with Claire. I just kept thinking about how this whole scene is undoubtedly the most physical contact these two men have ever shared, what with Jamie tugging on John's arm and guiding him around Philadelphia, and then the uh... other kind of physical contact when Jamie is beating John bloody and John is basically egging him on. It's so twisted to imagine what John is thinking about everything that's happening. I love that he refuses to give Jamie the details, I love that he screams "I'm not bloody sorry" when the soldiers are dragging him away. Jamie spends this episode thinking himself the aggrieved party in this situation, and yeah, sure, hard not to see why he would feel that way - but at the same time, John didn't do anything wrong, in going to bed with Claire, did he? Strictly speaking? I also really loved the fact that when the rebel soldiers first turn up, Jamie's first instinct is actually to stop them from taking John. It's not exactly a protective instinct born of affection in that moment, but there's this sense that instinctively, he knows he and John are a thing separate from rebels vs. loyalists. He knows that this is a personal thing between them, and he doesn't want to hand John over into the hands of people who might mean him harm. The moment where you actually feel like Jamie has crossed a line, in my opinion, isn't really with the punching. It's when he gives John over and lets him be taken as a prisoner.

I could go on and on about the exchange between them, so much of this excellent dialogue is lifted straight from the book - Jamie's initial reaction being this kind of restrained and polite curiosity: "oh, why did you and Claire have sex? How interesting, please explain yourself" is sort of the tone here, and John's bewilderment is also such a treat. His incredulous anger: "What do you mean, why? I thought you were dead!" It's just such a treat for me that for all of the book moments that can't make it to screen, for all of the things they could have chosen to truncate or cut, it's my favorite stuff in the world that's getting the full drawn out treatment.

Then the Jamie and Claire scene, which happens a bit differently than in the books - the fact that it happens at Lord John's residence and that they end up having their reunion sex on his dining room table is frankly just... sending me. But honestly the whole scene is delicious, perfect acting from them both. When Claire is explaining what happened, there's this moment where you think Jamie will have to be moved to understand: Claire has just finished saying that she was contemplating suicide, and that John had the look of a man about to throw himself off a cliff, and that she really needed triage in that moment, that John provided her solace when she was at the depths of despair. There's this look on Jamie's face like he can't help but be moved by the idea of these two people being so deranged in their grief that they did this insane thing they never would have done in their right minds. But then, Jamie suddenly asks, quite calm and matter of fact: "did he bugger you?" And it's such a slap in the face to Claire and to the viewer both. Jamie isn't going to be super-human about this, he isn't going to be emotionally mature enough to accept what happened and move on. He's jealous and he's mean about it, and I love the drama there.

I also feel like this scene elevated the weird emotional triangle between Jamie, Claire, and John, even from what it is in the books. Claire has a line about how she couldn't bear to be alone and also she couldn't bear for John to be alone, and she seems so genuinely worried about John and what Jamie did to him. Then there's the beat right before Jamie decides to set aside the matter (for now), where he talks about how at Helwater, when Geneva died and William was a baby, John saved Jamie's life with his friendship. He's drawing a parallel - both of them know what it is to have John Grey hold you together when you're on the verge of falling apart. Another weird twisted way in which each arm of this triangle act as mirrors to one another. So juicy!

Meanwhile, John's eye is a mess because of Jamie's attack, and Denzel gets word that John is going to be hanged as an example, because he's deemed important enough to make a spectacle out of. So Denzel arranges to help John escape. The end of this episode is framed so amazingly and hilariously, with Jamie and Claire having passionate and re-connecting sex on a table, while John is wearing an eye-patch and in utter disarray, running through the woods as a shot rings out behind him. Lord John Grey's No Good Very Bad Day. Somebody give that man a hug.

So yeah. This whole story-line is the best because it takes my favorite character, Lord John Grey, and just shoves him into such a Situation. I love putting blorbos in Situations, I really do. Can't wait for more of the season to play out - we've got a lot of juicy stuff ahead of us, and I'm so curious as to what makes the cut from the books!

9/10

[claudehenrion]

'' … le plus chaud, depuis...''

Cette phrase, vous l'avez lue et relue, entendue et ré-entendue des dizaines, des centaines de fois depuis... le début de l'été, où nos politiciens et nos journalistes ont été surpris : ''il faisait chaud !''. Cependant, elle a besoin de compléments de temps pour avoir un sens, qui varie du tout au tout avec ou selon les mots choisis. Le premier mot manquant doit désigner un moment récent ('hier'', ''la semaine dernière'' ou ''le mois dernier'' font fort bien l'affaire). La fin de le phrase, en revanche, est plus difficile à inventer, car c'est d'elle que dépendra sa capacité à causer des ravages..

Ce second ''complément circonstanciel de temps'' mérite que l'on passe un instant avec lui, car il doit impérativement sonner le tocsin chez tout lecteur réputé ''normalement constitué'' (NB : en novlangue macrono-progressiste, cela veut dire : gober tout les bobards présentés comme des vérités par les médias et la doxa gauchiste officielle –c'est la même chose !). Ce second ''volet'' du truisme doit donc conjuguer ''être proche pour avoir l'air vérifiable'' –ce que personne ne fait jamais, exemple : le covid !-- et ''être impressionnant tout en faisant plus vrai que vrai'' . On a donc le choix entre ''l'an dernier'', ''les 10 ou les 100 dernières années'', voire, comme en ce moment ''depuis qu'existent des relevés'', ce qui devrait vraiment faire taire toute opposition... à ceci près que ces relevés météo remontent au mieux –ou au pire-- aux années 1855, et que 170 petites années –qui sont longues pour l'expérience humaine-- sont ''même pas rien'' à l'échelle cosmique où se mesurent et se commentent les phénomènes climatiques.

Résumons-nous : la phrase la plus rabâchée ces temps derniers n'a pas la moindre signification à l'échelle du phénomène météorologique –et a fortiori climatique--dont elle voudrait rendre compte de manière à forcer des décisions radicales et définitives... mais absurdes puisque sans aucun lien avec le sujet dont ils croient parler : à partir du constat d'un réchauffement climatique qui semble incontestable en l'état actuel de nos connaissances, ils ont réussi à faire croire à une majorité de leurs semblables que c'est eux, hommes blancs, qui étaient les seuls responsables du désastre dont ils annoncent la survenue imminente depuis des décennies prédiction jamais réalisée mais dont ils maintiennent néanmoins l'occurrence prochaine ('Le Printemps silencieux'' de Rachel Carson, bible de la soi-disant religion prétendue écologique, date de 1962).

Or, s'il est une chose que l'été 2023 nous aura démontré comme à plaisir, c'est la fausseté –déjà bien connue par beaucoup-- de toutes les théories émises par le Giec et reprises en chœur pas ses thuriféraires : l'été et même l'automne, furent parfois caniculaires en Europe, mais cette chaude réalité ressentie ne permet en aucun cas de généraliser des impressions soit disant ''expliquées'' (sic !) par des faux statisticiens en mal de fin du monde, qui se servent des chiffres pour démontrer des mensonges, en ayant recours à des traitements dilatoires des ''outils'' statistiques dont nous disposons... et qui mériteraient un autre usage !

Car il est une chose dont personne ne peut douter : la succession de vagues caniculaires qui a frappé la France (et quelques autres pays d'Europe) depuis fin juin sont dues, exclusivement, à des remontées aléatoires (puisque dues à ''El Niño'') de gigantesques ''bulles'' de chaleur venues du Sahara, ce qui appelle deux commentaires : (1)- le Sahara n'est pas connu comme un pourvoyeur majeur de CO² d'origine humaine : zéro embouteillage, zéro diesel, zéro ''SUV'', zéro de ces monstrueux transatlantiques qui polluent plus qu'un million de voitures thermiques chacun… et par voie de conséquence, (2)- aucune possibilité d'établir (de bonne foi, s'entend) le moindre lien entre leur présence et nos émissions de ''gaz à effet de serre'', à l'opposé de tous les commentaires de nos cuistres radio-télé qui se concluent, de manière pavlovienne, par une accusation du CO², devenu le fantasme n°1 qui agit comme une drogue ! C'est pitoyable !

De manière plus générale, l'étude des couches géologiques révèle que le climat a varié tout au long de l'existence de la Terre, alternant les phases froides et chaudes de manière naturelle. Le dernier Petit Age Glaciaire s'est terminé vers 1850, et la période de réchauffement actuelle n'a donc rien de surprenant. En fait, ce réchauffement est bien plus lent que prévu... mais le fossé entre le monde réel et le monde tel que nos savants sans savoir l'ont modélisé montre que nous sommes loin de comprendre le changement climatique : l'édifice de ''la politique climatique'' est bâti sur des modèles inadéquats qui présentent de nombreuses lacunes et ne sont pas fiables en tant qu'outils politiques : non seulement ils exagèrent l'effet des gaz à effet de serre, mais ils ignorent complètement les bienfaits de l'enrichissement de l'atmosphère en CO²...

Contrairement à tout ce qui nous est raconté à longueur de ''JT'', le réchauffement climatique n'a pas augmenté de manière scientifiquement démontrable le nombre ou l'intensité des catastrophes naturelles : aucune statistique ne prouve qu'il intensifie peu ou prou les ouragans, les inondations, les sécheresses et tous les autres types de catastrophes naturelles, ou qu'ils les rend plus fréquents. En revanche, les preuves existent que les mesures pour tenter (en vain, c'est une autre certitude : ce n'est pas possible !) de réduire le CO² sont aussi dommageables et liberticides que coûteuses.

'' Il n'y a pas d'urgence climatique, et donc aucune raison de paniquer ou de s'alarmer. Nous nous opposons fermement à la politique nocive et irréaliste de zéro CO² net proposée pour 2050. L'adaptation vaut mieux que pour la réduction, car avec elle, on peut espérer atteindre un résultat réel'', affirme le professeur Steven Koonin, pourtant ancien sous-secrétaire aux sciences du ministère de l'Énergie d'Obama (pas un modèle, à mes yeux, par ailleurs !), professeur à l'Université de New York, membre de la Hoover Institution, et auteur du best-seller ''Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't, and Why It Matters'' (= L'indémontré : ce que dit la science du climat, ce qu'elle ne dit pas et pourquoi c'est important-- 2021)., qui considère immoral de demander aux pays en développement de réduire leurs émissions alors qu'une grande partie de leur population n'a pas accès à l'électricité, et qui ose affirmer qu'il est du dernier pervers d'effrayer les jeunes générations (Rappel : en janvier 2022, 84 % des adolescents américains croient que ''si rien n'est fait, il sera trop tard pour les générations futures, car une partie de la planète sera devenue invivable'', ce qu'aucune preuve scientifique n'a, évidemment, jamais démontré..

Tout se passe comme si personne ne voulait admettre qu'une grande partie du changement climatique est causée par des éruptions solaires contre lesquelles nous ne pouvons rien … sans parler des grands incendies de forêt dont le risque est exacerbé parce que les faux écologistes refusent de débroussailler les sous-bois de crainte que telle ou telle créatures qui pourrait s'y trouver ne soit dérangée (par autre chose qu'un incendie de forêt qui va les tuer).

De plus en plus nombreux sont les citoyens qui trouvent que les milliards d'Euros annuellement consacrés à une lutte sans espoir contre un changement climatique dont les forces obscures nous échappent pourraient être mieux utilisés... Combien de temps faudra-t-il pour que ceux qui les dirigent (vers des catastrophes en série, annoncées depuis longtemps mais toujours niées par les aveugles-par-système) sortent de leur torpeur addictive, et voient la réalité comme elle se présente ?

H-Cl.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Rachel Leingang at The Guardian:

In his first campaign rally after being convicted of 34 felonies, former president Donald Trump recalled how he just went through a “rigged” trial with a “highly conflicted” judge despite there being “no crime”. The court cases Trump faces have become a mainstay of his campaigning throughout the last year, where he frequently tells his followers that the charges are a form of election interference and designed to tamp down the Maga movement. “Those appellate courts have to step up and straighten things out, or we’re not going to have a country any longer,” he said.

Trump spoke at a Turning Point Action event in sweltering Phoenix, at Dream City church, a megachurch where he and Turning Point have held rallies in the past. The extreme heat led to some waiting outside for the venue to open to need medical attention for heatstroke. Trump held a rally at the same church in 2020, during the height of the pandemic, when church leaders claimed to have an air-purification system that killed 99% of the Covid-19 virus. Turning Point Action is the campaign arm of Turning Point, the conservative youth group founded by Charlie Kirk, a figure in the Maga movement. The former president also took aim at Joe Biden’s recent executive order limiting asylum seekers, which Trump called “bullshit” and said he would rescind on his first day in office, should he win. He condemned Biden on immigration and ran down Trump administration border policies, saying his Democratic rival could solve immigration problems by reinstating all of his old policies. “Arizona is being turned into a dumping ground for the dungeons of the third world,” Trump said.

While immigration is a top issue for voters nationwide, it is especially acute in a border state like Arizona, which Trump hit on in his speech. He wistfully recalled the days of former Maricopa county sheriff Joe Arpaio, infamous for his strict immigration policies that led to frequent lawsuits and financial settlements, and brought Arpaio on stage for impromptu remarks. Trump kissed Arpaio on the cheek, then said: “I don’t kiss men, but I kissed him. We had a real border with this guy.” Arpaio called Trump his hero.

[...] For the Trump faithful, the convictions have become a point of ire against the other side and something akin to pride. Shirts and signs at the Phoenix rally said “I’m voting for the convicted felon”. Trump repeated claims of a stolen election, saying the Democrats “used Covid to cheat” in 2020. He welcomed Kari Lake, the losing gubernatorial candidate in 2022 who is now running for Senate, and Abe Hamadeh, the losing attorney general candidate now running for Congress, claiming that they won their races but their elections were rigged.

In his first post-felony conviction rally, Convicted Felon Donald Trump went on his whinefest about the verdict that served him 34 felony convictions, attacked President Joe Biden’s MAGA-lite executive order on asylum, and continued his lies about the “stolen” election of 2020.

See Also:

Daily Kos: Convicted felon Donald Trump gives big kiss to disgraced former sheriff Joe Arpaio, who he pardoned

[swedesinstockholm]

28 janvier

j'ai pleuré toutes les larmes de mon corps en écoutant une émission sur l'amnésie traumatique à la radio cet après-midi. surtout au moment où le présentateur a lu un passage du livre de l'intranquillité de fernando pessoa et qu'il parlait de la vitre qui existe entre lui et le monde. à la fin de l'émission une femme a laissé un message pour dire qu'elle aussi s'était mise à pleurer en l'entendant et j'ai recommencé à pleurer à gros sanglots. je pleurais à chaque témoignage dans lequel je me reconnaissais. j'avais trainé le fauteuil de la salle à manger jusque dans la cuisine pour regarder le ciel et les oiseaux plus confortablement et je faisais que pleurer. j'arrivais même pas à manger mon morceau de gâteau marbré. j'ai noté ICV et EMDR sur une liste de courses qui trainait sur la table. j'ai toujours pas rappelé la psy numéro un. ni le dentiste.

hier après-midi alors que je me morfondais sur le canapé j'ai rouvert mon fichier intitulé the show qui est une longue liste de choses à potentiellement intégrer à ma perf et y avait "violette leduc comme youtubeuse". alors je suis allée ouvrir mon dossier violette leduc et je suis tombée sur un passage de la chasse à l'amour dans lequel elle parle de sa fausse tentative de suicide. elle essaie pas vraiment de se tuer, elle se contente de se lamenter sur son sort en se comparant aux murs (qui ont plus de tenue qu'elle) et en se demandant qui la regrettera (le robinet détraqué) comme la drama queen qu'elle était. je me suis sentie un peu réconfortée par ses jérémiades. elle appelle la mort mme verglas. je l'aime tellement. je me reconnais dans ses difficultés à être mais aussi dans son écriture qui est très orale et rythmée. elle rime même dans ce passage. je l'ai lu plusieurs fois à voix haute et ça m'a donné envie d'en faire un truc. peut être que je pourrais l'intégrer à ma perf, comme j'y parlerai de la mort, peut être que je peux inviter violette leduc dedans, la faire dialoguer avec ma mort à moi.

ce matin sur le parking de la forêt j'étais allongée sur le siège arrière de la voiture en attendant que maman et c. finissent leurs étirements, je les entendais vaguement discuter et j'entendais les voitures passer sur la route et j'entendais la voiture d'à côté qui reculait et j'arrivais à être complètement détachée du présent. mais pas dans le sens de la vitre de fernando pessoa. c'était moins négatif. j'entendais le bruit de la voiture qui reculait à côté comme un bruit situé dans le temps, un bruit appartenant à une époque sur le déclin, un bruit qui va bientôt disparaitre, qui aura existé que quelques centaines d'années, à peine, un instant minuscule sur l'échelle des temps géologiques, et moi j'ai existé pendant ce bref intervalle de temps, en même temps que le bruit des voitures. pourquoi?

autres trucs: j'ai regardé beaucoup d'épisodes du podcast de rachel bilson et melinda clarke sur newport beach et je me suis rendu compte que seth cohen me faisait penser à r. ça va mieux ma mélancolie. sans doute parce qu'on a passé la semaine à s'écrire. y a pas de mystère. hier soir en voyant f. avec sa copine (j'évitais soigneusement de les regarder à chaque fois qu'elles se faisaient des câlins) ça me donnait une seule envie: avoir r. à côté de moi. parfois je me demande si la raison pour laquelle j'arrive pas à m'en remettre en fait c'est juste parce que je veux pouvoir prouver à tout le monde que je suis normale et que moi aussi je peux avoir quelqu'un qui m'aime assis à côté de moi. c'est l'idée de notre couple, l'image, le symbole, le message. je voulais être assise à table avec lui et que tout le monde soit charmé par notre relation tendre et complice et notre humour désopilant. rachel bilson aussi elle voulait le couple parfait avec adam brody et ça va faire vingt ans qu'ils se sont séparés et elle s'en est toujours pas remise. peut être que mon obsession adolescente pour newport beach a bousillé mon cerveau.

vazy j'ai encore été interrompue par nul autre que r. ça fait trois heures qu'on s'envoie des chansons et qu'on discute de yacht rock et des subtilités des synthés 80s et qu'il fait son snob ultra plus plus et puis il m'envoie un gros truc de tangerine dream en me demandant j'ai besoin de ton avis à sept minutes t'aimes bien ce passage? i need your take on this et j'avais l'impression qu'il disait ça pour me mettre dans sa poche parce que je vois pas en quoi il aurait besoin de mon avis, mais il sait très bien que j'y suis déjà dans sa poche, et puis pourquoi il voudrait me mettre dans sa poche d'abord?

mais c'est pas de ça que je voulais parler, enfin si je parlais de notre couple parfait à table chez c., de notre magnifique couple par opposition à celui de f. et sa copine s. (je suis un monstre), hétéronormé et bien habillé. hier soir j'avais envie d'avoir l'air le plus classique possible (carré bien propre, pull bleu marine à col montant, pantalon en velours noir, converse. bon c'est juste ma tenue de tous les jours en fait) quand j'ai vu s. j'ai eu cette réaction viscérale de vouloir me démarquer d'elle et de f., de dire je suis au dessus de tout ça moi, je suis sophistiquée, je suis intemporelle, j'ai pas besoin de me faire une coupe mullet arc-en-ciel informe pour être subversive, je suis subtile, et surtout j'ai bon goût. pourquoi je suis comme ça? c'est pour me protéger, protéger mon petit coeur blessé, ou je suis juste trop française? j'avais les mains gelées malgré le feu dans le poêle et la fondue et f. me les a tripotées avec ses mains chaudes jusqu'à ce qu'elle en ait marre. j'ai bien aimé ce petit moment de communication non verbale très doux, je voulais plus que ça s'arrête.

[mylifeincinema]

My Week(s) in Reviews: January 1, 2023

First and foremost... Happy New Year!!

Okay... now let’s get into it. I’m keeping these short because I have little to say about them or they’re going to be featured in My Best of 2022 shortly, anyway, so let’s just go with the old three things format for most of these, yeah? Good.

The Fabelmans (Steven Spielberg, 2022)

1. Wholly feels like the film Spielberg’s been working toward.

2. That final shot is the reason (as if I needed another one) why Spielberg is my favorite director.

3. I’m going to be genuinely shocked if this lands anywhere other than on top of my top films of 2022. - 10/10

Glass Onion: A Knives Out Mystery (Rian Johnson, 2022)

1. What a cast!!

2. A ton of fun, and it chooses an approach and sticks with it. If you’re underwhelmed with the ‘twists’, that’s kinda the point.

3. Seriously, though... what a cast!! - 8.5/10

Babylon (Damien Chazelle, 2022)

What a clusterf*ck…

It’s very clear Chazelle lost the thread about 40% in. Cutting that whole Tobey storyline would help. Also cut the opening scene, just start on the party. Tighten up Margot’s arc, we didn’t need that snake shit. Cut Jovan’s arc complete, there’s enough there thematically for a separate film. Give that to someone who can tell it in a way that’ll actually resonate. Leave everything with Brad Pitt alone. He was fantastic and his arc is the only one that felt like it progressed and ended naturally. Beautiful, tragic, interesting shit, right there. Actually loved the ending, but a bunch of other late moments for Diego felt sloppy/rushed. The phenomenal editing helps some of the more upsetting issues throughout, but can’t save the film from the total loss of cohesion in the those final acts. Despite all its many flaws, though, I still pretty close to loved about 65% of this film. - 6/10

Avatar: The Way of Water (James Cameron, 2022)

1. Visually stunning. Probably the easiest VFX win since the last, right?

2. Someone should give Fincher the money for his 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea... if this film is anything, it’s proof the tech has reached the point where Fincher’s vision is not only possible, but feasible.

3. Has James Cameron actually ever heard two people talking to each other? My God, that dialogue is atrocious. (The screenplay all-around, really.) Yikes. - 6.5/10

Weird: The Al Yankovic Story (Eric Appel, 2022)

1. This is not only the perfect approach to a Weird Al biopic, I’m pretty sure it’s the only approach to a Weird Al biopic.

2. Very funny if you’re familiar with Yankovic as a person, downright hilarious if you go in only knowing his music.

3. Evan Rachel Wood as Madonna... I repeat, Evan Rachel Wood as Madonna. My God! - 7.5/10

Emily the Criminal (John Patton Ford, 2022)

1. Aubrey Plaza is really damn good.

2. So is just how terribly things go in that third act.

3. The rest... not so much. I really don’t get all the hype. - 5/10

Black Adam (Jaume Collet-Serra, 2022)

1. This is a very bad movie. Very easily one of the worst of the year.

2. Any promise Dwayne Johnson had every shown has been tossed in the garbage for terrible line delivery and tough-guy stares.

3. Pierce Brosnan deserved better than this. An interesting character and perfect casting completely wasted in favor of whatever this shit was supposed to be. - 2/10

The People We Hate at the Wedding (Claire Scanlon, 2022)

1. Not a good movie by any stretch.

2. But Kristen Bell.

3. And Allison Janney. - 5.5/10

A Christmas Story Christmas (Clay Kaytis, 2022)

1. Corny as f*ck.

2. But the type of corny I can get behind.

3. And that Christmas morning was the obvious tear-jerker material I’m a sucker for. - 6/10

The Shop Around the Corner (Ernst Lubitsch, 1940)

1. James Stewart really is one of my all-time favorite actors. Just always so damn good.

2. Love me some Lubitsch, yet for some reason I have so many blind spots with him.

3. I know we live in completely different times, but even looking through the scope of the time, that ending seemed a bit forced. Still a delightful film overall, but she must’ve been really desperate to let the shit he pulled go. - 7/10

Elvis (Baz Luhrmann, 2022)

1. Significantly better than I expected. But painfully overlong.

2. Austin Butler is fantastic. Tom Hanks is (somehow) borderline awful.

3. Baz Luhrmann’s direction is god-awful. But there’s a shit-ton of it, so I guess the Golden Globes look at Directing like the Academy does editing, now. - 5.5/10 (Almost all of those 5.5 are for Butler and the early performance sequences only.)

Enjoy!

-Timothy Patrick Boyer.

[krispyweiss]

Movie Review: “Weird: The Al Yankovic Story”

There’s another world in “Weird: The Al Yankovic Story.”

This is a world where accordions make women swoon and may be illegal. On this plane, Tiny Tim, Pee-Wee Herman and Wolfman Jack are contemporaries; “Eat It” is an original song and “Beat It” is a parody; and Led Zeppelin will to reunite if they can open for Yankovic, whom refused an invite to play with Queen at Live Aid.

And the titular character - played flawlessly by Daniel Radcliffe - has been dead since 1985.

“Weird”’s mockumentarian pile of bullshit - much of it hysterical; some of it groan-inducing - is so high, it makes “This is Spinal Tap” look like serious movie-making. Which is its charm as director Eric Appel makes sure to include virtually every cinematic cliché - fights scenes, montages and flashbacks among them - in lying about Yankovic’s life and career.

“We agreed it would be best for us all if you would just stop being who you are and doing the things you love,” Yankovic’s mom says to her son in setting the path.

Overly long at 110 minutes, “Weird” makes ample use of its runtime, with a staggering lineup of bold-faced names - Will Forte, Jack Black, Lin-Manuel Miranda, Conan O’Brien, Emo Philips and Jimmy Walker Jr. among them - making cameos as Yankovic launches his career after Dr. Demento (Rainn Wilson) discovers him wowing a skeptical biker-bar crowd with a stirring rendition of “I Love Rocky Road.”

There’s a torrid affair with Madonna (Evan Rachel Wood), who is skewered mercilessly throughout the movie, and more murders than in a typical “Halloween” flick.

“I’ve killed so many people this week … the things we do for love, huh?,” Yankovic says to Madonna after he offs an entire drug cartel in the Columbian jungle.

For its part, “Weird” doesn’t kill. But it’s a worthwhile investment of time for whiling away an empty couple of hours.

Grade card: “Weird: The Al Yankovic Story” - B-

1/19/23

[stephaneparede]

Chant mélancolique

Entends-tu, si lointain, ma voix,

Entends-tu là-bas,

Voix d’un intense appel, voix qui sanglote,

Et par-delà le temps lègue sa bénédiction ?

Vaste l’univers, multiples les chemins

Qui se croisent imperceptiblement, s’écartent indéfiniment,

Un homme cherche, mais ses pas vacillent,

Il ne pourra atteindre ce qui est perdu.

Le dernier de mes jours approche déjà peut-être,

Déjà approche le jour des larmes d’adieu,

Je t’attendrai jusqu’à ce que ma vie s’éteigne,

Comme Rachel attendait son ami.

Scruter deux lignes depuis longtemps écrites :

L’encre est presque effacée,

Le papier froissé a jauni,

S’exhale une odeur ancienne.

Oh le toucher léger, la force profonde

De la main du souvenir !

Voici l’offrande du signe, nulle offrande que le signe –

Et le lointain devient proche.

Rachel Blaustein

[christophe76460]

MÉDITATION MATINALE DU LUNDI 07 OCTOBRE 2024.

THÈME: Le droit de réclamation de Satan et des démons.

Verset clé : Ge 31v30 : " Maintenant que tu es parti, parce que tu languissais après la maison de ton père, pourquoi as-tu dérobé mes dieux ?"

Contexte: Ge 31v1-37

La réclamation ayant différents aspects, nous restons absolument dans le contexte de notre méditation matinale.

Jacob prit toute sa famille et fuyait son oncle Laban parce qu'il se sentait menacé par ce dernier.

La première raison de la poursuite de Laban fût que Jacob partit de sa maison sans le prévenir. Mais Dieu l'avertit de ne pas toucher à Jacob, Ge 31v24, 29. Si c'était la seule raison de Laban, il arrêterait la poursuite de Jacob. Qu'est-ce qui poussa donc Laban à continuer la poursuite et Dieu ne put pas l'en empêcher ?

La raison est que "... Rachel déroba les théraphim de son père;" (Ge 31:19). Dès lors Laban avait le droit de les poursuivre et de revendiquer la restitution de ses objets enlevés et même l'auteur serait puni, Ge 31v32. C'est le droit de réclamation, de revendication, de restitution par le propriétaire de ce qui lui été dépossédé. Dans ce cas le propriétaire a le droit de réclamer un dédommagement. Voici ce qui est légal et qu'exige la justice pour toute réparation.

Qu'en est-il sur le plan spirituel ?

Après avoir accepté Jésus-Christ et s'être repentie, si une personne refuse volontaire d'abandonner un péché ou des péchés (vole, colère, haine, adultère, etc) Satan et ses démons ont un droit légal de réclamation sur la vie de cette personne. Ils (Satan et les démons) la (cette personne) poursuivront jusqu'à ce qu'elle paie au plus fort pour leur avoir volé leur propriété (le péché). Bien aimés dans le Seigneur arrêtons de voler Satan et ses démons.

C'est pourquoi

1- le Seigneur demande une repentance sincère et une vie qui en est digne, Matth 3v8,

2- le Seigneur nous appelle à une vie de sanctification et non d'impureté, 1Thessa 4v3

3- la présence volontaire du péché dans la vie d'un chrétien empêche Dieu d'agir, Esaïe 59v1-3.

"Si vous savez ces choses, vous êtes heureux [bénis et favorisés par Dieu], pourvu que vous les pratiquiez [fidèlement]." Jn 13:17.

Et "Soumettez-vous donc à [l'autorité du] Dieu ; résistez [fermement] au diable, et il fuira loin de vous." Jac 4:7.

Que le Saint-Esprit nous aide.

Pasteur SALANI Patrice Avraham.