#and even if not everybody in their fan base is biblically literate | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

coppicefics · 4 years ago

Photo

Masked Omens: Week Three

New chapter here, or read from the start here!

(Right click picture and select ‘View Image’ or ‘Open Image In New Tab’ for hi-res version.)

[Image Description: Image 1 - A simple rendition of the Masked Singer UK logo, a golden mask with colourful fragments flying off of it. The mask has a golden halo and a golden devil tail protruding from either side. Below, gold text reads ‘Masked Omens’.

Image 2 - A page from the Entertainment section of the Capital Herald, dated Saturday, 9th January, 2021. Full image description and transcript below the cut. End ID.]

The Capital Herald - Saturday, 9th January, 2021 Entertainment

Main story: SECOND SABLE BRAND AMBASSADOR ADMITTED TO HOSPITAL Stunned fans phone in to save the day as model collapses during charity fundraising challenge Model and social media influencer Adam Mann, 29, was rushed to hospital on Friday night after he collapsed during a live webstream. Worried fans alerted the authorities and an ambulance was dispatched to Mann's Kensington home at approximately 8pm last night. Mann's representatives have yet to release a statement, but a source close to him told The Capital Herald that Mann had been feeling unwell for some time. “He's been out of sorts for ages,” she admitted, “and when I looked up the symptoms online, it said it was probably malnutrition. I told him, it's that diet he's on. But Adam wouldn't listen.” Mann is a brand ambassador for Dr Raven Sable's diet and lifestyle products. Earlier this month, another Sable ambassador, Lilith Root, checked into an in-patient facility to begin treatment for an eating disorder. Sable's representatives have so far declined to comment on either incident, despite repeated invitations to do so. Mann is a dedicated charity campaigner, often urging his peers in the modelling industry to raise awareness and funds using the wry social media hashtag #NotJustAPrettyFace. In the few years since he rose to prominence, he has supported hundreds of charities ranging from local foodbank initiatives to global human rights and animal welfare concerns. “It‘s so like Adam,” our source told us, “to literally collapse in the middle of trying to help someone else. He always puts himself last. I really, really hope he’s OK.” It’s a sentiment that’s been echoed in Twitter threads and on message boards across the internet - including in the comments of Mann’s most recent Instagram post, which was uploaded just an hour before the livestream started. “Ready to take some questions, have some fun and raise some cash for a great cause,” said the caption. “Please Adam, look after yourself and get well soon. You’re so thin in this photo :( xxxx” replied a user with the handle @adamfann95, three hours later. Similar messages soon followed as news of Mann’s condition spread. At the time of Mann’s collapse, his charity livestream had raised over £15,000 for Lionheart, a charity dedicated to the care and protection of lions and other wild animals who’ve been illegally kept as pets. Since then, fans have continued to make donations in his name, and the charity is now set to receive over £38,000. “We wish Adam a very speedy recovery, and we hope he knows he’s always welcome to visit us at the Lionheart Sanctuary,” said Noah Shipman, the charity’s founder and chairman. “Thank you to all those who’ve donated; we firmly believe that these animals belong outside, not cooped up between four walls or in someone’s garden. Just like us, they like to roam! Thank you for helping us to save those poor creatures who’ve been put in a horrible position through no fault of their own.” At time of writing, there has been no update on Mann’s condition. MARY HODGES. [Image Description: a close-up of biblical Adam biting the apple, taken from the Good Omens TV show. End ID.] TAKEN ILL: Adam Mann, pictured above in an ad campaign for Dr Raven Sable’s CHOW nutritional lifestyle regime, was admitted to hospital on Friday evening (Image: QuiteUnlikely.net)

Centre left: Memory Lane: Tip from the Top The gunge plunge was a child's idea of justice, but it worked. They don't make children's telly like they used to. Before Peppa Pig and Shaun the Sheep, there was Superted and Maid Marian and Her Merry Men. Those shows have had their time, changed the genre for the better, and been consigned to history – and there's certainly an argument for reviving them. But one children's show that's going to be hard to replace is my old favourite, Tip from the Top. Hosted by Blue Peter alum Pat Maputi, the show was based on a simple, winning format; kids competed to score points, win prizes, and ultimately get the opportunity to drop their least favourite parent, guardian, teacher, or other adult into a pool of gunge and goo. Named for the chair that tilted forward and dislodged the unfortunate adult seated on it, the show might have been nothing more than a simple gameshow curiosity, but its concept of offering redress for the many perceived slights inflicted on kids by grown-ups made it a real treasure. To children of my generation, it was like a little revolution; when we were sent to our rooms unjustly, when we were kept behind after class, when we were made – horror of all horrors – to tidy our rooms, Tip from the Top offered the tantalising prospect of justice. Of course, all the adults on the show had agreed to be there, accepting the risk of being plunged into a thick layer of green slime. Pat Maputi was in league with the detention-givers and the room-senders all along. But as children, we didn't realise that; to us, Tip from the Top was the highest possible Court of Appeal. And for that, it will always be remembered fondly. Sadly, Tip from the Top was cancelled in 2000, a new millennium bringing a new wave of children's television to our screens. The focus of children’s programming began to shift towards a more fiction-heavy schedule, and some undoubtedly excellent shows came out of it. But perhaps, even after all these years, a reboot might not be too much to hope for – after all, children these days must have just as many complaints about their adult overlords as we did, back then. Clearly, somebody needs to give Pat a call and set the wheels of justice in motion once more. SARAH JEUNE. Memory Lane is our regular feature, looking back at the books, shows and films of yesteryear through a nostalgic lens. Do you miss something you’d like to see featured? Just send the show name (plus channel and airdates if you know them) in an email to: [email protected] - your prayers might just be answered!

Centre right: The Masked Singer Continues Did I really have a life before the live shows? It's only week three of The Masked Singer UK's first ever live series, and already I've forgotten what I used to do with my Saturday nights before it was on. Is it just me, or is anybody else having funny turns on the Tube, squinting suspiciously at strangers and wondering, “could it be you?” Of course, the likelihood of running into Apple, Axolotl, Black Cat, Bonfire, Goose, Pony, Snake, Squid, Sword or Teapot on my morning commute is vanishingly small, and they'd be unlikely to give themselves away if I did see them. But after a Saturday night spent hunting for the slightest clues and rummaging through my own brain for names, it's hard to turn those instincts off come Monday morning. Everybody seems to have a theory, of course, even at this early stage. My postman claims Apple has to be a tech mogul, my colleagues have a betting pool on which character turns out to be a former member of Blazin' Squad, and my dentist waited until she'd got the little mirror in my mouth to ask me if I thought Pony walked like a minister, whatever that means. Me? I have a few wild guesses, but I'd prefer to keep them to myself until we have a little more to go on. Many of our readers, I'm delighted to report, have far more faith in their own guessing ability, and we've collected some of the most interesting responses from the comments section of our website on the page opposite. Give it a read and tell us what you think – your comment might be featured next week! In the meantime, let me recap what we do know. Bell was unmasked in the first week, and turned out to be Sergeant Shadwell, a former soldier turned YouTuber. I am assured by my more online colleagues that he's known for debunking conspiracy theories, whatever urban exploration is, and occasionally looking for ghosts. Then, last week, we met and said goodbye to Ninja, who turned out to be none other than Esther James, England women's rugby captain. I never would have guessed, and I'm quite keen on rugby; identifying someone by their singing voice alone is much harder than it seems! I may not know who this year's contestants are, but I know I'll be on the edge of my seat all night waiting to find out. I'll be tuning in tonight for another live show; if you join me, don't forget to get in touch and tell us your best theories! EDWARD BIGGS. The Masked Singer UK will air live tonight at 7pm on ITV. Contact us via our website or at: [email protected] to share your thoughts and guesses. Ad (bottom third of the page): [Image Description: A banner ad with a black background. On the right is a photograph of Agnes Nutter as seen in Good Omens, demonstrating some serious side-eye. Overlaid is Agnes Nutter’s signature, followed by the words ‘DS member & Author’. On the left, bright yellow-green figures demonstrating various exercises - a football goalie making a save, a gymnast balancing on their hands, and a weightlifter - surround the main text. End ID.] Have you been skipping leg day? Come on down to DIVINATION STATION [the words ‘Divination Station’ are a graffiti-style logo] where fitness is fun! www.divinationstation.com

#disordered eating tw #eating disorder tw #masked omens #masked omens spoiler #mine #good omens fic #mo week three

0 notes

movieswithkevin27 · 7 years ago

Text

Mother!

Sheer cinematic insanity, Darren Aronofsky's Mother! is oddly reminiscent of Mike Nichols’ The Graduate. Renowned for its ability to make the audience feeling the claustrophobia experienced by Benjamin Braddock as his parents and their friends suffocate him following his college graduation, The Graduate seems to actually be a rather important influence on the style of Mother!. Nichols' tight camera work and the chaos of the scene with a home filled with strangers who all want a piece of Ben and just a bit of his time to ask what he plans for the future, brilliantly communicates the way in which Benjamin's mind is both literally and figuratively surrounded against its will. While Roman Polanski's Rosemary's Baby is certainly also an influence, the style of the camera and the grainy camera work as Mother (Jennifer Lawrence) wades through her home that is filled with strangers who are either killing one another or stealing brings about more similarities in execution to The Graduate, whereas the substance is deeply reminiscent of Rosemary's Baby. Marrying these two together to create an entirely terrifying, chilling, and unsettling experience, Aronofsky creates a film with a suffocating atmosphere that is impossible to truly enjoy, but is equally challenging to not come away thinking about..

Unraveling in a hallucinogenic and dream-like manner, Mother!'s insanity is what has made it so divisive with Aronofsky running into the night screaming like a mad man by throwing every cinematic taboo at the wall to see what sticks. While trying to rile people up a bit by depicting such horrific violence, Aronofsky introduces a lot of themes and ideas in the film that span from religion to art to the environment and more. Ambitious, bold, and often uncomfortable to sit through, Mother! is the kind of film that seemingly very few filmmakers are willing or able to make in today's age, but with the surrealist edge of a David Lynch in his back pocket, Aronofsky is able to make it work. A film that encourages study and is not as overt as many have argued - as that is just the second layer on the onion - mother! is the kind of daring cinema that is from a bygone era of filmmaking.

There are a multitude of explanations that can be used to decipher this puzzle of a film. The first is likely the most prominent and also the one that fits the most given the events of the film. This is the predominant Biblical explanation. With Jennifer Lawrence portraying Mother Earth, who gives life, love, and feeling to the world and expects nothing in return but the same feeling in return. Javier Bardem portrays God, who creates life in his study and gives meaning to the world through his poetry with references to Him having finished a book (Old Testament) prior to the start of the film with another (New Testament) coming out during the film. Creating life and welcoming it into his home - which is quite literally mother given how the home has a heartbeat and a pulse, with a similar looking heart to mother's - Adam (Ed Harris) and Eve (Michelle Pfeiffer) are the first harbingers of what is to come from humanity. Breaking what it not theirs, having sex on the couch, and otherwise being unwelcomed guests, they make themselves right at home with no intentions to leave. When their sons, Cain and Abel (Domhnall and Brian Gleeson) arrive with the eldest son killing his young brother over their father's will (greed), it is clear that things will only continue to spiral out of control. For mother, she takes the murder in her home personally with blood spilled on her dirt, seeping in her mind and inner being, deeply affecting her in a way that it seems nobody else seems to understand. As God releases the New Testament and his followers flock about to meet Him, the film takes a darker turn due to humanity.

Forgiving, loving, and welcoming everybody into his home, God encourages all of the followers to take whatever they want from His home, as it belongs to them as well as God has given humanity the world and all of its fruits. Unfortunately, people take this free-will and destiny too far, creating hellish violence (Kristen Wiig shooting people in the head), lack of faith (stealing from God's home to prove they were there), enslaving one another (the women in the bedroom), and horrific depictions of rage (fighting), anger, and contempt for one another. Humanity is given just a little bit, takes all of it and more, and then fights one another to ensure they are able to take what others have as well. In seeing this God, is horrified. Yet, he forgives them because he loves them. Thus, when mother gives birth to his son (Jesus), God gives him to the people because, in the end, he is their savior. He represents their chance to be good, free of sin, and saved in spite of their imperfection. However, the humans quickly take him, kill him, and then consume his flesh (Catholic ritual). Once more, they are forgiven with God willing to start again and give humanity another chance to prove themselves worthy of His love and generosity.

This rather upfront depiction is accompanied by small details - the Eden-like setting of the home, mother mentioning the "apocalypse" caused in the kitchen by their house guests, a frog hopping out of the basement passage way as a hint about plagues, and Bardem consistently calling himself a "creator" with his poem being visualized as bringing brimming green life to the world - that solidify the Biblical interpretation of this film as being one that most closely lines up with the actions of the film. Though a heightened, absurd, darkly comical, and hyper-stylized take on the Bible, Aronofsky's tale of blood, rage, and fire, is one etched in the pages of the Bible and brought to terrifying life by a filmmaker who wishes to show the truly horrifying actions of humanity. For both God and mother, they give so much only to see the humans take it all and demand more. They love the people, but are rejected repeatedly. To Aronofsky, God is a loving and forgiving in the face of the sheer insanity of the people that he gave everything to and was willing to give more. By the end, Aronofsky asks the filmmaker whether life is truly worth creating or if humans will simply continuously screw it up with our inherently sinful ways. With God having created life many times before - mother, in the film, is shown to have arisen at least three separate times with the first two ending in fire - it is clear that people have yet to understand that the world is horrifying and violent because of us and our bastardization of God's creation, not because of the forgiving God who created us in the first place. Though an atheist, it is clear that Aronofsky views God as not the one to blame for the world in which we find ourselves in with so much hatred and animosity, but humanity is to blame for taking such tranquil beauty and lighting it on fire with our own lighter (Ed Harris' lighter is used to light the fire) and our own blood (the blood in the barrel). In essence, people do not listen - see Michelle Pfeiffer grab a hot pan that mother just touched and burned herself on as well - and how is it the fault of God that humanity refuses to be taught and learn? Instead, all it does is burn, hate, and kill, spitting in the face of its creator for giving them free-will.

However, this Biblical angle is just part of the film. Him/God is nonetheless a creator or an artist/poet. For Him, creation takes up much of his time as he tries in vain to write another book only to quickly get inspiration and pump up his new book in no time at all. He is a creator, thus he creates. Unfortunately for Him, his work becomes incredibly popular to the degree that his work is worshiped and he is championed as a God-like figure to the people who read and love his work. Though Aronofsky plays up the God angle, he manages to show the struggle of the artist. He wants to be successful, but once he becomes successful, things take a turn for the worst. People show up out of the blue to kiss the ring, fans demand a follow-up putting added stress on Him, and once he does follow it up, he realizes that this second book is hardly enough to satisfy the desire of his fan base. Instead, he must cope with the fan base wanting more and taking everything he has to offer, all while misunderstanding and bastardizing his work in the process. For artists, the experience of sending their work (the baby) into the world, hoping that the public will accept and love what you have created is an experience that often ends in a similar fashion to how it does in Mother!. It is from here that Aronofsky blends this theme with the Biblical rhetoric to answer critics of his prior film, Noah.

A lightning rod for controversy due to his depiction of the story of Noah, Aronofsky's film was banned in many Muslim nations and many Christian writers blasted it with the religious community even citing it as the, "the least-biblical biblical film ever made." Shortly after Noah came out, Aronofsky was set to make a children's film only to then pump out the script for Mother! in five days. Given the short turnaround and the major change in focus for Aronofsky, it is clear that Mother! is a film he was greatly inspired to make. Fashioned as a response to those who critiqued his depiction of Biblical stories in the last film, Aronofsky aims to avoid any misunderstanding. Not only are the stories of God constantly altered and misunderstood by those who profess to believe in Him, but to find issue in specific events depicted in the film or the characterization of God as violent is to miss the point of even the Bible itself and the process of creation. As an artist, liberties are often taken to tell a better story. These stories are not set in stone, nor is the story of Noah one that is solely Biblical. Rather, it can be altered to communicate the vision and message that the director wishes to communicate. However, to find issue with the portrayal of God is to simply miss the point of the Bible. It is a violent book, yet is often shown as being a book of inspiration and hope. While both are certainly true, the former is often forgotten by believers in favor of the latter. This was demonstrated by critics of Noah who argued that God was shown as being an angry and cruel God. In Mother!, Aronofsky shows a God who has thrown out the violent ways of the Old Testament in favor of a more forgiving nature in the New Testament. Locking up plagues he unleashed on the world in a sealed off storage space in the basement, he forgives every intrusion and sin committed in mother!, no matter how egregious. And how is he repaid? In violence, of course. Mother! shows the anger and cruelty of humanity. We see Cain and Abel fight, ending in blood being spilled. We see the believers rejoice and reject Jesus with horrifying gore. We see Adam and Eve sleep with one another, with Eve offering tips on seduction before seducing her husband later on. People doubt he will return and express surprise when he has not “forsaken” them (reminiscent of the doubt expressed in Exodus as the Hebrews spend 40-years in the desert, see Moses split the Red Sea, and yet still doubt). Humanity is the violent one who does not believe fully in God. Yet, he loves them and forgives them no matter what. To view God in Noah or even the Old Testament as a violent or evil being is to miss the point. It is humanity who has erred leading to its being wiped out, not God for giving them the world and having his gift refused in favor of blood, lust, and sin. Humanity is the one who takes this gift of life, spits on it, and throws it back into the face of God and assume they will not be rebuked for their heinous behavior. Yet, having realized that critics of Noah could not see this - due to their own blindness to the more violent tendencies of God - Aronofsky decided to switch his approach. Rather than passively showing the violence of humanity as in Noah, he brought it to the forefront in mother!, showcasing the horrifying behavior of people and the spiteful attitude to their creator.

Thus, in mother!, Aronofsky wishes to show that humanity is the one who receives the God they deserve, which is a violent one as in the Old Testament. To him, it is clear that any violence committed by God is deserved by this violent and wicked creation he brought forth. At worst, he wishes to show Him as a bit delusional for believing that, at their core, people are good. As Bardem's Him constantly forgives the guests in spite of Mother's panicked pleas to kick them out, the audience is left befuddled. How can he continue to forgive these people after everything they have done? Thus, Aronofsky's depiction of God's grace and forgiveness to a fault is one that scorns humanity, not God. If anybody is the antagonist in this film, it is humanity and the same goes for Noah. It is violence that begets violence, thus a violent people begets a violent God. For the world of the film, it is humanity who has brought violence and destruction to this home (mother/Mother Earth). God, meanwhile, is just the welcoming host who is willing to go the extra mile to ensure their comfort at all times. It is in this sympathetic portrayal that Aronofsky responds to his critics. Having previously shown humanity responding to the challenges of God and being wiped out, Aronofsky now - effectively - shows what led up to these events. We see the horror and feel the pain experienced by God and the Earth and, in experiencing this first-hand in mother!, we gain sympathy for his rage and anger towards humanity that would demand a full-scale restart of the world as in Noah, while simultaneously wondering why he would not do the same again to save the Earth now. In the end, it is not an act of evil, but rather an act of love and the hope that, if given another chance, humanity will be able to love and not express hate, greed, rage, lust, or pride. He is not an evil God, but rather one whose love and willingness to forgive is such that He is willing to overlook the horrors of humanity. To Aronofsky, it is not a matter of God being evil for letting the Earth suffer or more, but rather a question as to how God could allow humanity to commit such heinous acts when humanity has shown itself to be nothing but unappreciative of the gifts it receives.

From this blending of artistic license and the Biblical reading of the film, Aronofsky uses the film as a plea for the environment. Upon the arrival of humanity, people begin polluting - Ed Harris' smoking - and people begin fighting which leads to blood being spilled on her. By the end, people refuse to change their ways and continue to live their life as they wish, constantly demanding more from the Earth whereas she has nothing more to give. As they eat every fruit she bears and leech onto her like parasites, there is no recourse left for the Earth but to burn itself (climate change) and take the people who raped her along with her into the grave. It is the mission of this film to beg God to answer why he allows the Earth to be polluted and scorched by an undeserving world. It shows the beauty of his work and stunning brilliance of the world surrounding the home, and openly wonders why it must be polluted by humans who will not appreciate this gift. It is a film begging for the apocalypse to come, so that the Earth may be saved and humanity will be forced to reckon with the damage they caused to the greatest gift they could have received from their creator.

It is for the interpretations laid out above that, once more, I come away believing that Aronofsky’s work is some of the best religious-based cinema in recent years. As he is an atheist, many immediately accuse him of not understanding the Bible, hating God, or hating Christians. On the surface, it is hard to not see how many come away feeling this way. However, as a Christian myself, Aronofsky’s films are hardly that easy to pin down. Rather, he displays a great reverence for God in mother! and in many of his other films. The only animosity he holds is for those who have taken what He created and messed it all up with violence, sin, and anger. When given the Garden of Eden, man was unsatisfied and gave into temptation. Aronofsky’s rage, therefore, is aimed at humanity for behaving in the way that it has throughout human history. His reading of the Bible is not one that shows scorn for the Biblical text, but one that is honest and shows the sinful, violent ways of humanity and the unrelenting forgiveness offered by God in the face of all of this violence. He knows this film is horrifying and a tough pill to swallow, as few want to admit that it is humanity that is burning the Earth and throwing the gifts we receive back in God’s face. We beg Him to kick out the guests in the film and side with the mother and her confusion as to why Him continues to allow them to stay in their home. For Aronofsky, his only pursuit is not critique religion, but rather to use his film as a wake-up call for why we want the “guests” (humans) kicked out in the film, but do not want the same in reality. It is we who are the heinous, sex-crazed, violent, and disrespectful guests. When will we wake up and do something about it? Or, will we have to wait for God to just destroy us and start over again?

In watching mother!, it is hard to not think about the theories of Laura Mulvey regarding sexism in film. In her book Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema, Mulvey describes multiple elements that factor into mother!. For one, the male gaze. The male gaze applies to the camera, the audience, and the actors on the set, who objectifying the female characters and use her for their own visual stimulation. In mother!, this is very much the case with the camera following around Jennifer Lawrence like a dog in heat as she walks around the home in a see-through nightgown. Highlighting her behind at all times with Lawrence walking around seemingly on tippy-toes to accentuate her bottom, the camera repeatedly sexualizes and objectifies Lawrence as she walks around the home. Later, characters do the same to her with men hitting on her and women calling attention to the revealing clothing that she is wearing. The characters treat her as a piece of furniture, looking to Him as the owner and maker of the home and mother as merely an accessory that comes along with the home. As the film plays out, it becomes more apparent that, once more, the film aligns with the theory of Mulvey in how characterizes mother. Not only is she stripped while being called a cunt and a bitch in the film's climax, but she plays two roles in the film: that of child-rearer and that of castrator. The former is more apparent with her giving birth of a child. The latter ties into the yellow powder consumed by mother until she finally sleeps with Him. Many critics have cited it as a reference to the short story The Yellow Wallpaper, in which a woman's husband keeps her captive in a home tells her she is psychotic. Descending into madness, she becomes obsessed with the yellow wallpaper and the belief that there are women who live in her walls. Given mother's obsession with painting the home and her constantly feeling the walls to reveal a heartbeat, it certainly makes sense. However, this also can tie into her role as "castrator" as defined by Mulvey. Though she does not literally take away Him's manhood by any means, she nonetheless stops drinking this yellow powder immediately after finally sleeping with her husband and becoming pregnant. Right after he finally does it, she goes to the bathroom and dumps out the powder. Later, as he becomes more and more unruly, she runs to go find the powder again only to see there is none left. From there, she further loses power as Him and his followers began to overpower her. In essence, it seems as though the powder was her source of strength that gave her some sort of dominion over Him that allowed her to keep Him in check by making her a more power being that He was. As a result, by losing it and thus losing this hold over Him, she loses her power in the relationship. By the end of the film, as in Mulvey's text, mother is punished for merely being a woman as she is attacked, thrown on the ground, loses her baby, and has her heart ripped out. As a result, it is easy to see how mother! lines up with the theories of Mulvey with mother being a woman who is constantly belittled and the behest of men in the film, all while the male gaze derives scopophilic pleasure from her. While Aronofsky may claim that his film is feminist, it is certainly not feminist and is rather quite sexist. Though not a take-down of the film by any means, it does demonstrate a shortcoming if Aronofsky's stated goal was to make a feminist work (and given the reference to the feminist short story The Yellow Wallpaper, it is more than likely was his intent).

Beyond the interpretations offered by the film, Mother! is nothing less than an exquisite visual extravaganza. Not only does Aronofsky capture the dreamlike aesthetic beautifully with the plot unraveling in such a way that it seems to spin naturally, but chaotically out of control right before our eyes, but the grainy 16mm film serves as the perfect platter for the film to be served on. Old school, textured, and presenting a rough surface, this grainy film stock serves to counter the beauty of the pristine locale found outside the home. While the home may be Eden, the camera captures the darkness of the home and gives this great haunted house vibe that makes it all seem so unnatural and horrifying. The camera gives this rough edge to the film that makes it simultaneously appealing to watch but hard to watch with how coarse and dense the film is on the surface.

In terms of the acting in the film, the passionate, frantic, and terrified performance given by Jennifer Lawrence perfectly accompanies the feeling instilled by Aronofsky. She is bewildered as her home is turned into the setting for a hellish descent into humanity-driven chaos. As an audience surrogate, we feel her confusion as the lens through which she sees the world is irrevocably shattered. Her raw performance in which she is constantly moving about the house with a tracking shot following her every move gives the film this kinetic edge that gives the film the traction it needs to unravel at the pace at which it does. There is hardly a moment to breathe with this suffocating atmosphere and this is brilliantly portrayed by Lawrence who seems to never be able to catch her breath and slow down as her world crumbles. Alongside her, Javier Bardem is brilliant as are Ed Harris, Michelle Pfeiffer, and Domhnall Gleeson. Together, all three give the film the sordid and violent tendencies it needs to instill the fear and horror that Aronofsky wishes to conjure up in mother!.

Once, when asked what his film The Fountain meant, director Darren Aronofsky responded that the film was akin to a rubik's cube. There are many different ways to solve it, but only one correct answer. In having seen The Fountain multiple times, counting it as my second favorite film of all-time, and citing it as a film that truly changed my point of view on death, I am not sure I can totally agree. The Fountain, much like Mother!, is a film that can be solved in many different ways, yes, but is not like rubik's cube at all. Rather, they are both vastly different things and mean a variety of things to whoever sees the film. There is no one correct answer to a film such as this, rather a variety of them and, as with beauty, this meaning is in the eye of the beholder. This malleable, gorgeous, chaotic, and truly brilliant film, is easily a return to form for Aronofsky who took a step back with Noah. Here, his unique, terrifying, and truly claustrophobic work, stands as one of the divisive films to ever be released and even in praising it and writing about it, my own thoughts are hardly clear. Is this a work of a master? Is this a work of a hack? Somewhere in between may truly be the answer, but as it stands, there are few films that elicit such violently different thoughts upon watching and for that alone, mother! is a film that, though undeniably influenced by a bevy of films, is one that feels wholly unique and ambitious. For that, it is hard for me to come away feeling anything but greatly positive, even if unclear, about mother!.

#mother #mother!#mother movie #mother! movie #2017 movies #2010s movies #darren aronofsky #film analysis #film reviews #movie reviews #jennifer lawrence #javier bardem #ed harris #michelle pfeiffer #domhnall gleeson #brian gleeson #kristen wiig

13 notes · View notes

travelling-trooper-blog · 7 years ago

Text

First up on the agenda in Melbourne: The Immigration Museum. Melbourne has loads of really cool museum, but this was the one I was most excited about. It tells the story of how Melbourne came to be the multicultural gem that it is today by sharing the personal stories and experiences of the immigrants themselves.

Like May Vale, for example, whose parents were English migrants. Vale was one of Australia’s first female professional artists. Over the years, she went back and forth between London and Melbourne, but ultimately, she said, “I know my London well. I have lived there in all over ten years. But, as you see, I always return to Melbourne.”

In Melbourne, she was a founder and councillor of the Yarra Scultpors’ Society, as well as the councillor of the Victorian Artists Society.

Then there’s the Azzola family from Italy. The husband and wife sailed to Melbourne and made a life for themselves here that they never could have afforded back home. Edda Azzola even went on to become a big name in the fashion industry here.

Youssef came over from Lebanon with his family and started a successful taxi company with his brother.

In 2009, Nickel and Gertrude had their refugee claim accepted. After a harrowing several years trying to escape the DRC, they finally made a safe and happy life for themselves in Melbourne.

John Christie came over from Scotland back in 1863 and went on to become a badass detective. He would go undercover using various disguises to nab the bad guys. However, like much of Australia back in the day, he had a big racist streak to him. Just as the “War on Drugs” today targets African Americans, Christie went on a conquest to target opium smugglers to ramp up anti-Chinese racism–this, even though opium was totally legal in Australia, was sold over the counter, and was an important part of government revenue thanks t customs taxes.

I love that this place is so proud of its immigrant history that it has dedicated an entire museum to immigration. Sure, not all of its history is pretty, but this museum acknowledges that there would be no Australia without immigrants, and that’s a pretty big deal. They are an integral part of the nation’s DNA. Those nationalist iditos at the White House and the fools behind Brexit could learn a thing or two from Australia.

Oh wait, the English are the ones who sent their hardened “criminals” here in the first place. (More often than not, their crimes were very minor, like stealing a loaf of bread.) The first batch was brought over to New South Wales in 1788. And the only reason they did so was because after losing the United States, they figured they should colonize Australia before Japan could sink their hands into it.

One legendary convict was William Buckley. He managed to escape, and was thought to be dead. Officers figured he couldn’t last out in the wild on his own. He ended up taking shelter among the Wathaurong people for just over 30 years. He found a walking stick that had belonged to one of their elders. When they found him in possession of the stick, they believed him to be the reincarnation of their elder. He ran with this for over thirty years. Good for him.

Another white man that duped the Aboriginals was John Batman. Batman signed a treaty with Aboriginals in the Port Phillip area and gained 250, 000 hectares of land for things like utensils and blankets. Government officials in Sydney declared this treaty invalid, since Batman didn’t have the legal rights to make such a deal. He ended up getting a pretty sweet land deal later on though. As usual, white man prevails.

In the end, Australia almost ended up being called Batmania. And while that is an AWESOME name, I’m glad they didn’t go with it. Batman seems like he was a dick.

Not only does the museum tell the personal story of migrants, though; it also tells the overall story of Australia’s growth as a country. For example, at the start of the 1850s, Victoria was declared a separate colony JUST before gold is discovered in Melbourne, leaving Sydney out in the cold. They also started charging a tax for Chinese immigrants AND they stopped bringing in immigrants from England. Victoria be ruthless.

Thankfully, they came to their senses the following decade. Anti-Chinese legislation was repealed, and Australia quit the “civilise and Christianise” game with Aborigines.

The origins of Chinese immigration to Australia is pretty tragic. They started coming over as cheap labour during the gold rush after England stopped sending over convicts in 1840.

Few were able to pay for their own voyage. Instead, village elders and families took out loans through shipping agents because they believed these young men would be raking in the dough once they got to Australia and that they’d be able to pay off their loans in no time. The men believed they’d be able to come back with enough money to build temples, homes, and schools for their villages. The truth was that they were getting exploited. The only way they could pay back the loan was through gold or labour. If they couldn’t pay back the loan, their families could be sold off as labourers as well.

The reaction by locals was pretty predictable. To quote South Park: “Dey tuk ar jarbs!” There were riots, and the government ended up limiting the number of Chinese migrants allowed into the country. And to avoid hefty head taxes at the Victorian ports, ships ended up dropping migrants off in southern Australia, leaving them to hike brutal 700 km to the gold fields. Those who couldn’t afford to pay the one pound tax were literally thrown into the water with their belongings.

Even among the Chinese immigrants themselves there was division, as there were conflicts between certain ethnic groups.

Those who fell ill during the voyage were treated by volunteers, since the Australian government didn’t want to spend money on the Chinese workers.

In the end these brave young men achieved varying level of success. Some returned home very prosperous; others never returned home because they couldn’t afford the return passage; some married European women and made a life for themselves in Australia.

But then China got put back on Australia’s bad books in the 80s, and Chinese immigration was put on lock down.

By the 90s, the gold rush has come and gone, and an economic depression hits. And where does the blame go? The immigrants, of course. One particular policy is passed that allows companies to be inspected to see if they employ Chinese workers. Any furniture made by Chinese hands must be stamped to indicate so.

Things became even worse after Federation in 1901. A national dictation test was introduced to make it difficult for non-British immigrants to migrate over. For example, a Greek person could be given the test in Gaelic. If they failed, they couldn’t enter the country.

Over the years, the racially-charged politics and policies have come and gone and come and gone again. I mean, fast forward, and there has been some level of anti-immigration rhetoric floating around since the mid-1980s. It’s gained momentum over the years, though. The One Nation party, which is proudly anti-Islam and anti-multiculturalism in general, won 4 Senate seats in 2016.

There is also some sort of offshore camp where unauthorized immigrants and refugees are indefinitely held in limbo on the islands of Nauru and Manus. Most of these asylum seekers are from the Middle East and Africa.

However, this is not how all Australians feel. Multiculturalism is embraced and welcomed here. Australia celebrates the food, heritage, and culture of all of its people.

Apparently in 2016, the US and Australia made a deal in which the US would take 1200 of Australia’s refugees, while Australia would take asylum seekers who were looking for a new home in the US. Most of these were from Central America. Not sure what the point is there. A refugee is a refugee no matter where they come from.

One of my favourite features in the museum was an interactive activity. You acted as an immigration officer and had to decide whether a family or applicant would have been approved or declined back in the day based on answers they gave in a video interview. The one I saw featured a jolly Greek man, his wife who spoke no English and kept rambling on and pleading with the officer, and their little daughter. It was really well done.

The last place I checked out before leaving this inspiring place was an exhibit that looked at the complexities of the immigrant identity–your name, your looks, the first impression you leave on others, etc.

There were some fantastic quotes from individuals that I could relate to on varying levels:

“As an adolescent growing up, my name caused me great embarrassment and I hated anything that was Asian. How I wished to be Mary Smith.”

Story of my life. As my friends and family know, I hated that bitch of a Disney mermaid growing up because of the similarity between our names. Kids can be so cruel…

It wasn’t until I got older and I learned that my name translates to Angel of Light that I came to appreciate my name. But even so, it’s a Biblical name, and I’m not really the biggest fan of the Bible and religion in general for reasons that I don’t feel like going into at this very moment. So there’s this uncomfortable connection between me and the very thing that makes me ME–my name.

I think that’s probably why I prefer to go by Uri. Well, that, and I eventually got tired of people butchering my name. But even Uri technically isn’t really accurate–at least, not the way most people pronounce it. In Spanish, my name is pronounced Oo-ree-el, meaning that the shortened version should be pronounced Oo-ree–but everybody outside of my family and our awesome neighbours calls me Yuri.

I’ll admit that this is my own fault. When I first decided to go by the shortened version, which is what my mother has always called me, Oo-ree sounded a bit goofy to me–at least, when it came out of anybody’s mouth except my family’s. I was embarrassed by how it sounded. So I gave it a Eurocentric twist and changed it to Yuri. It made sense because people always pronounced my full name Yuriel anyway. Now I’m 33 years old, and I feel like it’s a bit late to start asking everybody to call me Oo-ree.

Agh! It’s so complicated!

“I looked quite normal, I sounded like everyone else, but I had a surname which no one could ever pronounce.”

Nobody in school ever looked like me. I could name all of the Spanish speaking people I ever went to school with all the way back to Kindergarten. Grade 2: Monica and Javier. Grade 6: Isaac and Luis. Grade 9: Oscar. University: Betsabe. That’s the whole reason I decided to stop speaking Spanish once I started school–if I couldn’t look like everybody else, I at least wanted to sound like everybody else.

“I’m Joanita Da Silva or Joanita Barbosa Muniz Da Silva in full. My full name includes my god-father’s family name, my mother’s family name, and my father’s family name.”

I’m Uriel Eduardo Mendoza Ulloa. My full name includes my father’s first name and family name and my mother’s family name.

“When I look in the mirror I don’t see what other people see. I’m just Sherene. But when I meet people for the first time, they look at me differently–and the questions begin.”

This one I’m okay with. I like being asked where I’m from. I like sharing my family’s story. I’m proud of our journey and my own personal journey of acceptance of my cultural identity. I’m a proud Nicaraguan Canadian with Nicaraguan blood and a Canadian heart. In the future, as immigrant cultures mix more and more, these stories are going to become more and more complex and more and more beautiful. I think the questions are the spark to a powerful conversation.

“Even if I claim Australian citizenship people will insist on my being Chinese unless I can rip this face of its Chinese skin and replace it with something else, anything else but Chinese. Physically, though, I can’t.”

“‘But you don’t look like a Muslum’ would be the most common response. Do I look like a Christian then? Are we supposed to look our religion? I prefer to look like myself.”

These two are connected as far as I’m concerned. I was once asked by a guy in Korea where I was from. When I told him I was from Canada, he gave me a puzzled look and said, “But you don’t look Canadian.” So in his mind, a Canadian must be white. This one still irks me. Like I said, I’m proud of my Canadian-ness, so it hurts if somebody accuses me of not being “Canadian” enough. There’s no such thing as a typical Canadian.

Okay, tired of the Immigration Museum? Let’s move on to the Australian Centre for the Moving Image, otherwise known as the ACMI Museum. It tells the story of the moving image, from a slide projector in the 17th century to video games like Minecraft and Super Mario Brothers today.

In the mid-17th century, a Jesuit priest by the name of Athanasius Kircher was one of the first to use a slide projector called the Magic Lantern. He used it to project religious and supernatural scenes.

A century later, entertainers used it to project images of things like severed heads and spirits floating in smoke. These shows were called phantasmagoria.

Apparently France was quite fond of puppet shows like this one in the 19th century.

Remember when you were a kid and you’d make a little flipbook animation scene? That’s basically what this does. This one is from Belgium in the 19th century.

On December 28, 1895, 33 viewers were treated to the first moving image shown in a popular cafe in Paris. Imagine seeing a moving image onscreen for the first time. The closest I can think of to that experience would be the first time I saw the Matrix in theatres. My mind was still in shock the entire drive home, trying to make sense of what it had just seen. Talk about a game changer!

The Story of the Kelly Gang is arguably one of the first feature length films ever made. In 1906, most films ran about 12 minutes long. This film ran over an hour. It was obviously a huge gamble on the part of the movie studio, but it paid off. It cost them 1000 pounds, and earned them a whopping 25000 pounds. This marked the beginning of a huge film boom in Australia. The movie tells of the notorious Kelly Gang outlaws of Australia. Ned Kelly was Australia’s Robin Hood. They came under fire when they killed a few officers though.

I had no idea that Felix the Cat was Australian! He was invented by an Australian chap named Pat Sullivan in 1917.

The Golden Age of Hollywood ran until the late 1940s. This period was marked with big movie star names, huge productions, and lavish sets.

Religion had to come in and ruin all of the fun, though, by pressuring Hollywood to clean up its act in the early 30s. First, studios agreed to adopt a set of rules that stated:

The more intimate parts of the human body are the male and female organs and the breasts of a woman. – They should never be uncovered. – They should not be covered with transparent or translucent material. – They should not be clearly and unmistakably outlined by the garment.”

While these rules were not really adhered to at first, by 1934, the Catholic Legion of Decency (REALLY?) forced Hollywood to adopt what we now know as the MPAA rating system.

Two things brought about the end of this magical period. One was the Paramount Decree. In 1948, the Supreme Court ruled that the movie studios had too much control of the industry because they could produce and promote their own movies in their own cinema houses, so they had to sell off these cinemas.

The other development was the invention of the television. Television arrived in Australia in 1956, just in time for the Olympics. But it only arrived in Melbourne and Sydney, since only they had stations. Places further out didn’t get television until much later. For example, it didn’t arrive in Darwin until 1971. 1971! That’s only six years before the first Star Wars was released! And speaking of Star Wars…

This is art.

But back to cinema for a second.

Cinemas in Australia weren’t desegregated until 1967, thanks in large part to Indigenous activist groups like the Freedom Riders, who bought tickets to the whites-only section in protest. Their refusal into the cinema and subsequent arrests were broadcasted on news channels around the country.

The ladies in Australia have also been holding it down since the 70s. The Women’s Movement was a grassroots effort that addressed issues like harassment and unequal pay by making films to raise awareness and spark discussions. (How is it that almost half a decade on, these problems still persist?)

This led to the Sydney Women’s Film Group, which produced, distributed, and exhibited women’s films throughout the 70s and 80s. They also lobbied the government for funding and training for female filmmakers. This eventually all led to the establishment of the Women’s Film Fund.

Pretty awesome, Australia!

The rest of the exhibit talked about the introduction of things like colour TV, the VCR, video games, and the digital age.

Yes, that is Jackie Chan dressed as Chun Li. Why I have never seen this movie, I have no idea.

Sadly, we missed the Alice in Wonderland exhibit by a month. It’ll be opening next month.

We left the museum just in time to meet up with Josue, a guy I met in Egypt a couple years ago. He’s now living in Melbourne at the moment. We met up for lunch and walked around downtown Melbourne for a while, catching up on the last two years.

Our walk ended back at Federation Square where we had met. We asked a woman if she wouldn’t mind taking our picture. She seemed confused by this request. “Why?” she asked.

We were confused by HER question. “Because we want a picture together…?”

“Alright. Let me put my hoodie up first.”

“……….?”

She then posed really awkwardly and uncomfortably, waiting for the shot.

“No, no, no, no, no! We want YOU to take OUR picture!”

*Everybody laughs*

And this is the crappy picture that resulted.

Overall, though, not a bad first day of exploring Melbourne. Tomorrow’s adventure would include a free walking tour.

The Travelling Trooper Explores A Couple Of Melbourne’s Many Museums First up on the agenda in Melbourne: The Immigration Museum. Melbourne has loads of really cool museum, but this was the one I was most excited about.

#acmi museum #Around the world #australia #federation square #immigrants #immigration #immigration museum #melbourne #Travelblog

0 notes