#all from dir. Martin Scorsese :)

[danascullly]

Can you hear it? Can you hear the ticking of the clocks, Goncharov?

GONCHAROV (1973) dir. Martin Scorsese

[lightgaswaterelectricityrent]

And though Mollie’s three sisters had wed white men, she felt a responsibility to have an arranged Osage marriage, the way her parents had. Still, Mollie, whose family practiced a mixture of Osage and Catholic beliefs, couldn’t understand why God would let her find love, only to then take it away from her. So, in 1917, she and Ernest exchanged rings, vowing to love each other till eternity.

Mollie relied on Ernest for support. A lawyer who knew them both noted that his “devotion to his Indian wife and his children is unusual…and striking.”

A Justice Department official had noted that her “illness is very suspicious, to say the least.” It was urgent, the official went on, to “get this patient to some reputable hospital for diagnosis and treatment free from the interference of her husband.”

Burkhart never admitted having any knowledge that Mollie was being poisoned. Perhaps this was the one sin that he couldn’t bear to admit. Or perhaps Hale had not trusted him to kill his own wife.

An attorney assisting the prosecution asked whether she’d feel better if agents brought her to see Ernest. “That is all I wanted,” she said.

The death of his daughter, the haunting face of his wife each day at the trial, the realization that the evidence against him was piling up—it was too much to withstand. “I’m absolutely helpless,” Burkhart said.

By the time Morrison was convicted of Anna’s murder, Mollie could no longer look at Ernest. She soon divorced him, and whenever her husband’s name was mentioned, she recoiled in horror.

Killers of the Flower Moon, dir. Martin Scorsese // Killers of the Flower Moon by David Grann (2/3)

[sailorspica]

what do you think is Kenny's fatal character flaw?

to me it always seems reductive to attribute his failings to violence on itself and not something more rooted, to me what debilitates him more than anything is cowardice. But again, what do you think?

we're on the exact same page about violence for this universe because the whole damn point of the uprising arc and kenny's entire appearance in it, imo, is a prelude to paradis' re-entry into international conflict. measuring any of these characters based on quantitative on-page violence is so goddamn naive, but that's a tangent for my defense of gabi braun

kenny himself identifies too closely with violence as "the only tool he had," and it's silly to take his snk 69 narration as reliable/his sense of self as clear. cowardice is a great word and i think the ultimate truth of it all, but another excuse he might make is he focused too hard on uri, and later his "grand dream." another lie he tells himself could be: he's a u-haul lesbian. he fell so hard and so fast that it didn't even occur to him he was failing kuchel. kuchel and levi are like succulents or sourdough starter he forgot about

because really! if he's employed as uri's pretty much 24/7 bodyguard (the irishman dir martin scorsese), then yeah, he doesn't have time to be "some kid's dad." but childcare? you're basically aristocracy again, how you sit on the council, surely there's governesses looking after noble children. or if you want to reinstate the ackermans as a warrior house bound to the crown, levi could have grown up like, frieda reiss' gay older cousin. there were options

besides stifling his own guilt about levi (or guilt toward kuchel), i think he actually... does care about his squad, but realizes it too late, when the caves are fucking falling in! his "everyone's drunk on something" monologue shows traute and the rest of his squad on the panel for "dreams." in the tavern, he tells levi he'll kill anyone to get to his goals, but i think he was, again, too focused on the founding titan to consider this massive squad of what, 30 people? probably because they're supposed to be elite, seasoned MPs, they know what they're getting into, etc. but in this respect, he's kind of like eruri as one: trying to do the erwin thing of "calculated risks" and convincing people to die for his cause with sheer charisma and rhetoric, only to realize just before death he's too soft for that shit. (but i don't think he'd go on levi-style family condolences tour for his squad because he is a coward.) i've compared him to erwin before: he has no real idea of what he would do with the founder if he had it. he just wanted the view from up there, like erwin had no dreams for a future past the basement

i'm not entirely comfortable making this metaphor but his death speech sets it up: kenny is drunk on something more elusive than power. it could be uri, for whom his euphemism is "a grand dream" (jesus christ). i don't think what matters as much as just how plain destructive habit or addiction is, and how disinterested (or afraid) he is to consider another way of living, like rod's "fuck off now" line about finding something else to do. his pattern has been: kill as many MPs as possible for a grudge he doesn't actually care about (where is his sister? dunno); then stay glued to this dying man's side (where is his nephew? who cares); then pursue the founder (he could kill his nephew and several teenagers in the process? who cares). his yapping at levi about hobbies is way more revealing to Me about his character, while the drunkenness monologue is more of a series thesis statement

[levbolton]

I told my friend about how much Goncharov 1973 has affected me, becoming my favourite movie, and she tried to search it up online. Then, all confused came back to me, asking why isn’t she finding it anywhere, and I think we need to adress this matter.

Goncharov is, despite all criticism, a queer piece of media. Not only that, but it has Russian queer characters, set in a yet Sovietic time-frame.

We all know the tensions between the East and the West during that time, screw it, the tensions are still alive even now. All the “homo propaganda” that Russia tries to silence and ridicule and blame on the West for all its gay people. And sadly, Goncharov 1973, is maybe one if its biggest victim.

Until just a few days, if you searched online Goncharov 1973 dir. Martin Scorsese you would have found nothing. The entire movie was removed from history, all scenes burned and all posters ripped due to the Soviet Union’s pressure for it to be deleted.

[ID a screenshot of a french market application where a rare version of Goncharov is being sold at an overpriced price (150€ when the original price was 15€).

Translation: ���Collector version of Martin Scorsese’s 1973 mafia movie.

No more in market, thus the price (not debatable, i won’t answer foolish proposals)

Can be passed in hand in Lile (France) or sent with care” End ID]

Source

Thus the only sources were the limited physical copies created during the short time it was available for sale.

This proves the recent analysis (here too), that men have a hard time escaping the violent environment they were set in, that that’s how it must be. All the queer tendencies having to be silenced because it’s an anomaly (we’ve all seen the goncharov x andrey scenes, idc how you can say they’re just partners in crime, there’s definitely more) or how women must, despite their own preferences, stand next to a man. How their worth is based solely on their support to another man, unable to chose their own life path (the katya and sofia scenes touched me more than almost any GLs i might have read fr).

The movie did mock these stereotypes, that’s why it rubbed the Soviet Union the wrong way and it stirred such a controversy.

But in the end, the ones who suffer the most are the queer people from there. Just because they don’t have a voice anymore it doesn’t mean there never existed, or still exist, queer people in Russia. Just open a history book my friend, there are endless examples: Tchaikovsky was a gay man who is thought to have been assassinated because of his orientation. [ID a famous picture of Piotr Tchaikovsky next to Iosif Kotek, said to be the composer’s partner End ID]

Konstantin Somov, whose connection with Methodiy is said to be just “friendship” despite his writings in his journal. [ID a painting done by Konstantin Somov depicting Methodiy Lukyanov in PJs, said to be the “one who loved Somov the most” as Somov wrote End ID]

Rudolf Nureyev, bisexual, who was even expulsed from the Soviet Union during that time and who was never able to see his mother until the moment she died… [ID a portrait of the famous Russian ballet dancer, Rudolf Nureyev, who was in a long term relationship with Danish ballet dancer Erik Bruhn, until the latter’s death End ID]

They existed, they exist. They people who suffer the most. Stop silencing queer media and queer people! It is important…

Let’s spam Goncharov everywhere. Goncharov and Andrey and Katya and Sofia. They are all valid. Let’s not leave their story fade in vain.

[recklessfiction]

While searching through the tag of my favourite mafia movie Goncharov (1973 dir. Martin Scorsese) I saw @halomancer mention how Andrey always keeps people out of his blindspot EXCEPT in certain scenes when he's with Goncharov, like the quail hunting scene. I think it's really interesting, from a story telling perspective, that during such a quiet moment in between all the violence, Andrey allows Goncharov to hover just out of view.

This all means so much more when you realize it was Goncharov who stabbed out Andrey's eye in the first place.

There are only a few lines that allude to the whole thing and they're not exactly the main point of conversation in any scene but one of the main ones is during the dinner scene near the beginning when we first meet Sofia and she comments on it to Andrey, saying he hadn't had the injury the last time they'd seen each other. Remember what Andrey says?

"What price would you pay if you could get into the best kind of trouble? The kind you can't bring yourself to regret. Remember when we would steel peaches from your father's orchard? The joy of it? It was like that, and Sofi, I would have paid any price. I did." Now this line wouldn't really mean too much if it weren't for the immediate cut to Goncharov while Andrey is still speaking. The voice over of Andrey while the camera pans up from where Goncharov is repeatedly hurling his knife into the desk is, in my opinion, a dead giveaway that it was Goncharov that took Andrey's eye, though in what context this could have happened I'm still not sure. We all know there's some kind of history before the movie where Andrey fucks over Goncharov so it could very well have been him getting even before Andrey makes good on his escape. Maybe other people have some better idea?

What I'm saying though is I find it so so interesting that even after this, Andrey is still willing to have Goncharov where he can't see him. I think this really speaks to how deranged Andrey has become after being pulled back into this world of violence and death, as well as the fact that, despite this whole thing, he still trusts Goncharov explicitly. I think its like a learned behavior after having his life literally in the hands of a killer for years of his life.

Anyway I adore Andrey and how fucked up he is, so jot that down.

[super-ion]

In honor of the 1 50 year anniversary of Goncharov, I wanted to write just a little thing about my favorite underappreciated side character. Mariella deserves so much better than what she got.

-----

Mariella gasped awake, clutching at her midsection.

Katya shot her.

Mariella, drenched in Sofia's blood had grabbed her lover’s gun. Before she could even attempt to aim, the second shot rang out. A lance of pain streaked through her as the clocktower began to chime. She sank to her knees on the wet flagstones on the bridge and felt the life pouring from her. The last thing she saw was Sofia's glazed eyes. The last word on her lips was Sofia's name.

The clocktower, now distant, rang. She stared at the ceiling of her bedroom, tears prickling in the corners of her eyes.

It was Monday again. The clock was chiming with the sunrise.

Mariella pressed the heels of her hands against her eyes. How many times had she woken up in this bed, on this day? How many times had she been around this loop?

She had lost count a long time ago.

Each time was different, as if she were trapped in a story with a thousand authors who couldn't agree on the details.

She wasn't even the main character of whatever this story was. She couldn't explain it if she wanted to, but over the grind of endless living the same week over and over, it had become clear that she was just a minor side character. Someone who existed in the background, along for the ride in someone else's narrative.

She rolled out of bed and stared into the distance.

“What do you want from me?” she asked the universe for perhaps the millionth time.

She didn't think about trying to end it. She had tried. She had tried and tried and tried. But invariably, death simply delivered her back to this moment.

Perhaps she had been dead this whole time. Perhaps this was hell.

She was doomed to relive the same five days, doomed to fall in love with a woman with impossibly twisted loyalties, a woman who herself fell in love with a monster, a monster by choice rather than necessity, but a monster nonetheless.

Even after this eternity, Mariella could remember being a schoolgirl on holiday in the countryside. She could remember meeting Katya, she could remember falling in love.

She could remember their reunion, years later. She could remember the unease, the vague wariness of meeting the woman that girl had become.

The door to her flat opened. Joe was here, bearing eggs and bread and sweet apples from the market.

Might as well start again, she murmured to herself and drifted like a wraith to the kitchen.

Joe was at the stove, his back to her as it always was.

“Hello, sister dearest. Do you want breakfast?”

The boss wants you to work late tonight, Mariella recited silently.

“Boss wants me to work late tonight,” Joe said, without turning from the stove. “Might be a busy week.”

He did turn them, a crooked grin on his face. He stilled at the sight of her. Something dangerous flashed in his eyes. Something she never noticed or questioned before the day after tomorrow.

Why do they call you Icepick Joe?

The question had been innocent enough at the beginning, but she had seen too much, lived through this week too many times.

He studied her a moment.

“There someone I need to pay a visit?”

The woman I love is going to kill you in four days.

Or he was going to kill her.

Both of them would be dead by Friday in either case.

Sofia would kill Joe. Katya would kill Sofia. Or Goncharov would kill Sofia. Or Andrey.

It was always the same. Every. Single. Time.

She wanted to scream. She wanted to fall to her knees and howl until her throat was raw.

Every single person Mariella ever loved would-

The phone rang.

Mariella flinched.

The phone never rang. Not in all the times she had lived through this morning.

It rang again.

She stared at it.

“You going to get that?” Joe called over his shoulder.

With trembling hands, she picked up the receiver and raised it to her her.

“Mari?”

Her breath caught in her throat and she nearly staggered.

That voice haunted her dreams, it haunted every waking thought.

She wasn't supposed to hear that voice for the first time until that evening.

She cast a glance at Joe, who was no doubt listening very intently.

“It's… it's me,” she said, trying to keep the tremor out of her voice. “I'm here.”

“Mariella, what the fuck is going on?”

[pumpkinspicedlesbian]

My favorite things - 2023

After keeping track of what I watched and read this year I thought it would be fun to look back and make some little lists.

BOOKS top 5

Uzumaki - Junji Ito

The Talented Mr Ripley - Patricia Highsmith

Lapvona - Otessa Moshfegh

The Boys From Brazil - Ira Levin

This Sweet Sickness - Patricia Highsmith

NEW MOVIES 2023 top 5

In the order I saw them, these are the releases from this year that stuck with me. Obviously this is only picked from the things that I saw.

Mag Ik Je Aanraken -Dir. Tamar van den Dop

Killers Of The Flower Moon - Dir. Martin Scorsese

Humanist Vampire Seeking Consenting Suicidal Person - Dir. Ariane Louis-Seize

Anatomy Of A Fall -Dir. Justine Triet

May December - Dir. Todd Haynes

OLD MOVIES 2023 top 15

Picked from all the other movies that I watched for the first time this year. These are the ones that really spoke to me and this is obviously highly subjective. Ordered by when I watched them.

Secretary (2002) - Dir. Steven Shainberg

In Fabric (2018) - Dir. Peter Strickland

Shiva Baby (2020) -Dir. Emma Seligman

The Banshees Of Inisherin (2022) - Dir. Martin McDonagh

The Duke Of Burgundy (2014) - Dir. Peter Strickland

A Girl Walks Home Alone At Night (2014) - Dir. Ana Lily Amirpour

Carrie (1976) - Dir. Brian De Palma

The Wicker Man (1973) - Dir. Robin Hardy

Audition (1999) - Dir. Takashi Miike

Bound (1996) - Dir. Lilly Wachowski, Lana Wachowski

Spoorloos (1988) - Dir. George Sluizer

Housu (1997) - Dir. Nobuhiko Obayashi

Gebroken Spiegels (1984) - Dir. Marleen Gorris

Black Christmas (1974) -Dir. Bob Clark

Exotica (1994) - Dir. Atom Egoyan

Let me know what you think of my picks and feel free to follow me on Letterboxd (@deydemdee) or Bookworm (@regenworm) and tell me your fav books and movies or make your own list!

Happy 2024, may it be filled with wonderful art!

[89rooms]

You don’t choose who you fall in love with, do you? And once you do fall in love - that obsessive sort of love, that all consuming love, where two people can’t stand to be apart from each other for even one moment - how are you supposed to let a love like that pass you by?

The Wolf of Wall Street (2013), Dir. Martin Scorsese

[fangerine]

“One day some of the kids from the neighborhood carried my mother’s groceries all the way home. You know why? It was out of respect.”

GOODFELLAS (1990) dir. Martin Scorsese

[darlingofdots]

y'all are trying so hard to sound intellectual about it but it's time we all admit that the fruit vendor from goncharov (1973) dir. Martin Scorsese is just this the predecessor of this guy

[callthefruitsquad]

Did time mean nothing, or did time mean everything? After rewatching the cult classic Goncharov (1973) dir. Martin Scorsese, all I could think of was the other queer cult classic from the 70s. That’s when I blacked out and my hubris took over and now this exists. (link to redbubble shop here)

[dearorpheus]

tagged by: @athenaefilia, thanku sweetling!🌷

currently reading: hurts so good: the science and culture of pain on purpose by leigh cowart and woman, eating by claire kohda one non-fiction, one fiction, by turns. both very enticing premises—the former has a fairly intuitive title but the latter began with the epigraph “all life, to sustain itself, must devour life.” from lafcadio hearn’s ululation and is about a young mixed-race vampire attempting to, as goodreads puts it, balance her deep-seated desire to live amongst humans with her incessant hunger

last song: fever by the cramps, saved after watching kathryn bigelow’s near dark (1987), now in the rotation of this absolutely incoherent playlist of mine

last movie: tonight i marathoned cape fear (1991) dir. martin scorsese, the age of innocence (1993) dir. scorsese and there will be blood (2007) dir. paul thomas anderson... brain blasted

currently working on: up until recently, i’d been in a protracted phase where i was too restless to sit down to watch a full length film. have, in an effort to take advantage of my last few weeks of semester break, dedicated myself to quelling that (can you tell?)... it’s made me miss terribly that one unit of film studies i took some years ago now 

tagging: @aiangels, @thedearidiot, @night-leaves, @zombiehordes, @engineofhell, @olreid, @feuillesmortes, @clarabeau, @chateauofmymind, @etromdthu, @marypickfords, @blackhyena, @antigonick, @virgo-moons, @intricateritual, @tierblutige, @mezentiuslongdeath would love to see your answers but no pressure!🤍 

[lightgaswaterelectricityrent]

But Mathis, who managed Anna’s financial affairs, contacted Mollie, and she led a grim procession toward the creek that included Ernest, Bryan, Mollie’s sister Rita, and Rita’s husband, Bill Smith. Many who knew Anna followed them, along with the morbidly curious.

An Oklahoma reporter observed, “Travel in any direction that you will from Pawhuska and you will notice at night Osage Indian homes outlined with electric lights, which a stranger in the country might conclude to be an ostentatious display of oil wealth. But the lights are burned, as every Osage knows, as protection against the stealthy approach of a grim specter—an unseen hand—that has laid a blight upon the Osage land and converted the broad acres, which other Indian tribes enviously regard as a demi-paradise, into a Golgotha and field of dead men’s skulls….The perennial question in the Osage land is, ‘who will be next?’ ”

There were fewer and fewer Osage who knew the old prayers for the dead. Who would chant every morning at dawn for her?

One day, Hale’s pastures were set on fire, the blaze spreading for miles, the blackened earth strewn with the carcasses of cattle. To Mollie, even the King of the Osage Hills seemed vulnerable, and after pursuing justice for so long, she retreated behind the closed doors and the shuttered windows of her house. She stopped entertaining guests or attending church; it was as if the murders had shattered even her faith in God.

White found himself wandering through a wilderness of mirrors—his work more akin to espionage than to criminal investigation.

An Osage, speaking to a reporter about the guardians, stated, “Your money draws ’em and you’re absolutely helpless. They have all the law and all the machinery on their side. Tell everybody, when you write your story, that they’re scalping our souls out here.”

The doctor recalled asking Hale, “Bill, what are you going to do, kill this Indian?” Hale, laughing, said, “Hell, yes.”

White observed the way Ramsey kept saying “the Indian,” rather than Roan’s name. As if to justify his crime, Ramsey said that even now “white people in Oklahoma thought no more of killing an Indian than they did in 1724.”

A prominent member of the Osage tribe put the matter more bluntly: “It is a question in my mind whether this jury is considering a murder case or not. The question for them to decide is whether a white man killing an Osage is murder—or merely cruelty to animals.”

Under the headline OLD WILD WEST STILL LIVES IN LAND OF OSAGE MURDERS, a wire service sent out a nationwide bulletin that the story, “however depressing, is nevertheless blown through with a breath of the romantic, devil-may-care frontier west that we thought was gone. And it is an amazing story, too. So amazing that at first you wonder if it can possibly have happened in modern, twentieth-century America.”

Killers of the Flower Moon, dir. Martin Scorsese // Killers of the Flower Moon by David Grann (1/3)

[bondsmagii]

Please give me the forbidden Goncharov discourse 👀

so for context, this comes from a post by tumblr user lastoneout that reads:

turns out tumblr does have reading comprehension and the ability to analyze a complex text through multiple frameworks and have a nuanced discussion while doing so but apparently we were all saving it up to have nuanced discussions about a fake movie with no actual text to analyze

and then my tags on the post, which read:

#this is so funny but i maintain it's the only unrealistic thing about goncharov (1973) #like you mean to tell me the fandom on tumblr is this huge and yet there's not one hate blog? #there's not a core group of haters posting the most deranged piss on the poor shit in the tag? #no discourse? no anon hate? #christ but there's not a single poc in it come on tumblr i've not seen a single person get called a racist for liking it #this is a glimpse into what peace on planet earth would look like #(ironically i do have some deep analysis for why this might be but i will spare op lmao)

now forgive me if this makes no sense, because this is the first time I have tried to articulate it before, and of course in keeping with the theme it's about a fake movie (cinematic masterpiece Goncharov, (1973) dir. Martin Scorsese).

with the obvious out of the way first: Goncharov is a fictional movie, it does not exist, and therefore there it nothing to say about the real-world issues associated with lack of representation. this means we can skip that in actuality, though if we're looking at it from the perspective of a real movie and how it would be regarded on Tumblr, I'm sure that there would be related discourse. however, this is not real, so we can focus on the more entertaining, light-hearted sides of fandom. and this is universally what Goncharov posts were like: gifsets, fanart, humorous and well-written textual analysis, deep and pretentious photosets and quotes, everything that you love to see. but it was odd, in terms of realism, that there were no haters at all. which made me wonder: why are there haters when it comes to real things, but not when it comes to fake ones? part of this is what's mentioned above: in real life, there are some dynamics and trends and issues that can and do have a very real impact on society, or represent aspects of society that should change. but I can't help think it was something else, too.

I mentioned in my tags hate blogs specifically, because in real fandoms, you can easily find hate blogs that have absolutely nothing to do with any real, tangible criticism. it is just vitriolic hate: of a character, of a book/film, of an actor or actress involved, or some combination of these. there's no actual criticism, and very often there are massive feats of mental gymnastics used to make fans of [character] or [thing] look bad. it is just seething hatred, all directed towards something that is supposed to be entertainment; it's supposed to be fun! so why do some people take something harmless and make their entire personalities about hating it -- as well as spending significant parts of their day talking shit, getting into arguments, and even sending anon hate and threats to fans? it's because there are some people out there who like to hate things. they don't seem to like having fun. anything fun that comes their way, they have to pick holes in it; they have to have something negative to say to it. deep down, they know this is a very sad way to live. they know there's a difference between being a casual hater who likes to bitch about things in private with friends, or make the occasional joke or rant online -- and running a literal blog dedicated to hating something. they know there's a difference and they don't want to admit that they're losers, so they dress it up as something noble. these days, it's usually activism. this also explains the mental gymnastics, the reaches, the "fans of [character] are -ist or -phobic" shit. they're applying a thin coat of legitimacy to the fact that they're irrationally angry about something completely pointess, and there are a lot of people out there who seem to think this is a good and beneficial way to spend their time.

even among fans, there are some who seem to be having a bad time. I have looked at certain posts or blogs before and wondered to myself if the person even actually likes it, or if at this point they're just hostage to nostalgia or the idea of it (either the potential or their fan version of the universe) and they can't just call it quits. these people are not the same as the previously described, as they don't make their whole lives about hating something, but they're clearly miserable and could do with moving on, and they do contribute to the kinds of critical and often aggressive posts missing from the Goncharov project. the absence of this, as well as the more unhinged hatred, does leave a pretty obvious gap in the believability of the film's existence, and this is... rather depressing, really.

the thing that allowed Goncharov to be a peaceful experience was because of the fact that it wasn't real, and everyone knew it. but this should be applied to all films and books: they are not real. while some criticisms are valid (such as the terrible writing that female characters are often subject to, or the lack of representation in popular cinema, etc) a lot of the hate comes from interpersonal beef about characters, and these people aren't real. it's a very strange thing to witness: that so many people are capable of understanding that Goncahrov and Katya etc aren't real, and therefore there's no point getting mad about them, but they cannot carry that over to any other fictional character. the film's unreality is part of the joke, woven into it from the foundations, and so no hater, no matter how deranged, could possibly take themselves seriously hating it. instead they have to resort to complaining about the joke itself, and how annoying it is, but the content remains completely hater-free. it's an absolutely fascinating glimpse at the complete breakdown of the line between reality and fiction on this website -- Goncharov came from within, and its construction and creation was there for all to see, whereas other media seems to spring to the consumer fully formed and therefore with some kind of mystery that awards it a certain flair of legitimacy. I don't mean to say that anyone thinks it's real, but certainly they seem to think it's more serious, and worth getting worked up over. but none of it is real, none of it is worth getting worked up over, but for some reason it seems that when a creation comes from one's peers, this mystery is removed and the complete pointlessness and inanity of getting into fights online over fictional characters and events is illuminated in all its glory.

[mindless-mars]

okay so we all remember the restaurant scene in the second half of Goncharov right? In the opening scene of that sequence you can see a random couple making out and a waiter interrupting them. This waiter right there (who later is one of the guys holding a gun, trying to shoot Goncharov and Katya) is actually my granddad! His great-uncle or something had connections to a film studio in Italy and somehow my grandpa got this little role in one of the most iconic films of all time!

When it was finally shown in movie theatres in Germany, my dad wanted to see it. Cause you know, his father had a role, but he was actually too young so he had to wait until it was shown on free TV! I actually saw it a couple of years ago when my dad bought a DVD on eBay and the best part is that in German my grandpa got dubbed my some random guy, so it doesn't sound like him at all lol

Scene from Goncharov (1973) dir. Martin Scorsese

[timefadesaway]

when i was maybe about 8 they showed the last temptation of christ (1988) dir martin scorsese on tv at easter and when i was 8 i recorded it bc i wanted to watch it for some reason and i didn’t have the attention span for the full three hours because i was 8 so i watched it in little segments over a number of days and i didn’t even notice they were all italian american and that david bowie was in it because i was 8. and no one stopped me from doing that even though it’s like an R rated movie bc it was about jesus 🙏 or maybe no one noticed. but i watched all of it and enjoyed it bc i had highbrow tastes for an 8 year old like i refused to watch cartoons i just watched animal planet and take that documentaries and that’s why i think cinema is so important to me now. because of willem dafoe jesus