#actors and then inexplicably throw a lot of money at it. i mean a lot of money. this sounds like criticism but i love this stupid stupid | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

thejakeformerlyknownasprince · 5 years ago

Note

Can we have the tea on why firefly getting cancelled was a good call tho?

My confidence on this website grows in direct proportion to my follower count, and thus the opinions I post get steadily more controversial. I actually got a mostly-positive response to my pro-Twilight post, so [glances around nervously] [dons fake beard] here it is:

IMHO, the producers were right to meddle in Firefly after its pilot, and they were right to cancel it after 12 episodes.

I enjoy Firefly. I’ve rewatched “Safe” and “Out of Gas” over a dozen times, I had a Serenity poster on my wall in college, and I’ve got Mal’s quote about statues as an epigraph in my current NaNoWriMo project. However.

First: they were right to kill the pilot. (And I don’t mean Wash.)

The biggest problem with the first first episode, in a nutshell, is Mal. He’s a potentially intriguing character, but he’s not likable, he’s not competent, and he’s not entertaining. No antihero has to be all three, but every antihero has to be at least one, right off the bat. A couple examples of antiheroes that got whole shows:

Dexter Morgan (Dexter) is a literal serial killer, so definitely not likable, but the pilot showcases that he’s terrifyingly competent with cellophane and also has an entertaining interior monologue.

Greg House (House MD) is questionably competent, and not that likable, but he’s highly entertaining because he immediately makes us laugh.

Jed Bartlett (West Wing) is largely incompetent at social matters, and he’s not funny at first, but he’s immediately charismatic and likable.

Frank Castle (Punisher) isn’t classically entertaining, and he’s not likable, but he’s shown as highly competent from minute one.

Malcolm Reynolds isn’t funny at first. He responds to insults by punching Simon in the face or throwing Jayne out of the room, barely tolerates Zoe’s fond teasing, and doesn’t joke around much. Malcolm Reynolds isn’t likable at first. He acts openly contemptuous toward Book’s and Inara’s chosen professions, seriously considers killing Simon for trying to protect River, loots corpses, and ignores Kaylee. Malcolm Reynolds isn’t competent at first. He fails twice to find a fence for the protein blocks, fails to detect either Simon’s or Dobson’s lies, gets himself and his first mate shot in a bad deal, and barely escapes with his life. He tells Simon that any day where he manages to keep his ship in the air counts as a success.

I don’t want to watch an entire show about this guy after seeing just the pilot, and I sympathize with anyone who feels the same way.�� The only moment in 120 minutes of screentime that intrigues me is the smash cut between Mal announcing to Simon that Kaylee died and Mal roaring with laughter with the rest of his crew over a prank well-pulled. It’s competent, funny, likable, and enough to make me want to tolerate this guy long enough to see what he’s going to do next. I don’t blame the producers for demanding that we see Simon-pranking guy more, Simon-punching guy less.

The other tone or setting inconsistencies in the pilot — the characters riding horses when they’ve got a faster-than-light ship, the dirt and platinum constructions, the Chinese vendors offering street meat made out of dog, the heroic depiction of the vainglorious Confederate Browncoat cause, the crew all being fluent in Mandarin but not having a single Asian character in the whole cast* — make it hard to get a sense of what the show is meant to be. The different elements just don’t make sense together.

Contrast that with “The Train Job,” the second first episode. There are undeniably Western and sci-fi elements, but they actually make sense together: instead of characters inexplicably swapping land speeders for horses, there’s a spaceship swooping low over a bullet train. Crow uses frontier weaponry, but it’s an intimidation tactic, and he does own a blaster. The Asian-influenced elements make a lot more sense, appearing mostly as background details that hint at a melding of cultures. Mal is warm and affectionate with his crew, willing to joke around to entertain the audience, and at least 43% less misogynistic toward Inara. Niska plays an important role in plot and character, setting up the possibility that we haven’t heard the last of this plot and also acting as a foil to the Serenity crew, who might kill the occasional unarmed prisoner but at least do their best not to poison entire towns.

Is “The Train Job” as unique an episode as “Serenity”? Nope. Does it do a better job at getting someone who’s never heard of this show before to want to tune in next week? I think so.

And then the cancellation.

Obviously, we’ll never know if people would’ve kept on turning in, because the series got less than a single season. And I think that was the right call, from the producers’ point of view. Firefly as a show might not have had the budgetary demands that, say, Game of Thrones did, but even an amateur like me can take one look at that series and go “damn, that looks expensive.”

There are NINE (9!) main characters, with series-regular salaries.

CGI was a lot more expensive and time-consuming in 2002, and literally every episode includes some exterior footage of the ship.

Every single episode involves the characters, or at least the cameras, leaving the ship and going to different phantasmagorical settings.

Even “Out of Gas” and “Objects in Space” had to take the time and money to build the junkyard and Jubal Early’s ship, respectively.

“Trash,” “Serenity,” “Jaynestown,” “The Message,” and “Heart of Gold” each introduces (and requires a build for) an entirely new fake planet.

Every single episode involves minor characters, and over half of them involve crowd scenes that require hundreds of extras.

Horses. And cows. Cost money. As Wash says, shoulda gone with the counterfeit beagles.

The Serenity set itself was built to scale. That’d save money in the long term, but in the short term required more camerawork to actually film in partially-enclosed locations. When you add in the fact that the on-planet shots always required dollies, cranes, and similar equipment, it adds up.

On a similar note, “the Firefly shot” (as it became known) requires days of planning followed by hours of shooting to include all of the characters in one single extremely long camera pan (almost five minutes long, the second time it happens). As a stylistic choice, it was a pricey one.

If Firefly had been spectacularly successful right from the start, it might have been able to justify its enormous budget. The fact that it was modestly successful didn’t justify the amount of money it was sucking from other projects. Over 90% of shows that make it as far as network deals never even get a pilot; over 90% of shows that go so far as shooting a pilot never make it past that first episode. The network decided to spread the love (and the budget) around, rather than sinking it all into a single project currently taking the place of maybe a dozen other potential shows.

Not only that, but Firefly didn’t have a ton of options for cutting its budget down. It could use fewer camera tricks, but that wouldn’t change the need for CGI just to convey the basic premise of the show. It could cut a character or two, but the cast would still be unusually large. It could have fewer on-planet scenes, but there’s only so much one can do with the characters if they’re cooped up inside their ship the whole time. Firefly was also leeching resources away from that team’s two other enormously successful projects – Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel — and the low ratings of Buffy’s season 6 and Angel’s late season 3 into season 4 reflect that fact. If it’d been allowed to continue, Firefly ran the risk of killing both those golden geese without ever getting to the point of producing eggs itself.

Do I wish there was more of the show out there? Yes. Do I wish the show had had time to evolve, hopefully into something with fewer problems of casual racism? Hell yes. Would I have pulled the plug as well, if I’d been in the room when it happened? Probably yes.

*I am aware of the theory that, given the heavily Asian-influenced settings in the “Safe” flashbacks, the popularity of “Tam” as a Chinese last name, the choice of dark-haired light-skinned actors, and specific elements of the family’s pressure to excel but conform, that the Tams are meant to be Chinese. Given that all four actors are white, and that there are already ample problems with anti-Chinese racism in this show, I strongly prefer not to ascribe to that theory.

#firefly #serenity #nothing to do with animorphs #firefly negativity #serenity negativity #joss whedon #whedon negativity #long post #anonymous #asks

98 notes · View notes

zenosanalytic · 5 years ago

Text

People What Aint From Round Here Is The Problem...

So I just watched Once Upon a Time... In Hollywood and I have THOUGHTS:

Ive read a few reviews&ruminations on this film at this point and I can’t believe that none of them got(or at least, mentioned explicitly) the primary thesis of this movie, spcl given that Tarentino flatly states it out the mouth of his primary protagonist within, like, the first 15-20mins of the film: “...most important thing in this town is when you’re making money you buy a house in town. You don’t rent... Hollywood real estate means you live here. You’re not just visiting, not just passing through. You fuckin live here.” i.e., the most important thing in Hollywood, to Hollywood, is the people FROM Hollywood; Everyone else is just a filthy, trouble-making tourist or profiteer who is “Passing Through” and “Doesnt Get It” and “Is Fucking It Up”(It being the film industry), and probably “Secretly Hates Movies”. There are places and aspects of this movie that are basically a Nativist Angeleno rant, written by a life-long Angeleno film-nerd-turned-film-maker, against Hollywood’s critics(and his critics which he just totally conflates with the former), and probably non-Angelenos(and non-Californians?) in general.

There are two ways to read this thesis: Straight and Subverted/Satirized.

The evidence for reading it straight is pretty plentiful. Lots of reviews have puzzled at where the line connecting the constant hippie-bashing, the weird focus on knocking Polanski’s Polishness & preference for shooting in London, and the inexplicable pot-shot at Bruce Lee is, and I think this is it. “The Hippies” are repeatedly presented as a corrupting force: digging through trash, living in squalourous filth at the Spahn Ranch dragging members of “Old Hollywood” like its owner into it with them, selling drugs, and using sex to “control” men. And attached to this is presenting “The Hippies” as foreign; not only from another place, but refusing to assimilate with the LA way of life and hostile to it. The Manson family are the only explicitly identified “Hippies” in the film(other than, possibly, the one who sells Cliff an acid cig). The only “positive” portrayals of Bruce Lee in the film are silent ones of him teaching anglos kung fu, which has some fairly obvs and well-understood Implications.

But there’s also good evidence for reading it as subverted and satirized. Both Tate and Dalton are NOT from California, let alone LA, and Booth’s origins are left unclear. Dalton’s the only one of them explicitly id’d as being from elsewhere(Missouri), but Tate’s easy to google and she was a military kid who grew up all over the place. When Dalton returns from Italy, that sequence and his look in it are VERY reminiscent of the scenes introducing Polanski at the beginning of the film. The side-characters around Tate, perennially shown in a positive light, are also non-Angelenos. Doing Spaghetti Westerns revitalizes Dalton’s career, despite his disdain for Italian cinema. Tate and her crew, while not explicitly ID’d as “Hippies” and often shown in Mod and other fashion styles, are also presented in “Hippie” fashion, shown listening to “Hippie” music, smoking the “Hippie” Reefer(Im sorry, but Comedy Demanded this phrasing and I am Devout u_u), and implied to be living a polyamorous “Hippie” life.

It really is difficult for me to say which predominates. On the one entirely metaphorical hand, the ways in which Dalton’s Angeleno chauvinism are subverted and mocked are fairly obvs, but on the other emh, the film is FILLED with LITERALLY GLOWING nostalgia for this pre-Hippy, pre-Lefty, pre-70s, Conservative and Republican California&Los Angeles. Dalton’s focus on property-ownership&the film industry in the opening thesis could easily be seen as resolving these subversive contradictions to allow for a straight read(ie: Tate, Booth, and Dalton are “Hollywood People” who’ve both bought real-estate in LA, and who’ve grown up in film or film-adjacent fields and choose to center their adult lives in the film industry). So much, in fact, that I kinda started to wonder abt QT’s politics while watching it. And, if it WAS satirical, then what’s the point of the knock to Bruce Lee and focusing criticisms of Polanski on his Polishness and shooting in London? Is that just meant to characterize Dalton and Booth as nativists and racists?

It really cannot be said enough that there are REALLY MORE APPROPRIATE CRITICISMS to make of Polanski than 1)begin Polish, 2)possessing boyish effeminacy, and 3)preferring to shoot movies in London instead of LA. Which are this movie’s only problems with him(though it also takes the time to show him bitchily smoking a cigarette in an evening gown while being rude to a dog). Obvsl I dont object to villainizing an ACTUAL REAL LIFE VILLAIN like this shitstain, but I DO object to being asked(albeit gently) to participate in this film’s understated nationalist bigotry.

It’s possible that Cliff’s turning Pussycat down during the drive to the ranch was intended to be this but I highly doubt it. And if it was it’d be misrepresenting Polanski’s misdeeds enormously, considering that Pussycat, the too-young girl, is the sexual instigator in this film. Polanski liked to manipulate, drug, and rape underaged girls(he pulled the same shit with models in Europe before getting busted for it in LA, btw, then continued doing it after fleeing back to Europe); really not the same situation.

There’s another irony in that, while the film goes out of its way to call Polanski “boyish” and imply that makes him feminine and that this is Bad, there’s also a subtle under-current that... Tarentino sees himself in his youth the same way? He’s certainly never been short like Polanski and Jay Sebring are/were, QT’s 6 1, but the actors he cast to play them and the description made of the pair in-film are more than a bit reminiscent of how Tarentino looked&was discussed in the press back in the 90s when he was starting out. AAAaaand the film explicitly calls that Tate’s “Type”; leaving me with the question: would Tarentino be able to stop himself from implying a dead starlet would have been attracted to him? I leave the answer to your imaginations, Dear Readers u_u

Having said all that it IS a really good film, which I liked, I dont think it’d be very hard to set aside this political stuff while watching, the driving sequences are especially emotive&exhilarating, and there’s some seriously great acting in it. IDK if I’d say I liked it more than the recent Emma movie, tho.

I feel like each of the trio, Tate, Dalton, and Booth, were meant to symbolically Embody LA/Hollywood/California? Like Pitt especially seemed to be channeling movie characters and CJ from GTA: San Andreas throughout his performance, while I couldnt help but think of Ronald Reagan watching DiCaprio(spcl given the character’s likely politics). So there’s this sense in which the film is a fantasy of “Old Hollywood”, embodied by these three, Vanquishing its “Enemies”, represented by The Hippies(moralizing, pretentious, gross leftist) and potentially Polanski&Lee(foreign film ppl who refuse to integrate into the LA scene). Again, given the political history of Cali after this era, this embodiment raises some questions for me abt the film and QT’s politics(particularly in re: misogyny and feminism).

Also DiCaprio is totally going to get pitched a Reagan biopic off of this role and I sincerely hope he has the good sense to turn that shit the fuck down.

Circling back to the ranting at his critics, this movie was definitely and consciously a response to them. Like: up until the last 5-15 minutes of the film, and aside from a handful of too-lingering too fetishistic too on-the-nose creep shots of the female cast that Tarentino simply could not stop himself from making, OUATiH is precisely the sort of “Serious” film Tarentino’s critics have been saying he should make for decades now(of course he did Jackie Brown, which was that and which he blew Completely out of the park). And then there’s that bloody, gross-out, exploitation-movie ending. I dont actually think it was as bad as many critics were saying it was? For some reason I was thinking there was gonna be a massacre of the ENTIRE Manson family, which would have been totally out of left-field. But it WAS clearly a stinger of a major tone-shift thrown in as a Fuck You to the ppl who’ve called out his violent and exploitative preferences throughout the years. As for me I generally like his movies and think he’s a great filmmaker but he absolutely does go too far sometimes.

Rick Dalton, in an evening-gown, with a mixer full of iced-margarita in one hand, getting all up in the face of the driver of a loud exhaust-spewing jalope in his PRIVATE STREET was TOTALLY Tarentino himself :| By which I mean NOT ONLY that That’s ABSOLUTELY the sort of cameo he would have given himself 30 years ago and if it made any sort of sense at all in the film(which here it wouldnt have, obvsl), BUT ALSO that I feel 94% confident that Tarentino has actually done that at least once in his lifetime :| :|

I think the monologue&interactions T gives Bruce Lee leading up to the fight were probably more insulting to him than the fight itself. Contrary to popular discussion, it isn’t Pitt’s character totally trashing Lee, he gets in one good throw after Lee repeats a successful attack at his request(which I doubt Lee would have ever done from what little I know about him; not being predictable in a fight was his whole Deal), but rather an even duel between them(most of the fight is just the two blocking each others’ attacks). I dont think the film was trying to say “Lee was full of hot-air”, if it wanted to say that it’d have shown him getting trounced instead of showing him knock Booth down then trade him blow for blow, but more “Lee was pretty arrogant and a bit pretentious”.

OK, that’s abt all that I can think of right now: thanks for reading ^v^

#Once Upon a Time... In Hollywood #Quentin Tarentino #Long Post #Cinema #zA Reviews #Movie Reviews #zA Commentary #zA Opinions #analytic posts

5 notes · View notes

rantshemlock · 5 years ago

Photo

you heard it right folks, for the second year in a row i watched

Every Halloween Film

it took around 18 hours. there are eleven movies now after all. next year there will be twelve, and next year i will throw myself into the river thames if i make myself watch Rob Zombie’s Halloween II again.

this time i wrote it out as a journal. it is a mess. i will not edit it. if you read the entire thing you dont get a prize. im very, very tired. i watched eleven movies today. i like five of them.

9:27- I boot up Halloween (1978). I don’t know if this is the movie I’ve seen the most in my life, but I’ve certainly seen it dozens of times, and it never loses its impact. I’ve gotten to the point where I’m reading into micro-expressions on actors’ faces and I don’t know how much any of this was ever intended, but it certainly enhances my own reading of the film. I catch the expression of slight annoyance on Judith’s face when Michael walks into her room; it’s clear she had just no idea this was coming.

9:37- The staging of the opening of Halloween is so like a nightmare, a comparison I keep using this year for the movies I watch, but there’s a sense of being placed in the immediacy of what’s happening with no context and a burden of responsibility that only exists in dreams in the first few opening scenes. You don’t know where you are or what you’re supposed to be doing, but something huge and terrible is happening and the thick, dark shadows combined with the pale white-blue light the film uses makes everything emerge out of the black but never truly divorce itself from the darkness.

The way Loomis talks about Michael like some kind of animal is such a point of fixation for me. He calls Michael ‘it’ and wants ‘it’ to be locked up for life. Maybe it’s just being of a crazy persuasion myself but being the responsibility of a doctor who despises you and refers to you as an untreatable evil doesn’t feel like it would be much help to me. I just don’t think Loomis is a great doctor, is my point.

Laurie’s introduction is such a surge of light in a film that has up until now been shot almost exclusively in darkness. We are shown someone good, normal, happy, but the long, distant shots mean we are not accompanying her on this journey from her perspective; we are following her. Halloween legend suggests Michael doesn’t start stalking Laurie until she approaches the Myers’ house, but it feels like his eyes are lingering on her long before she does that. He casts a long shadow over her life before she even knows he exists.

9:42- The fact the film approaches the idea that it doesn’t make sense Michael would know how to drive a car but doesn’t explain it at all is weirdly funny. Just fuck it man, he can drive.

9:45: I really love the focus on Michael as a physical being. The fact we see him touch someone with his hands, open a car, steer while driving, run his hand over a fence… All of this adds a sense of Michael being tangible that I think is so vital. Michael Myers is a human being, not a demon, and that’s precisely why he is scary. Halloween as always meant to be a movie about the person next door; the fear comes from the fact that something inside your apparently nice, normal neighbourhood is rotten to the core. Laurie herself is incredibly on edge almost from the start; she knows something is wrong. She just hasn’t figured out what yet.

9:57- The gravekeeper’s insistence that something like this happens in every town is probably right on the money. It’s definitely what the film wants you to understand. The apparent nicety of your hometown doesn’t mean it’s free of violence, only that you’re trained not to notice it.

10:01- at exactly 0:33:16 Michael drives by in the background right behind Loomis without Loomis noticing, which is hysterically funny to me. I imagine Michael finds this incredibly funny too.

10:02- Laurie saying she’d “rather go to the dance with Ben Traimor” smacks of being a teenager and gay and saying the name of the first kid you know who’s nice to you because you guess that’s what having a crush is?

10:05- Loomis’ insistence at 0:37:12 that Michael killed and ate a dog raw is incredible to me. Also, I can’t say “Michael raw dog” to my friends without them screaming hysterically at me. They’re fuckers, and I hate them

10:07- From Loomis’ description, he met Michael when Michael was six, already condemned by the doctors as an incurable patient, and stopped treating Michael and turned to insisting he be locked up by the time Michael was fourteen. I think about this a lot.

10:13- “I’m not about to let anything happen to you.” I’m always very touched by Laurie’s immediate assertion of her position as a protector of children.

10:19- Lindsay caring literally only about watching horror movies is incredibly relatable. Truly a hero I can finally understand.

10:28- The house across the street, Lindsay’s house, is almost as haunting as the Myers house itself. It’s certainly a beautiful spectacle, the huge white building with its pillars and vast, blank windows, looming out of the darkness like a moon-lit tombstone. Laurie always seems so lonely when she watches it from the outside.

10:33- The head tilt after Michael pins Bob to the wall is so fucking iconic. It’s the first time it was done, I believe, and while it’s a cliché now it’s still chilling. The way Michael just studies Bob’s corpse, thoughts completely unable to be interpreted. The fact he turfs up in a ghost costume wearing Bob’s glasses moments later is so strange; there’s really no reason he would do that at all, other than the idea he finds it funny. There’s more showmanship to what Michael does than people recognise a lot of the time, I think. It’s like he really wants his work to be seen.

10:43- The shot of Annie on the bed under Judith’s tombstone has to be one of the most beautiful shots in the franchise. The perfect arrangement made just for Laurie to walk in on and experience in one precise way is so meticulous. Michael’s obsessiveness nature manifest in so many ways. The final showdown between Michael and Laurie is only around ten minutes long but it’s an incredible endurance test of a scene; the way Michael grows out of the shadows like he’s being formed within them is still beautiful and terrifying.

I think a really underrated part of this sequence that makes it so frightening is how Laurie is pointedly not alone; the neighbourhood she’s in is populated, and there are people around her. But when she runs to the neighbours for help, screaming and banging on the doors, they choose to ignore her. Seeing something they don’t like in their neighbourhood, they shut it out.

10:50- the closet scene is an incredible piece of filmmaking. There’s really never been anything before or since. I love art with a lot of lines and shadows and seeing the shadow of Michael moments before he breaks through the door is so haunting.

10:52- Laurie desperate and holding the knife in her hands is stunning. I love her.

10:54- I love the brief glimpse of seeing Michael’s face and how it stops him dead in his tracks. The fact he looks so painfully normal is so important too.

10:55- There’s a lot to be said about Loomis confirming Michael is ‘the Boogeyman’. I think Michael’s definite physical humanity in this movie is so important because it contrasts so strongly against the dehumanisation of him by the characters around him. We can only accept there’s a nightmare inside our neighbourhoods if we choose to believe it isn’t natural to it; that someone like that could not form there, but must have been artificially summoned, like a demon. Later movies and the remakes run with this idea; that Michael is somehow an outsider, but I think that defeats the entire point. Michael is part of this world just as much as Laurie is, whether we want to believe it or not.

10:57- I should be starting Halloween II but unfortunately, I have to go to the pharmacy. It might be Halloween, but prescription medications wait for no slasher villain.

11:13- I start watching Halloween II (1981). I like that this movie starts off with Mr Sandman. Horror movies having nursery rhymes in them now is another cliché, but this is such an interesting pick for Michael. I suppose it fits with him being the Boogeyman; he’s a creature of nightmares that slinks into our homes only through dreams. Allegedly.

I like the decision to pick this movie up right after the last one stopped, something that it looks like 2020’s Halloween Kills will be duplicating. It just makes a straightforward kind of sense.

11:21- The hysteria of Loomis screaming “I shot him six times!” over and over is sort of funny and sort of sick. There’s a slight traumatised, obsessive lunacy in Loomis the same as there is in Michael. I like the parallels between them. Loomis raised Michael more than Michael’s own parents did; it makes sense he’d have a lingering affect.

11:23- The shots from Michael’s perspective both in the first movie and this one are great. I love that we’re challenged to be inside his mind. We follow Michael a lot in this early opening. There’s an obvious strategy to his actions in this film, but the randomness of his kills are new. In the first movie, all the kills either get him something or revolve around Laurie. In this one, he kind of just does whatever, a theme that carries on for the rest of the movie.

11:24- A difference I don’t like so much in this movie is that the neighbours are so much more keyed into each other; they pay attention to the screaming and the strange noises, watch out for things that look out of place. I feel like it clashes with the first movie’s themes of isolation simply through your neighbours not caring what happens to you.

11:32- Ben Traimor getting hit by a cop car which crashes into a van and then explodes is one of the funniest fucking things that’s ever happened in this franchise. It is so completely fucking inexplicable and suddenly violent and pointless that it becomes hysterical, which is unfortunate given it’s meant to be a serious scene.

The breakdown scene that follows, where the Sheriff Brackett finds his daughter Annie is dead however is excellent. Charles Cyphers manages to carry the weight of the tragedy pretty effectively for a film that can veer into the goofy too easily, and Dr Loomis’ more measured delivery on his beliefs about Myers is Donald Pleasance at his best.

Halloween II isn’t any longer than Halloween, but the pacing is worse. It lets go of the original’s constant, haunting tension and delivers a sloppier movie as a result, too padded with side characters and people passing through the world with no consequence. The character of Brett is probably one of the most obnoxious characters in the franchise, which is saying a lot.

11:46- Laurie literally not knowing it was Michael Myers who was after her until she’s told is weirdly sad. Like of course she didn’t know, but it’s still sad. She feels very small and vulnerable in this movie, very lost in the big, empty hospital. The fact her parents are inexplicably missing and never shows up makes me crazy. I always wonder if there was a dropped plot thread where Michael was meant to have killed them, or something, because there’s really no explanation.

11:53- The musical stings in this movie are so odd. They’re too bleepy. Don’t know what the hell happened.

11:55- I take the laptop into the kitchen to make a sandwich while I watch the movie. It’s early for lunch but I don’t eat breakfast and I can actively feel my braincells hurting me.

12:01- I’m fascinated by the shots in this of the faint dream Laurie has of seeing a boy in the hospital when she was a child. I can never decide if these are real or not; if she’s unlocking some strange, contextless memory from childhood or just imagining it, instinctively feeling the connection between her and Michael without knowing the truth.

12:04- Bud’s off-screen death is so unsatisfying. Also, so continues the trend of Michael being mistaken for people’s boyfriends. Guess he’s just boyfriend material. Seems unbelievable to me she wouldn’t notice how dirty his hands are, though. And Jesus, the boiling her to death kill is really pretty brutal and graphic, after kills in the first few movies are so relatively restrained.

12:07- Michael writing SAMHAIN on the wall is so over the top. Yeah, I can believe he’s fucking 21 years old. Michael is a performance art student.

12:09- Laurie having Michael’s ability to go deadly still and silent is neat. I like them having links. They’re siblings after all. Runs in Myers family.

12:11- The needle into the side of the head kill is bizarre. Also, the head-tilt here feels cheap. I have already started stealing candy from the bowl intended for trick-or-treaters. In my defence, I could, and I wanted it.

12:20- I like that Laurie has an instinct to run, hide and defend herself. I don’t know if it’s the trauma of surviving or a prenatural sense that Michael is coming for her, but I like it. I don’t like that this entire movie is like twenty minutes longer than it needs to be, or how little Laurie is actually in it.

12:28- The reveal that Laurie is Michael’s sister is so great. It fits so well. I say bullshit to anyone who doesn’t like it. The repetition and obsessiveness of Michael’s behaviour, the strange links and parallels between Laurie and Michael. The fact that the two of them are just as much parts of Haddonfield as each other. It just feels right for them to be related. They are related.

12:31- Laurie crawling on the street begging for help as Loomis ignores her again – this man is truly useless.

12:33- Michael walking directly through a glass door is hysterical.

12:38- Laurie calling Michael’s name, stopping him for a second, blinding him with a shot… This last sequence is fantastic. There’s an enormous amount of pity in seeing Michael blindly stumbling around, swinging his knife, unable to see but still so desperate to kill. The fact she stops him by calling his name is great. The way it almost, for a second, perks some recognition inside him. I think a lot about Michael’s sense of identity. Who does he think he is? I guess we’re never going to find out.

12:43- Halloween III: Season of the Witch time. There’s a trend now of saying this is really the best Halloween movie. I can’t really argue with people’s personal takes, but there’s always a sense to that to me of denying the classic to favour the underdog. People love an underdog. But Halloween III definitely does kind of rule. As much conspiracy thriller as it is horror movie, Halloween III is deeply weird and creative, but packed with great performances and truly memorable special effects, with a killer soundtrack to boot.

1:11- Halloween III is so distinct feeling; it almost feels like a John Carpenter movie, but more like The Thing than Halloween. The film is less aesthetically distinct than Halloween; it takes place over days, in many locations, following the characters as they dig into the conspiracy behind the menacing Silver Shamrock company. It’s well-written and often pretty witty and builds an incredible sense of menace and strangeness. The little company town surrounding the Silver Shamrock factory is bizarre and frightening and although the film can be a little heavy-handed in its depiction of a surveillance state, it certainly builds up atmosphere.

1:20- The scene of the old drunk being taken out by the corporate men in black rules in how suddenly violent and horrible it is. We love a horror movie.

1:26- Some of the digital effects leave a little to be desired but god the practical effects are fucking incredible, and so goddamn memorable and horrible.

1:33- The over-the-top niceness of the Silver Shamrock owner is so pitch-perfect. He’s so nice that it’s obviously, blatantly menacing. What owner of a big corporation like this just gives shit away for free? I mean, come on. I really love the apparent legends that surround him, though, the reputation of being a genius and a great man.

1:48- The complete calmness with which the whole plan gets revealed is so good because you really sense how fucking little threat our heroes pose; no one here thinks they have a chance in hell of stopping Silver Shamrock. The plan in itself is absurd, but like, who cares. It’s fun. The fact Cochran is like, delighted to show off his big ideas because he’s so confident nothing will stop them. And in a way he’s right; at least partially, the heroes do ultimately fail.

2:00- the speech Cochran delivers about the power of Samhain rules. It’s so intense and menacing. Fucking great performance here.

2:07- As much as I like the ending, I think how much it drags on kind of kills some of the tension. Feels like it could have been cut back. The imagery at the very end is fantastic though; it’s so weird. The way this movie embraces strangeness is great; I’ll always take a film that tries to be something different and weird over anything that plays it safe.

2:20- Halloween 4: The Return of Michael Myers. Jesus we’re starting down a dark path now. Halloween 4 is pretty thoroughly ‘ok’ and even has a couple of good moments but God. The decision to return to just being about Michael Myers after risking and flopping with an anthology movie is fine by me, but Halloween 4 plays it as safe as possible and lacks any of the flair or charm of the original. It just doesn’t have any style, and the forced drama falls short. Jamie Lee Curtis’ absence also feels like a sucking void in the film; it’s too painfully obvious that she was meant to be in this movie, and the fact she isn’t, the fact she died off-screen in some completely nondescript way is so depressing. The filmmakers assumed no one watching gave a shit about Laurie, and that’s so wrong and so disheartening.

2:25- the other doctors hating Loomis really adds to my reading of him as a man on the brink. He must be insufferable to know.

2:30- It really feels so painfully fucking unfair that Laurie would go through so much to just die in a random car accident. Or maybe there’s a kind of poetry in her dying without Michael’s involvement; just part of her own life.

2:36- Donald Pleasance is such a mensch. As stupid as these movies get, he never stopped bringing his fucking A-game and giving them as much respect and gravitas as he could. What a fucking legend.

2:41- Loomis seeing Michael in the diner is so fucking good. Loomis’ quiet pleading, asking Michael not to go back to Haddonfield but just take him instead, the quiet God damn you. Such a great moment. Would be better if Michael didn’t just suddenly teleport out of the room with no explanation, but you can’t have it all.

2:42- Why are later Halloween movies so fond of explosions.

2:43- The kids literally chanting ‘Jamie’s an orphan’ at her is incredible. Not in a good way.

2:50- I fetch the kitten to keep him on my lap because my house is colder than Michael Myers’ black heart.

2:55- Michael looking at Laurie’s photos… Ugh.

2:56- Why do people not just believe Loomis when he says Michael is back. We have this thread every week, comrade.

3:06- Michael just kinda standing around in the background doesn’t really do much in terms of fear. It’s just silly. And his mask looks ridiculous.

3:12- This film is a masterclass in failing to raise tension.

3:23- There’s an attempt to manufacture conflict by having the police clash with a group baying for mob justice, but it all feels completely inert. Nothing in the film carries any weight or drama, and the tension is all derived from using familiar music stings to try and kick your brain into recognising it’s an appropriate place to feel something.

3:25- The kitten bites me, drinks my water, and goes to sit in a box instead. I hate him. The kill where Michael stabs someone through the gut with a shotgun and pins them to the wall is the most flagrantly absurd thing I’ve ever seen. The fact she’s immediately found also really kills the tension. Also why is Michael so fucking strong. He’s so strong.

3:31- I can see the intention with the roof scene, but there’s too much unintentional comedy and Michael is so unthreatening that it doesn’t hold together at all. I especially hate how Michael will just suddenly appear out of nowhere; the first movie utilises his forming out of the shadows so well, but it doesn’t fucking work the same if he’s just there, in a formerly empty and well-lit corridor. He’s not being beamed in by a spaceship.

3:39- God this film is slow. Michael’s hands look absolutely terrifically fucked up. I wish Laurie was here.

3:41- It is insufferable how this film has like ten climaxes. Jamie running to inspect Michael really just doesn’t make any sense. I understand why the filmmakers did it, but it doesn’t make sense. They allude to some connection between the two, but it’s really underplayed and doesn’t pay out well when so much of the movie is her being flatly scared of him. They could have – and should have – acted more on the idea of her finding some sort of familiar connection between them. Famously, the movie ends with the idea Jamie might have somehow inherited Michael’s drive to murder, but the plot thread disappointingly gets dropped after this movie.

3:47- It’s time for Halloween 5: The Revenge of Michael Myers. God, this movie is such a non-entity in the franchise. It doesn’t have 6’s turbulent history or 4’s dramatic ending. It just like, occurs. It occupies space and time. It tries to further the connection between Jamie and Michael, turning it into something psychic and supernatural, and begins to introduce elements of the Cult of Thorne before that takes over as the plot of 6, but none of it is interesting and I also hate the attempt to make Halloween a supernatural franchise.

4:04- The totally legal for sure stream I’m using starts fucking up so everything takes a break while I find somewhere else to watch it.

4:05- Contemplate if life is worth it.

4:06- Film returns. It’s not worth it.

4:27- If screaming at kids was always Dr Loomis’ brand of psychiatry no wonder he couldn’t help Michael.

4:30- You really need to put in more effort than this if you want to make someone being murdered in broad daylight scary. If you’re not putting in the kind of effort Midsommar does to sell the death, you aren’t gonna get there. Halloween as a franchise seems obnoxiously dedicated to doing shit in the middle of the fucking day, for something who built the power of the original scares so much off of the quiet and darkness of the shadows.

4:39- Imagine leaving a traumatised child alone because you want to get laid. Tina’s character is fucking absurd. There are far too much entirely interchangeable faces in this movie screaming incoherently.

4:57- The scene of Michael desperately trying to run Jamie over with a car while the camera swings around hysterically and then the car inexplicably exploding is like peak mid-sequel Halloween. It really exemplifies how much the franchise started relying on noise and flash instead of like, being scary.

5:02- Loomis begging Michael to ‘fight the rage that drives you’ and saying that killing will never drive the anger out is too little too late, ain’t it. I like the idea of an appeal to his emotions but there’s so little emotional weight to the rest of the movie that it fails to maintain a meaningful tone. All the moments where Jamie is communing with Michael are supposed to drive tension I guess, but it mostly is just very silly.

5:09- Every set in this movie look so much like a set. Considering the first movie was just shot in a house I don’t understand why they didn’t do the same. I like the prospect of Loomis trying to talk to Michael, to get through to him emotionally, but seeing Michael just standing there in the really goofy fucking mask they gave him this film is just ridiculous. Donald Pleasance can only do so much.

5:19- Again we return to the idea of getting through to Michael emotionally. Jamie calls him uncle and asks for him to take his mask off. He does, even. But there doesn’t feel like there’s any understanding of who Michael is; there’s no consistent psychology or examination, only the gut feeling that family has to be important. But we know how Michael feels about family, and it’s not tender. He speaks his own language.

5:21- Where the fuck did Loomis even get a giant chain net and tranquiliser drafts.

5:25- Sure why wouldn’t a guy with a machine gun show up and just start slaughtering everyone like who the fuck cares.

5:28- I take a break to gather my thoughts and feelings emotionally so I can handle watching Halloween 6: The Curse of Michael Myers.

5:32- I change the cat litter to avoid watching Halloween 6: The Curse of Michael Myers.

5:40- I start Halloween 6: The Curse of Michael Myers.

5:50- The woman calls into radio station and says she’s in love with Michael Myers is the only person in this film I respect.

5:51- The decision to bring back Tommy Doyle as a conspiracy theorist who’s obsessed with Michael is a great concept, which is why I’m glad Tommy Doyle is in Halloween Kills so I never have to say Halloween 6 makes a point again. Paul Rudd (yes, that Paul Rudd) is shockingly terrible in this movie, and also, I don’t like him as an actor, so nothing about this performance endears him to me. I have no fucking idea what they directed him to do. It is miserable.

6:01- I am straight up not having a good time bro.

6:03- This is the only Halloween movie in a long time to actually try and show off its location; Halloween 5 could be set literally anywhere and is unfollowable, but Halloween 6 at least attempts to ground the movie in Haddonfield and show that this is a normal neighbourhood. Unfortunately, this movie takes place in nonsense magic doo-doo land so any attempt to ground us in anything is a waste of fucking time.

6:13- There’s a lot of reasons I don’t like this movie; I think the additions of mythology are absurd and go against the themes of the original, the conclusion is dumb as hell, the story is boring. It isn’t scary and it isn’t well-shot or well-written. But on a more abstract level, I hate its schlock, cheap understanding of what obsession and trauma does to someone. I fucking loathe that it uses rape as a shock tactic and how much abuse it puts its female characters through for no catharsis.

6:50- This curry I’m eating sucks ass. I want that on the record.

7:22- Jesus fucking Christ it’s finally time for Halloween H20: 20 Years Later. I love this movie. I love it for the ambition it had. It might not be a as fully realised examination of trauma after time as Halloween (2018) is, but I admire it for its vision. It doesn’t try to mimic the style of the first film, and I guess there’s a certain loss in aesthetic as it’s more akin to Scream or other fairly uniform 90s slasher movies in appearance, but it’s a far more confident movie than the other middling Halloween sequels. It has a clear understanding of what it wants the movie to be and is genuinely tense and thrilling because of that, as well as more readily grounded in reality. It has a genuine respect for the original that others fail to and tries to build an original film that follows it in a meaningful sense.

7:56- Laurie is really condemned to be around people who don’t listen to her but as much of a horrible little punk shit her son is, narratives about inherited or family trauma make me go insane, so this all affects me still.

8:01- I like the discussion of fate in Frankenstein as parallel to the discussion of fate in the first movie. It’s silly, but I like it, and that’s on me.

8:07- One of the smartest moves this film makes is using its own score. A lot of the middling sequels just lift from the original without any care, but H20 puts in some effort into building up some actual atmosphere.

8:13- I like that Laurie is a mess but still holding it together. She’s jumpy and always watching, with a bottle of alcohol a little too close beside her. It’s not exactly the most monumental depiction of lifelong trauma, but the film makes an effort. I love its effort. I love Jamie Lee Curtis as well.

8:26- This film brings back a theatricality to the presentations of Michael’s victims that I feel the movies sorely lack. If it doesn’t look like an art project why bother? I was going to say I wish there was more development of the relationship with Michael and his nephew, but I don’t. I want more Laurie. Love Laurie.

8:28- Michael’s not good with keys. I love the fact that his hands and eyes are so clear, though. It brings back that kind of essential physicality he had in the original. Him making contact with Laurie, the shot of the two of them through the glass looking at each other is so fucking good.

8:34- Laurie standing in the drive with a fucking axe screaming Michael’s name as the Halloween them kicks in fucking rules so goddamn hard. The final fight scene between these two is an all-time great.

8:39- Laurie pulling a gun on a cop so she can kidnap the coroner’s van so she can make sure Michael is actually dead is fucking incredible. She’s the best person who’s ever been written. The final conclusion of the film, with Michael reaching out to her when he’s pinned down, and it’s unclear if he’s asking for help or trying to reach out to hurt her one last time but his eyes are filled with desperation is one of the best moments in any of the films, and the power of Laurie just delivering the killing blow makes it even better. The fact they both get to be so vulnerable and so human and have a moment, just a moment, where their hands touch for any reason other than violence is so fucking strong. I love this fucking movie.

8:45- Halloween: Resurrection. Because after just seeing Laurie fight for her life and get out alive, triumphing over Michael once and for all, obviously what we want is to have the whole thing turn out to be bullshit and a fake out and for Laurie to die in the first five minutes of this film? Fuck this movie man. Like fuck this movie.

8:59- as bad and stupid and shallow as this movie is, the slight manipulation Michael performs is pretty great, and Laurie’s line “Are you afraid of me?” is an all-time great. This film doesn’t earn Laurie’s death, though, and it doesn’t deserve Jamie Lee Curtis. I’m not even totally against the idea of finding out what Michael would do if all his family was dead, but this movie’s option of ‘be in a reality show being filmed in his house’ is probably the answer I never, ever, ever wanted.

9:03- I have given up.

9:25- People make a big deal out of the ending scene where Busta Rhymes electrocutes Michael Myers in the nuts but it is really the only moment of levity in what is otherwise the most boring experience anyone can have.

10:00- I am eating leftover candy and contemplating my life.

10:17- I boot up Halloween (2007). I have accepted death.

10:19- Yeah, what Halloween was really lacking was a guy yelling “I should crawl over there and skullfuck the shit outta you!” before hitting on his teenage stepdaughter. The level of overt grossness and extremity that Robert Zombert brings to this franchise is so fucking putrid and unnecessary. All he brings to this franchise is insane amounts of unbridled misogyny and pop psychology. I said the same thing last year and I’ll happily say it again; this movie’s idea of what makes a serial killer is like something from a daytime TV movie. I’m sure it was intended to be edgy, but the demonization of the working class and sex workers and the position of Michael as the lower-class outsider to the nice suburbs is the most conformist class politics in existence. Halloween (1978)’s depiction of a serial killer who was a part of and came from inside the nice, safe, upper middle-class suburb will always be a far, far more revolutionary statement than this.

10:44- I don’t believe this really gives Michael ‘more backstory’ since it basically just re-treads what the first movie did, but it sure does it worse. The film just takes an incredible amount of time to say ultimately nothing at all. What really gets me is that this does really destroy the Michael is the big bad boogeyman myth simply because the childhood it gives Michael doesn’t fit with who he is. The change just feels forced. The suddenness of his violence feels forced. There doesn’t seem to be any observation here other than it would be scary if a nice kid was actually murderer.

10:56- Why does Michael’s mother own a huge projector. The melodrama of her killing herself is so absurd.

11:03- Michael Myers gets called the F-slur so many times in this movie that I’m officially adopting him as part of the LGBT community.

11:12- people criticise the original for not having the most natural of dialogue for its teenage girl characters, but the teenagers in this film are so incredibly obnoxious that it’s borderline unbearable to watch. Their dialogue is unnatural too, because it’s the kind of shit a weird old man really, desperately wants teenage girls to say.

11:23- There isn’t a scene in this that doesn’t drag on for too long in a completely unfunny, charmless way. It’s also insanely aggravating how Zombie is incapable of holding the camera still for longer than a couple of seconds at a time, and why everyone in the movie always has to be twenty feet away at all times.

11:25- This movie is just the first movie but longer with people screaming fuck constantly and added rape scenes. It is so insanely fucking worthless it really defies description.

11:28- I could be hanging out with my friends but I’m watching a bad movie. Contemplating life again.

11:45- I wish Robert Zombert wasn’t so horny.

11:51- I like truly never want to hear screaming again. There’s so much noise in this movie all the time. There isn’t a fucking second of silence in this film that couldn’t be filled with someone screaming hysterically or shit breaking. There isn’t a moment where the camera holds still and lets us take in the information in the frame without wobbling deliriously or swinging around like it’s on a fucking office chair.

12:10- I wonder if I can go see Doctor Sleep tomorrow. It’s technically not Halloween anymore, but if I manage to watch all these films within twenty-four hours I think it still counts.

12:13- We’re on Halloween II (2009). I like that this movie opens up with an explanation of what the symbolism of the white horse represents, in case you’re too stupid to figure it out for yourself. I like that the flashback is also completely drained of colour, in case you’re too stupid to figure out that it’s a flashback, even after it had a title card explaining it was. Just in case you thought Michael turned into a kid again, or something.

12:17- Glad we’re back to the constant screaming and camera swirling, just in case you thought for a brief second you’d have a moment of fucking peace.

12:21- I joked about the absurdity of Ben Traimor in Halloween II (1982) getting hit by a van and then exploding but it really doesn’t match up to the pointless fucking spectacle of violence that occurs roughly every ten seconds in Halloween II (2009). There’s no reason whatsoever to have the coroner’s van full of rapists crash into a cow and have the most incredibly bloody crash scene ever while one of them screams fuck over and over, but it happens. It isn’t scary, funny, or interesting, but it sure happens. That just about sums up this movie. Loud, bloody, and gratuitous, but not, y’know, interesting.

12:39- What an exploitative ‘I think crazy chicks are hot’ vision of trauma this is.

12:48- The idea of Loomis cashing in on his fame and becoming a celebrity psychologist is a good idea, but in classic Rob Zombie way, it’s done in the least interesting way possible.

1:04- What the fuck is happening.

1:13- it is like fucking incredible how boring this movie is. None of these scenes have any purpose. It’s just stuff, it’s stuff to put on film, with no larger thesis or point. I don’t fully understand why anyone bothered making this movie.

1:29- Great, a party sequence. That’s what this film really needed. More pointless noise and scenes that go nowhere. It was way too quiet and plot-heavy until now.

1:31- Does Mr Zombie know he can just make music videos. Like wouldn’t it be easier.

1:55- The ending scene in this movie is so incredibly incoherent and unwatchable. The bringing of the strange psychic ghosts that haunt Michael and Laurie and making them real, physical presences only makes the film more incoherent. It’s all jerky, wild camera movements, strobe lighting and screaming from here on out. Michael is such a non-entity in this film. He’s in at least half the movie, but he’s not himself. He’s just like a big guy with a beard and one line.

1:59- The slo-mo is so unnecessary. Like you fucking had to make this movie even longer? For who? For what?

2:00- I wish we were all dead.

2:01- I think I’ve seen Blade Runner 2049, a movie I deeply love and cherish, less times than I’ve seen Rob Zombie’s Halloween II.

2:02- Feel depressed about this.

2:03- If I ever hear Love Hurts again, I’ll kill myself.

2:04- Spent two minutes in silent contemplation.

2:06- It’s finally time for Halloween (2018). It’s hard to understate how much respect I have for this movie. Like I said earlier, I admire H20 a lot for its attempt to be a reaction to Laurie’s trauma and grief, but it does not manage to pull this off with anywhere near as much grace and effectiveness as Halloween (2018). And on top of that, the film is stunningly shot, the only film on par with the original in terms of how beautiful and memorable the cinematography is.

2:10- The distance from which we see Michael initially is so great; there’s so much restraint. He’s unmasked for a good portion of the early movie, but the film holds back in a way that makes his face completely unreadable and instead focuses on people’s reactions to and fear of him. It gives a sense that he’s almost too frightening to be fully captured on film. We can never really understand the legend of Michael, the same way people who don’t see him ‘in the wild’ can’t; we can only see him through legends.

2:14- The soundtrack in this movie is a fucking incredible beast. John Carpenter is God, frankly.

2:17- I adore Laurie’s portrayal in this movie. She’s so cold and defensive towards people who don’t believe or respect her, but there’s a painful, raw vulnerability to her as well. She’s traumatised person who has run the gamut of people refusing to understand or respect her trauma or the worldview she’s developed. There’s such a profound mixture of power and pain, a sense of immense dignity to her. She’s sick to death of the lack of respect and cruelty she’s faced. I just love how much emotion was put into her performance, how much the filmmakers really cared about making her a fully realised expression of trauma and the way people react.

2:24- Dave blowing up a pumpkin with a firecracker is the most accurately teenage thing that’s ever happened in these movies.

2:25- Laurie standing on the sidewalk outside the school in a mirror of how Michael did rules. The callbacks in this movie are always so underplayed that they feel like they take actual meaning, rather than just being a case of demanding fans look at something cool they recognise.

2:31- I am deliriously sleepy. Laurie’s breakdown at family dinner is so painful. She carries so much grief; she is, in her eyes, the only one who does and who may ever know the truth, surrounded by people who can’t understand her because trying to put themselves in her world hurts them too much. I think Laurie’s daughter’s description of what it was like growing up in a survivalist environment filled with anxiety and paranoia is so key; it was traumatising for her to grow up in a trauma-based environment. I hope she gets more time in the next movie.

2:43- This is the third movie in the franchise where Michael kills people in a public toilet, but definitely the best time it’s been done. Michael throwing teeth at the journalist writing about him is something that is so insane that it’s now burned itself directly into my brain and I am incapable of not tweeting ‘i wish michael myers would throw teeth on me’ at least once every three weeks.

2:46- The gravity that’s given to Michael putting the mask on is mesmerising. Again, I love the physicality of his hands and motions; this movie doesn’t forget he’s a real, physical person.

2:52- I’m obsessed with Michael’s decision not to kill the baby. He’s on a random murder spree, killing anyone who he sees without any particular cause, but he passes right by the baby. Looks at it, and then chooses not to. He made an actual choice not to. I always wonder what was going through his mind at the time.

2:59- Alyson’s costume was a really great way to have her end up with the same silhouette as Laurie in the first movie without having her just straight up dress like her grandma. Nice touches.

3:01- “You are so getting dry-fucked tonight” is probably one of the most wretched lines of dialogue in this franchise.

3:09- Laurie hunting for Michael is so good. She’s so fucking ruthless in this movie; she’s afraid but she’s fucking tuned in completely to her revenge hunger.

3:13- Sartain is a character I really love. The set-up is obviously that he’s Loomis 2, Laurie even refers to him as “the new Loomis”, and he reflects and subverts this in interesting ways. I like that he calls Michael “property of the state”; it’s his own way of dehumanising Michael. To him, Michael is an asset, something to be poked and prodded and studied. But of course, unlike Loomis, his obsessive interest in Michael is far more appreciative.

3:16- This film’s ability to just use silence is so good.

3:17- The first time Alyson sees Michael is incredible. The musical sting. Fuck me. God, I love this movie. And God I love this fucking soundtrack.

3:22- The twist of Sartain turning and killing the cop, protecting Michael and trying to seek out what it feels like to kill is great. Also, the way he stroked Michael’s face? I hate to break it to you, but if you don’t think they were fucking? Grow up.

3:30- I love the drama of Michael’s corpse arrangements. Back to the good old art student days, I see. He’s having a midlife crisis. Every time Laurie and Michael see each other is so fucking powerful. The connection between the two of them is so vibrant. And her shooting half his hand off? Iconic. Really excited to see how the makeup department carries that on next film.

3:39- The final showdown sequence is incredible. Laurie and Michael nearly being on equal terms sounds like it should make it boring, if she can match him hit for hit, but the film never drops a level in tension. It manages to be surprising not just for us but also for Michael, who obviously wasn’t expecting to be on the back foot with Laurie, which only makes the scene more intense.

3:42- WHY IS HE SO STRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

3:43- The performance of Karen screaming she needs help and she can’t do it only to shoot Michael point blank and then have Laurie emerge out of the shadows the way she does is one of the best fucking moments in cinema. The three women working together to defeat Michael and kill him where he stands, absolutely kicking the shit out of him and then setting him alight is fucking incredible. I don’t know if I’ve ever seen such a triumphant fucking ending in anything. The Strode women’s win feels like such an incredible fucking win. I have no fucking idea how Halloween Kills is going to follow this up.

3:46- I love this movie. The house burning down with Michael inside it is so striking. The way fire is shot is so powerful, and the ending shot of the Strodes? With Alyson holding the knife? A perfect movie.

3:47- I have died.

#rantsfilmwatch #my writing #halloween

26 notes · View notes

atamascolily · 8 years ago

Text

Episode Review: Sinbad 1x18 - Monument

In which there is a bar fight, alchemy leads to trouble, and we discover that yes, size actually does matter - notably, a recurring theme in this show. Goes with all the recycled footage, I imagine.

All photos from Far Far Away.

We open to this excellent sign, as Sinbad and company hand over their weapons to the bartender. Firouz approves, but you know a sign like this is just begging for a barfight.

Sinbad buys the drinks for everyone and the bartender bites the coins to make sure they’re legit. Sinbad is put out by the man’s lack of trust in him, but Maeve points out they’re on an island that’s home to Hogwarts a school for alchemists. I’m not sure how flooding the market even with legit gold is helpful for currency problems, but anyway that school sounds interested and sadly we don’t get to go there in this episode.

Sinbad and Maeve are totally adorable, but the camera zooms into the group in the background, where some sketchy looking dudes are talking to a young woman who wants to hire them. But first she has to go and get some gold from the local ATM or equivalent. “You’ll still be her when I come back?”

Ma’am, I am all about your gold, says their leader, whose name is inexplicably Plunkett.

Plunkett is a charming rogue, but he and Sinbad have run into each other before and they’re not friends. So of course as soon as the mysterious woman leaves the room (why did she not bring gold WITH her to hire sailors?) and they recognize each other, a good old-fashioned tavern brawl ensues.

There’s a hilarious moment where they both reach for their swords, realize they’re behind the counter, and decide to go at it with fists instead.

This is easily the most interesting part of the episode, which is too bad because it only lasts for a few minutes. Once again Doubar has his priorities straight - drinks first, then punching people. Also, the bartender is pretty awesome and relaxed about the whole business - possibly because he has all the booze and swords.

Wow, wasn’t that great? Everybody laughs as Plunkett and friends flee.

Sinbad pays the bartender, who has been incredibly entertained by this whole business, for his trouble.

Of course, when our mysterious woman comes back to the bar with gold, Plunkett and company are gone so Sinbad and the crew hear her story. Her name is Julianar, and she wants to go find her alchemist genius father, who has stopped answering her letters while she’s at alchemy school. Of course Sinbad and crew decide to help her out.

Cut to the island. Firouz is fascinated by the local geology, and points out this is a recently-created (in geologic time, anyway) volcanic island. Jullanar says her father, Mahmud al-Musri, is using his science to help the villagers here. Sound familiar, anybody?

Oh, and Rongar finds a giant scale on the ground because he’s paying attention. Firouz thinks it comes from a giant lizard, and you just know it’s going to show up in the next ten minutes or so. I was hoping for a DRAGON or at least reused footage of the sea serpent from Episode 1.

Hey, it’s that wagon from episode 12 Sinbad used to save the world! Remember that? That was a great episode. Anyway, moving on...

Naturally, nobody in the village is pleased to see them. They try to get a room at the local inn, but Harun al-Disar the man, who Jullanar says is named Milford of all things, refuses to let them in.

No, I mean, really, it’s the same actor as Harun al-Disar in Episode 17. He’s wearing the same clothes. Look at this shot from “The Bully”:

Milford even has the same adorable child who just looks at the crew sadly when Doubar tries to force open the doors.

This blatant re-use of the same actor/costume/situation annoys me, perhaps more so than the reused CGI, but there you go. The crew compensates for their disappointment at being refused a room at the inn by having a weenie roast outside, instead.

A mob of villagers shows up, led by Milford, but Doubar sets them straight.

No one’s seriously hurt, and Milford warns them away with some cryptic and unhelpful comments about terrible monsters that Jullanar’s father has inflicted on them. Jullanar thinks the crew will leave, but we still have at least twenty minutes left, so we all know that isn’t happening. As Firouz cheerfully remarks, “What’s a few monsters between friends?”

They find some sketchy-looking dudes pulling a wagon full of treasure, and Jullanar recognizes they’ve looted her house. The crew fights them, but the dudes run away after hearing a roar. Sinbad goes to investigate alone!

It’s a giant lizard!

There’s a lot of sword-waving, but in the end Sinbad hides and the lizard slithers away, because actually filming them interacting would cost too much for this show.

Anyway, they keep coming. They find the ruins of a village. Suddenly, Firouz falls into a sinkhole! Like you know, you just randomly do on volcanic islands.

(This whole scene, all I can think is, Is that screw-pine, Pandanus veitchii, in the back ground or what?)

Anyway, since sinkholes don’t happen on volcanic islands, something seriously screwy is going on. Firouz postulates that giant animals are compressing the rock so that all that remains is a thin layer of ash, which makes no sense, but okay. Jullanar says the largest animals she’s ever seen are gazelles, but Maeve says Dermott hasn’t seen any animals or birds. And there is that giant lizard to consider, after all.

Jullanar is sad and confused and Sinbad tries to cheer her up.

This is supposed to be poignant, but I’m distracted by noting those bamboo-like things in the background are actually restios, which is far more interesting than what they’re talking talking about. South African plants are awesome, end of story.

A giant bird shows up - hello, reused footage from Episode 14! - but only buzzes them without doing any damage, again on account of budget. Anyway, they get to Jullanar’s house.

Wow, your house sure is big, everyone says. Yeah, we inherited money from a pasha because my father did some alchemical stuff for him, Jullanar says. A potion for eternal life, it turns out.

Wow, that isn’t sketchy at all, no one says. And it only gets worse. Inside, everything is abandoned and in disarray.

They set up camp, and Doubar and Rongar are on watch, and all sorts of creepiness happens.

Doubar thinks ghosts are responsible, but when they wake everybody up Maeve doesn’t sense anything. It turns out to be Caitiff, the manservant who raised Jullanar, trying to scare the intruders away. Mahmud’s locked in his study, hard at work, so they all troop in to meet him.

...he’s a giant, too, because he invented a potion that makes you big! But he couldn’t write his daughter and tell her what happened because the letter would be too big to send (or have Caitiff do it because that would make too much sense). Good thing their house is big enough to accommodate him, huh?

Mahmud is intrigued to learn Firouz is a scientist because “only a scientist will truly appreciate what I have done“. He wanted to eliminate war and famine by making giant animals, and tested it on the local animals. (Okay, so why don’t we see a giant goat earlier? We already HAVE footage of a giant goat from “The Bully”- you mean to tell me that he thought people should eat vicious poisonous-looked LIZARDS for food? What? I think they were his pets, personally, although that’s never actually stated.)

Anyway, he ended up drinking the elixir himself, and his ego grew along with his body, So now he hates everyone except for possibly Jullanar. Want to join me in drinking the crazy juice? Giant Dad says.

Jullanar is unconvinced but Mahmud puts a wooden crate on top of the crew when they protest. Mahmud is conveniently put off by Jullanar’s reluctance but decides to take the rest of the potion the next day.

Jullanar sneaks back at night to rescue the crew and they start to escape. Mahmud wakes up, drinks the elixir, gets EVEN BIGGER and goes after them.

There’s a lot of stomping and gesticulating as the crew runs away. To make matters worse, a giant snake attacks! Maeve tries to throw a fireball, but trips, and has to be supported as she hobbles away.

Sinbad tries to fight the snake, but it’s no use, so they keep running while Mahmud taunts them. The crew makes their stand at the wagon, Just when it seems all hope is lost, Mahmud falls into a sinkhole. Hahaha, just like in “The Bully”! Hahaha! Well, that was easy.

Cut to the village, some time later. Apparently, the giant lizard starved to death, which no one but me thinks is tragic. No mention of the giant bird and the snake, so I don’t know what happened there. There’s some moralizing about getting too big for your situation, and Jullanar is going to live with Caitiff and Milford and make the world a better place (via alchemy? what else can she do?) which worked out so well for Mahmud. Sinbad politely agrees to come back in a year to check up on them, but we never follow up, which is frankly a good thing in my opinion. The end.

Okay so this is a poorly-plotted mediocre episode at best that recycles footage and tropes from better episodes. I wish we could have seen more of Plunkett. He was a jackass, true, but at lest more interesting and original than anything else that happens here. And what about that school for alchemists again? Fanfiction, am I right? I thought so.

Also, where did the episode title come from, anyway? Am I missing something?

#adventures of sinbad live action tv #episode commentary #no reptiles were harmed in the making of this episode #at least not on screen #fending off giant animals #size *does* matter #alchemy leads to trouble #have you noticed the recurring themes in this show?#sinbad's troubled past #unfortunate CGI reuse #sinbad 1x18 #firouz always ends up holding the map #suspension of disbelief fails for unusual reasons #the perils of knowing something about plants #SCIENCE!

1 note · View note

chrismaverickdotcom · 8 years ago

Text

The Logan Supremacy.... (no spoilers)

I’ve kind of gotten sidetracked away from doing movie reviews for a bit here. Sorry about that. I’m still not quite sure if anyone cares. People say they want my take, but it always feels like there’s far more people interested in my political stuff. Anyway, I’ve been meaning to write one for Split for a while (saw it a few weeks ago) and didn’t get to it. So now I’m not sure if anyone is interested anymore. Let me know.

That said, there’s a new superhero movie out. Logan. And of course I have to review that one. So here we go.

I’m kind of wondering if the post award season hard-R superhero movie spot is just going to become a thing with Fox. After last year’s Deadpool (which I liked a lot) and this year’s Logan, Fox seems to have something. Certainly something beyond what they did with Fant4stic and X-Men: Apocalypse, both of which pretty much royally sucked. I’m actually quite happy to say that with Logan, they actually had something going here.

I always try to avoid spoilers in these as best I can. Here it’s going to be quite easy because my thoughts on what made Logan work really don’t have much to do with the movie at all. It’s more about what they DIDN’T do that really works for me.

I’m actually kind of starting to hate movie franchises. It’s not just that they’re cash grabs. All movies are cash grabs. All products are cash grabs. That’s just how it works. Everyone wants to make money. And I understand that you need big tentpole films in order to make Hollywood work. And that’s the honest truth of it. For anyone who likes to say that they don’t care about these big budget extravaganzas, you need to understand that they keep Hollywood running. Without big budget superhero films, there is no La La Land or Moonlight. It’s a sharing of the wealth. That’s just the business. And movie franchises have always been a big part of that. I mean literally always. Go all the way back to the Golden Age of Hollywood. We have Casablanca, Citizen Kane and Singing in the Rain because your great grandparents sat through a shit ton of really godawful Johnny Weissmuller Tarzan movies and that’s not to mention Ma and Pa Kettle or Andy Hardy. Because no matter what you like to remember about the Golden Age of cinema… no matter what La La Land and Hollywood want you to believe… most of it was basically a big shit show. Just like now. In fact, in those days — Code Era Hollywood — it was even worse.

But one of the things that the franchises understood back in those days was that they weren’t TV (or maybe more accurately they weren’t radio). The Tarzan films are not high art, but they all stand alone. They are related, but only nebulously. The order of them doesn’t even really make all that much difference. So long as you saw the first one and know the origin story, you’re good to go with any of the. Frankly, if you missed the first one, you’ll basically figure shit out. White dude with the accent of a caveman, swings from vines and yells a lot. Hell, if for some reason you want to make a Tarzan movie without Johnny Weissmüller, just throw in Buster Crabbe. Who the fuck will know the difference?

And this is how franchises have always worked. After the days of movie serials (which were weekly, like TV shows), Hollywood learned that you couldn’t expect everyone to see every film in the franchise and certainly not to wait a year or two for the next installment of a story. This has been the way of franchises for movie history. Even serialized films like Star Wars didn’t require all the parts to tell the story. That’s why they were able to start with EPISODE FUCKING FOUR and most people never even noticed. James Bond is theoretically one ongoing franchise, but it doesn’t make sense in the slightest. Actors change. Events contradict each other. There’s a soft reboot for the most recent Daniel Craig films which takes them back into being prequels to most of the other ones (or a replacement in the case of the Casino Royales) but even those don’t make sense, because they retain the M (Judi Dench) that was hired in the final Pierce Bronson pictures. But it all just kind of works. Because there’s just an understanding by the viewer that continuity in the Bond Universe only matters when it does. The individual films are consistent in themselves and that is is enough. You can watch any Bond film and its fine. The others may or may not have canon that happened. It doesn’t matter. No one cares. If you’re doing a Bond marathon and you happen o hate Octopussy. Just skip it. I doesn’t matter. The same is true of Tarzan, Andy Hardy or (to a lesser extent) even Star Wars.

But somewhere along the way, this broke. Maybe it was Empire Strikes Back that broke it. Even though i remains the best Star Wars movie, it really doesn’t have a beginning or an end. It’s all middle. But it was certainly broken by he time we got to Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter. Hollywood figured out that they could make us pay to see episodic TV in theaters. And frankly it kind of sucks.

Not all franchises are like that. The success of the Marvel films is that even though they’re sort of episodic, they don’t really rely on each other much. At least not really Avengers: Age of Ultron kind of did, and it’s one of the things that I really don’t like about that movie. It’s one of the big problems with Batman v. Superman. That’s not really even a movie. It’s a lot of set up for other movies that hasn’t been earned yet. What makes the Marvel films work is that when I walk out of the theater, I (usually) feel like I’ve seen a complete and conclusive story — even if it is a story that is part of a larger one. What makes a franchise not work is when each installment is more concerned with locking the viewer in for the next installment OR PREVIOUS ONES than it is with telling it’s own story.

What made Logan work is that it just didn’t give a fuck.

And it was great because of it. Like Deadpool, this is a movie that exists within the X-men universe. But only in the most superficial of ways. It matters in the same way that it matters that any Bond films related or any Tarzan films. Instead of trying to tell an X-men franchise story, James Mangold directed a simple and compelling action movie that happens to be set in the X-men world. In effect it isn’t really an X-men movie at all. It’s a Jason Bourne movie. It’s a John Wick movie. It’s Léon, The Professional, where the part of Léon will now be played by Wolverine.

And it was fucking awesome.

Ot at least it was awesome for what it was. If you like Jason Bourne style action movies, you should love this. It is the story of a reluctant hero, put into a situation which he didn’t choose, where his only way out is to kill a lot of people. REALLY a lot of people. And kill them… like a bunch. Like so much killing. Like if you’re into a movie where dead fuckers are stacking up left and right. This is the movie for you. If you don’t want to see that, you will not enjoy this. Because there is so so so so so so very much killing going on.

And I’m trying to review this for what it is. This is a franchise movie. It is not high art (which The Professional inexplicably is). It doesn’t want to be. It is trying to be the best franchise movie it can be and the best killing spree movie it can be. I am judging it on that merit. The action was fun. The killing was gory. It gives movies like Bourne and Wick a serious run for their money. At the same time, there is enough of a compelling story to gesture towards something like The Professional to make it something more than a mindless action spree. It has heart and soul in a way that most movies in this genre really don’t. There are real stakes for the character and between the killing… oh so very much killing… the film gives you a reason to care for the characters and want them to succeed. I mean, a reason beyond wanting to see them survive to kill some more.

But it didn’t rely too heavily on it’s franchiseness. What you need to know about the other X-men/Wolverine movies. Logan is a guy with claws and a healing factor. Professor Xavier is a guy with mental powers. They’re mutants. Nothing else matters. These things aren’t explained. Much like it’s never explained why Tarzan is in the jungle or talks funny after the first movie. Why does John Wick have a gun? Cuz he’s a dude with a gun. That’s who he is. Let’s move along.

Beyond that, the other movies don’t matter. Frankly, a lot of the events of the other movies are kind of contradicted by this one. And that’s fine. It just doesn’t matter. Like Bond, continuity only matters in this film when it does. And when it doesn’t, Mangold just doesn’t give a fuck. In fact, probably my least favorite part of the film are the time (relatively few times) that Mangold tries to address the ongoing X-men continuity just to keep the geeks off his back. It’s done with a bit of a wink. He lets you know that the film doesn’t really “fit” and he doesn’t care. The Wolverine character pretty much tells you that directly. It’s too much. I don’t need it and it took me out of the movie. It’s a double edged sword I guess. If he didn’t do it, there’d be a bunch of assholes on Twitter saying “but this doesn’t work, because the events of X-men: The Last Stand say this other thing. Mangold is explicitly saying “I know. I don’t care. That movie fucking sucked and this one is better. Deal with it!” And he’s right. He did make a better movie. But it would be even better still if he didn’t have to say that in the film itself. Bond films never apologize for being Bond films.

The particulars of the film are pretty good. Hugh Jackman and Patrick Stewart are excellent in their characters… and they should be since they’ve had 17 years of practice. Dafne Keen is also very good in the role of Laura. She’s not going to be getting Natalie Portman/Mathilda style accolades… but she was good and I hope she has a future in it. Seeing her fight as an 11 year old girl was cool, though there were some points where it was kind of obvious that she was stunt doubled or CGI’d out in a way that it isn’t as much so with Jackman and that makes her seem a little more artificial in an otherwise very gritty film. The rest of the cast is basically “okay.” I don’t feel like there is anyone else I can really rave about, but no one is offensively bad (and that’s a positive in a movie like this).

So I recommend seeing it. Especially if you’re a fan of Bourne style movies. It is an excellent entry into that genre (generally not one of my favorites) and, assuming this really is Jackman’s final time in the role as he has said, a great send off to his version of the Wolverine character. Just don’t look for much else out of the film than that. Instead, appreciate it for all he things that it doesn’t do.

And it is the best there is at what it doesn’t do… well… maybe not the best… but pretty damn good.

★★★★☆ (4 out of five stars)

Logan ‘Sunseeker’ Promo: Wolverine Drives a Limo Now

The new ‘Logan’ trailer shows off female Wolverine with Hugh Jackman

Logan review: Hugh Jackman’s last turn as Wolverine is the real, shotgun-toting, limb-lopping deal

‘Logan’ Won’t Have a Post-Credits Scene After All, But May Still Have Something Extra

Every ‘X-Men’ movie ranked worst to best

LOGAN Review: Farewell, My Lovely

Logan Continues to Mutate into Johnny Cash Music Video With Possible B&W Version

Logan Photos: Hugh Jackman Says Goodbye to Wolverine

Asriyati liked this post

(function(d, s, id) { var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0]; if (d.getElementById(id)) return; js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id; js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1&appId=1449198322001470"; fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs); }(document, "script", "facebook-jssdk"));

The Logan Supremacy…. (no spoilers) was originally published on ChrisMaverick dotcom

#franchises #Hugh Jackman #James Mangold #laura #Logan #movie review #Patrick Stewart #Professor X #X-23 #X-Men (film)#X-Men Origins: Wolverine #X-Men: Apocalypse #Xmen

1 note · View note

lukethewitt · 5 years ago

Text

Angel on the Underground - Chapter 2

My train journey was now marked not just by stops along the line, but by the blur of graffiti I passed shortly before arriving at London Bridge Station. Or perhaps the blur of a graffito, since it appeared to be just the one image drawn on the tunnel wall.

I got a reasonably decent view of the blur each morning and afternoon. Obviously not a good enough view to know what it was a picture of, but certainly good enough that I knew it was a roughly child-sized, greyish spray-painting. It seemed to be a picture of someone, and I wondered if it was some musician, writer or activist who had inspired the graffito artist. The train was slowing as the blur rushed by, and it was the daily reminder that it was twenty to nine and I was approaching the platform.

My walk to the office on Angel Place was the usual squash of hundreds of busy people rushing to work. They were mostly exhausted and fed-up commuters in sweaty shirts on their way to one of the countless offices around London Bridge. I even recognised one or two of them as being employed by fellow charities, people I'd seen at functions and co-operative fundraisers. There was always an oddball or two, though, and I could barely think of a journey around London that didn't involve meeting some strange person with an inexplicable appearance.

Today it was a man dressed as an angel. Not a half-hearted attempt either; a full white robe with large wings to the side of him. It was a wonder he could make it on the underground. They weren't exactly outstretched, but in a swung-back, or rather swung-down, position. They were easily one-person wide each, meaning the angel took up three people's places wherever he walked or stood. It was a highly inconvenient outfit, made all the more inconvenient by a large, brass ring suspended by a rod above his head. The angel wasn't the traditional, pure-white figure as depicted in Renaissance art, but more a grubby twist on the classic, with even the cloak an off-white hue and the wings being closer to those of a wood pigeon than an olive-bearing dove.

I couldn't quite fathom why this man (it appeared to be a man, although I couldn't be certain) was dressed in such a way. He certainly was confident enough to go out that way, unless the costume was forming a shield around a more insecure individual. Perhaps it was part of campaigning for some charity located in the area.

In the office and on the phone again, I had to deal with another day of depressing calls. It wasn't that I didn't value the work. Of course I knew of and cared about the problems that people were dealing with. Every fibre of my being is compassionate and concerned about abuse. But that was just the problem. Not that I was ignorant but that I was too well aware. It was grating, wearing, deteriorating my own mental wellbeing.

‘Good morning, you're through to Reduce Abuse. You're speaking to Robert. How may I help you?’

‘Hi Robert, I'm… I don't really want to say my name.’

‘That's okay. I'm just here to talk if you need someone. You can say as much or as little as you like.’

‘Thank you, Robert.’ The callers liked to use a name. Reduce Abuse insisted upon having us use a name, even if it's not your real name. It's something personal to cling to. A comfort. ‘I... I was raped.’

It was surprising how open people were about this, but it was often the case. People went from never telling anyone in their lives what had happened to confessing all to a stranger over the phone. Anonymity could be a blessing and a curse. Here at Reduce Abuse we tried to use it for good.

‘I'm very sorry to hear that,’ I said sincerely. ‘Is this something that happened to you recently?’

‘No… No, it happened… It happened around 25 years ago. I've never told anyone.’ Her voice started breaking. ‘I've never told anyone.’

‘That's okay. I'm here with you now.’

‘Thank you. Thank you so much. I just needed someone to talk to.’

Or sometimes they would go like this:

‘Good morning, you're through to Reduce Abuse. You're speaking to Robert. How may I help you?’

‘I don't understand. I don't get it. What's the point of it? What's the point of anything?’

I could hear that the person on the other end of the phone was shaking, on the verge of tears.

‘It's okay. I'm here to talk.’

‘Thank you. Can you help me?’

‘I’ll do what I can.’

‘Thank you. How do you do it, Robert? How do you get out of bed each morning and convince yourself there are reasons to be alive?’

‘Well, I personally try to focus on the positives. This morning I had a couple of croissants in some nice honey.’ This was a lie. I stuffed a slice of toast into my mouth on the way to get the tube. ‘It made me happy, and it might not solve everything in the long-term, but does everything need to?’

‘Are croissants going to provide you meaning in a meaningless world? Is your breakfast going to stave off your inevitable death?’

‘Of course not. But that made me happy this morning. Now I'm having a chat with you and tonight I'll watch something interesting on TV. None of these things are solving the fundamental questions of the universe, but they bring us pleasure in the short term. They make us happy without making anyone unhappy, and can hardly be described as reckless behaviour.’

‘That makes you happy. It doesn't make me happy.’

‘What does make you happy? Are you an avid reader, or a painter, or a bike-rider?’

‘I'm sort of into exercise. I'll go for a run occasionally, but I'm not hugely committed. Hate cycling. I like reading.’

‘Who's your favourite author?’

‘That's a tricky one. I really like Fitzgerald.’

‘F. Scott or Zelda,’ I asked, with a grin that I hoped could be detected over the phone.

‘Ah,’ he said, more positively, ‘you know your stuff.’

‘I've read Save Me the Waltz as well as most of Scott's stuff.’

‘Have you read Nancy Mitford's biography of Zelda?’

‘No, I haven't, although I've heard good things.’

‘It's very good, if anything a little too good.’ He was clearly cheering up now. ‘It made me hate Scott Fitzgerald,’ he mumbled glumly. Perhaps he wasn’t cheering up as much as I'd thought.

‘Why do you say that?’

‘Because he was a cheating, controlling scumbag who possibly stole from his wife's writing, and definitely encouraged her to give up on writing future novels. She once threw herself down the stairs to get his attention because he was neglecting her and flirting with someone else at a party.’

I didn't know what to say to that. I grasped for something, and decided it was best to continue the conversation as normal, rather than leave dead air and have him draw his own conclusions. ‘Sounds like quite a wild but toxic relationship.’

‘Yeah, exactly. I don't really feel comfortable reading the books of a writer like that.’

‘So do you believe it's impossible to separate the art from the artist?’

‘Well, yeah. I mean how can we listen to what he has to say about the world if his actions made someone's world an unbearable place? He may have drunk himself to death, but he led his wife into an early grave with him.’

It was a valid point, and one I wasn't sure I had it in me to refute. However, this was bothering the caller, and it was my duty to make him feel better. If I told him that his misery was justified and indisputable, then I was doing nothing to help improve his condition. ‘What do you think of the Leavises?’

‘Who?’

‘Q. D. and F. R. Leavis. They were two literary critics, arguably the founders of modern English Literature as a subject, who believed that everything relevant to a novel is contained within its pages.’

‘So all the biographical details of an author are irrelevant to the work?’

‘Exactly right.’

‘So we just ignore who the individual is? Even if you're reading a book by a rapist or a murderer, it doesn't weigh on your conscience?’

‘That's what the Leavises say.’ What was I doing? I'm not a Leavisite.

‘And how about all the contemporary artists? People who are still making works of art and profiting from it? What about all the directors and actors whose movies are still making hundreds of millions? Even if they're sex offenders or violent thugs, we should just ignore that, should we?’

‘Well, it's still possible to separate art from an artist.'

'So I can go and see a film directed by a rapist, knowing that my money is going to the rapist in question?'

'Well, the majority goes to the studio.'

'And the studio makes money, so they keep hiring the same director, still putting him in a position where he can hire actors and actresses and assault them without any comeuppance.'

It was a difficult case. I tried my best to debate without telling the caller definitively whether he was right or wrong. What was I doing? This wasn't my job, and I wasn't a trained psychiatrist. I was on the phone most of the day now, even though I'd been hired to deal specifically with cyber-bullying.

While I was talking, I noticed the rest of the office (with the exception of my manager, who had a room of his own just behind me) giving a round of applause. I looked up and saw that my colleagues were all looking at me and grinning; upon turning, I noticed I was gripping an orange, which made me laugh.

My colleagues discovered long ago that I was good at catching. 'Phenomenal' they largely agreed. I don't know why, I guess I just did a lot of sport as a teenager and got very good at throwing and catching. I was trained up at this, so during the quieter periods in the office, when we had no messages to respond to, emails to answer or calls to take, we would take it in turns to throw and catch a ball around the office. I was so good at this, that it became a case of people throwing various items at me to see if In could catch them. I never failed once.

Now it was common for people to throw things at me when I wasn't looking to see if they could catch me out. Again, my ability was so good that I never failed. Here I was, holding an orange which had been thrown at me, and my reactions were so good I didn't even realise I'd reached out to catch it.

'How do you do that?' one of the people shouted from the other end of the office, at which point I indicated to show that I was talking to someone on the phone. Even my boss was stood behind me cheering me on, which caused the person on the other end of my line who was currently crying about the loss of a loved one to ask why they could hear such festivities.

When my call was done, my boss said, ‘Sounded like another cracking job well done.’

That was one of the frustrating things about him. He viewed every element of our work as a mere algorithm: say the right words and phrases and soon enough the caller will be fixed. It was never that simple. It never could be. The honest truth was that some of our callers were people who just needed someone to talk to in a time of struggle or if they had something to get off their chest, but a lot of these people needed serious counselling.

‘Why am I always the one on the phone?’

‘What?’

‘It always ends up being me taking the phone calls.’

‘Yes, but you’re good at it.’

‘I’m meant to be on social media. Responding to messages and comments. I like that. Being able to take a moment to think as I reply. I’m better at writing than I am at speaking.’

He let out a small, airy laugh at this, which I tried to ignore. It was frustrating. Such a subtle noise, yet it could be interpreted many ways. Most people reserved that short sound for a case of injustice or a mildly amusing joke which deserved appreciation without summoning genuine laughter. Here he’d forced it to come out with no evident cause. It made me irrationally angry, but it felt so belittling. I tried my best to ignore it and continue, but I got the sense that a scowl was spreading its way across my forehead.

‘I don’t like being on the phone. It feels like I’m being put on the spot.’

At that moment, Simon lobbed his mug across from the other end of the office and I caught it. ‘Two sugars if you wouldn’t mind, Rob.’

I got up and went to the small, dirty kitchen which contained only a kettle, a broken fridge and a few boxes of teabags. We had expressed concern about the poor quality and limited cleanliness of the place before, but the response had invariably been bossman pulling a smug, patronising smile and saying, ‘But we are supplying you with free hot drinks.’ It was hardly a speedboat, but I think the expectation was that we ought to be grateful.

Nobody ever had a rebuttal to that. Any time anything went wrong, we were expected to either put up or fix it ourselves, at our own expense. It was a charity, after all, and every penny spent on a new fridge was a penny taken away from raising awareness, supporting those in need and fighting important legal battles. Anyone who suggested anything to management which might involve a potential unnecessary expense went bright red at the thought, feeling very guilty about taking money from a charity. I happened to know that a few people working in management were on six-figure wages, but the less said about it the better.

Boss gathered a couple more mugs and followed me into the kitchen. We’d gotten so used to referring to him by his role that many people in the office were probably unaware what his actual name was. It was tedious at first, but when we realised that the disgusting power trip he got from being called Boss also brought his guard down, we knew we could call him that and he’d be like putty in our hands. He still refused most of his employers’ requests, but Boss was the best hope we had of getting in his good books.

'I was just a little confused, Boss, about why I'm on the phones so often.'

His face dropped. 'Is it an issue that you're on the phone a lot?'

'Well, it's not really in my job description.'

'Would you like me to update your job description?'

'That's not really my point. Boss.'

'Look, Robert, you're really good at talking to people. They find it a comfort. I've listened back to some of your calls and you really help people.'

I was aware all our calls were recorded, but I never really thought about how closely they're monitored. 'I really love dealing with cyber-bullying. Obviously, it's not a fun topic, but I can deal with it, Boss. I feel like I'm helping people, without having to talk them down from the ledge every day.'

'Well, if we don't have you on the phones, we'll have to stick someone else on it. And nobody else is as good as you. Do you want someone else who is less effective to deal with those who need the best?'

I hated him doing that. It was flattery combined with blackmail. I didn't want to be on the phones. I didn't want to deal with people who were suicidal, just those who were depressed or anxious. But now he made me feel guilty. It was taking a toll on my mental health.

'Look, the people we get on the phones don't need a bit of assistance from a charity. They need regular counselling.'

Boss sighed. 'I know they do. Loads of people do. But the government decided on a policy of austerity, and now counselling is very hard to come by.’

Counselling in this country has never been easy to come by. Most counsellors work office hours, so if your office doesn’t have its own counsellor, you have to choose between taking time off work unpaid to go to a counsellor once a week (the loss of money and/or holiday time being very bad for mental health) or not going to a counsellor. Most people picked the latter, which was also bad for your mental health.

In all honest, most offices seemed to splash out endless supplies of money when they decided they were in need of a new Assistant Supervisor to the HR Consideration and Assessment Panel of Hypothetical H-ing and R-ing, but the seconded somebody raised the notion of hiring a counsellor, management claimed there was no conceivable way they could find the money for such a trivial thing.

In response to Boss’s comment, I didn’t have a reply. His point was completely valid, but so was mine. These people did need counsellors. The fact that the government had removed most funding for counselling and other health services didn’t mean an unqualified charity worker such as myself was a thorough substitute for professional counselling. I would have jokingly suggested the best thing for people’s mental health would be to vote for a different party, but it wouldn’t have been well received. Charities are legally required to be apolitical.

I didn’t quite understand how that was possible. If you’re a charity devoted to saving badgers and the government introduces a new policy of killing badgers, are you supposed to take a backseat? Or do you have to break protocol and subsequently lose charity status and the tax-exemption which comes with it? Paying more taxes for an organisation means less money to spend saving badgers, planets or mentally ill people anyway.

‘I think a lot of people need counselling more than they think,’ I said. ‘But in the absence of professional, state-funded counselling services, I suppose we’re the next best thing,’ I conceded.

Boss grinned, viewing this as a personal win. He slid a mug adorned with pictures of cats to me across the counter, apparently under the impression this was him lending me a hand. If I were a less polite person, I would have told him to make Freida’s coffee himself. He’d get it wrong, though. He doesn’t know how Freida takes it. And he likely doesn’t know that the mug covered with cats was Freida’s. She’d worked here for 15 years and her desk had supported 15 successive cat calendars, but that was clearly of no consequence to him.

#writing #novel #satire #counselling #mental health #fiction #office #ya novel #novelist #novellist #story #prose #comedy #weird #alternative

0 notes

democratsunited-blog · 6 years ago

Text

Why Russia Will Help the Democrats Next

https://uniteddemocrats.net/?p=6361

Why Russia Will Help the Democrats Next

Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats warned last week that the nation is under sustained cyberattack from foreign adversaries like Russia. “I’m here to say, the warning lights are blinking red again,” Coats said, echoing the comments of former CIA Director George Tenet about the summer of 2001. “The warning signs are there. The system is blinking. It is why I believe we are at a critical point.”

Coats’ remarks reinforced consistent warnings, from current and former national security officials over the past year, that Russia is moving forward with more attacks on the midterm elections.

Story Continued Below

And why shouldn’t the Russians do more? Their multipronged 2016 attack, outlined in repeated indictments this year by special counsel Robert Mueller, was a resounding success, and in the nearly two years since, the United States has taken no meaningful action to change Russia’s calculation that the risk-reward of attacking American democracy is worth it.

“There should be no doubt that Russia perceives its past efforts as successful and views the 2018 U.S. midterm elections as a potential target for Russian influence operations,” Coats said in February. “We expect Russia to continue using propaganda, social media, false-flag personas, sympathetic spokespeople and other means of influence to try to exacerbate social and political fissures in the United States.”

What makes the American government’s ongoing inaction—and the general myopia on Capitol Hill and at the White House around the cyber threat—so stunning is the simple fact that the Republicans in charge of the executive and legislative branches should be terrified that they’re next. The 2016 attacks by Russia boosted President Donald Trump and undermined Hillary Clinton’s campaign, but there’s no guarantee that the next nation-state considering the electoral landscape will back the Republicans.

In fact, almost the opposite. There’s solid geopolitical evidence that boosting the Democrats would be a smart strategy for a foreign actor this fall.

***

Vladimir Putin’s goal isn’t—and never was—to help the Republican Party, at least in the long run. Boosting Trump’s presidential campaign was a means to Putin’s end: Weakening the West, and exploiting the seams and divisions of the West’s open democracies to undermine our legitimacy and moral standing. Russia accomplished that with great success in 2016—and it’s a strategy that is continuing to pay dividends today. “Their purpose was to sow discontent and mistrust in our elections; they wanted us to be at each others’ throat when it was over,” former chairman of the House Intelligence Committee Mike Rogers said last year. “It’s influencing, I would say, legislative process today. That’s wildly successful.”

Just look at the past week of foreign policy, during which Trump slammed NATO, insulted German Chancellor Angela Merkel, undermined British Prime Minister Theresa May and the government of our closest ally, called Europe a “foe,” and mused out loud about whether he would honor the foundational mutual-defense premise of NATO. Not to mention the bizarre news conference with Putin that the BBC summed up as: “Trump sides with Russia against FBI at Helsinki summit.” It would have been hard for Putin to plan a more effective week to undermine and divide the West if he had orchestrated and stage-managed the entire process from a Kremlin whiteboard.

As former FBI Director James Comey explained Putin’s strategy: “It’s not about Republicans or Democrats. They’re coming after America, which I hope we all love equally. They want to undermine our credibility in the face the world. They think that this great experiment of ours is a threat to them. And so they’re going to try to run it down and dirty it up as much as possible. That’s what this is about, and they will be back. Because we remain—as difficult as we can be with each other—we remain that shining city on the hill. And they don’t like it.”

The Russian attack in 2016 was a nearly perfect asymmetric assault. Although it was expansive and expensive—the Internet Research Agency effort alone employed hundreds of people and cost upwards of $1.25 million a month, according to Mueller’s indictment—it was highly cost-effective, perhaps the most effective intelligence operation in modern history, all achieved at very little political cost to Russia and at little risk to its personnel. As Comey said, “We’re talking about a foreign government that, using technical intrusion, lots of other methods, tried to shape the way we think, we vote, we act. That is a big deal. And people need to recognize it.”

The next round of election attacks may not even stem from Russia. Other nation-state adversaries—particularly America’s three other leading cyber adversaries, China, North Korea and Iran—have surely taken note. It would be all but espionage malpractice for them not to be out there plotting right now about how to achieve the same results by following Russia’s now tried-and-tested model. That’s especially true as they watch the wishy-washy response to Russia’s attack from the White House: The U.S. government has taken no meaningful action that would discourage Russia from interfering again, in 2018 and 2020—and we’re spending another week consumed by the very question of whether Russia even did attack us. The White House, meanwhile, has even done away with the National Security Council’s cybersecurity coordinator position, downgrading the role that has served as the government’s main point person on cyber—meaning that if an attack did occur this fall, our response might even be slower and less coordinated than the response was in 2016.

These are hardly the actions of a government inclined to rain down meaningful, damaging punishment on someone coming to attack voting machines in Arizona.

There’s a good argument to be made that China, for one, might look at our congressional elections and think that helping the Democrats in 2018 would be best for them. While much of our focus on Trump’s bull-in-a-multilateral-china-shop approach to foreign policy has focused on his attacks on Canada, Europe and Africa, or his inexplicable coddling of Putin and Russia, there’s no country that has benefited more from his presidency than the rising and increasingly aggressive and authoritarian China.

As we retreat from international alliances, China has stepped into that vacuum. Trump’s temper tantrums have given China the time and space to build new relationships around the Pacific Rim, to pursue their mega-One Belt One Road project and to chip away at the international security alliances that have made the Pacific an American lake for 50 years.

One way for China to extend the period of a vacuum of American leadership: Throw the Senate to the Dems, ensuring not just two years of oversight hearings but also fraught nomination fights that would leave the government understaffed and under-resourced and unable to engage thoughtfully with the rest of the world.

Democratic control of one or both houses of Congress might, from a brass tacks Chinese or Russian perspective, guarantee two years of a paralyzed America, a country continuing to look inward, not outward. And Democratic control of Congress could help arrest Trump’s trade war, which actually could be harming China’s growth and rise—and the one thing China can’t afford to lose right now is it’s economic growth. A Democratic House might lead to a polarizing impeachment fight that would further exacerbate America’s political divides and weaken the country globally, at least in the short term.

China doesn’t need to sideline the U.S. forever—just long enough to have built itself into the global military and economic superpower befitting its status as the world’s most populous nation. Two or four more years of America refusing to engage on the world stage and undermining rules-based systems like the World Trade Organization, and of President Trump storming out of G-7 summits would go a long way toward giving China the space it needs to solidify new alliances and build new systems that aren’t focused on the post-World War II Bretton Woods-style comity that aided the U.S. over the past 70 years.

Similarly, Russia might decide that its aid to Trump was so successful, that he’s been so effective at advancing Putin’s goals, that they want to keep him in power past 2020. A good way to help Trump get reelected is to give him a Democratic Congress to rail against for the next two years. There’s a pretty straightforward trend in American electoral politics: Recent incumbent presidents lose ground in the midterms, then win second terms.

Iran, of course, is another capable cyber adversary that has a big bone to pick with Trump: the death of the nuclear deal that was letting the Islamic Republic re-enter the global economy. What if Iran decides that they want to go after Republican Sen. Tom Cotton, its fiercest critic and a Trump backer?

If it weren’t for the president’s fragile ego, it would be easy for Republican lawmakers to say, “We don’t think the Russian effort affected the 2016 election, but we can’t take the chance that similar efforts in the future ever succeed.” And then throw themselves into an all-out, no-expense-spared, herculean effort to lock down every county-level voter system, ensure paper backups in every elementary school gymnasium voting precinct, install two-factor authentication on every GOP congressional campaign email account, and pound the social media platforms every day to remove disinformation, minimize bots and trolls and block dark-money ads.

Remember that Dick Cheney led the nation into the War on Terror with the so-called “One-Percent Doctrine,” his idea that. if there was an even a 1 percent chance that terrorists were pursuing a nuclear weapon, “We have to treat it as a certainty in terms of our response.”

The odds that a foreign government is coming back to attack our election this fall in 2018, or in 2020, are far, far greater than 1 percent.

We should all care about securing our elections against foreign interference, for many patriotic reasons. But even if Trump and the Republican Party’s turn-the-other-cheek approach to Russia’s cyber attacks is based on crass self-interest, they should rethink their silence. There’s no guarantee that today’s allies are tomorrow’s allies.

Journalist Garrett M. Graff (@vermontgmg) is the author of The Threat Matrix: The FBI at War, and a former editor of Politico Magazine. His new book, Raven Rock, about the U.S. government’s Doomsday plans, was published this month. He can be reached at [email protected].

This article tagged under:

Read full story here

#Democrats

0 notes