#brutal one was another different dude calling into question the effectiveness of a method of using a type of stone to cure ALL poisonings

[little-paper-man]

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm still bouncing around multiple things very slowly (like a couple of the journey sketches which turned into mini comics)

but currently I'm in the grips of reading a 300 page academic book on doctors and medicine of the renaissance because of the L4D/AC crossover I wanna write and I'm got a little too into making the doctor character.

[secret-diary-of-an-fa]

Grisly, Grim and a Fucking Delight: Feedback Review

TRIGGER WARNING: Torture, rape, daytime radio DJs. Don’t blame me, that’s just what’s in the movie.

Wow. Wow and a half. Wow and a half between two slices of thick white whoa. What a fucking movie. I’d say something like ‘they don’t make ‘em like that any more’, but they clearly do, because Feedback only came out a few years ago. I am astonished that I didn’t hear about it until tonight. You see, I was looking for an epic, slow-burn thriller to watch with my girlfriend and glamorous assistant, and I came across this little British movie about a radio talk-show host getting trapped in his studio when a bunch of masked psychos invade the premises. “Neat!” I thought upon reading the synopsis and watching the advert. “It’s Diehard but without schlubby, sarcastic Brits instead of overblown yanks.” As it turns out, I was wrong. Feedback is not an enjoyable but ultimately inconsequential gas pocket of a movie: it’s actually one of the most tense, conceptually horrifying and incendiary pieces of cinema- nay, Cinema with a capital C- that I’ve ever had the good fortune to witness. The more I think about it, the more impressed and enamoured I become. Unfortunately, in order to explain why, I’m going to have to spoil the whole freaking thing. For those of you who actually watch movies based on my recommendations (which would be, maybe, like two of you?) I’ll give you a nice non-spoilery recommendation right now: the acting is on-point, the plot is serpentine but not in a pretentious way, every prop and narrative element is used to maximum effect, the atmosphere gets tenser and tenser without ever letting you catch your breath and it’s exactly as long as it needs to be: there’s nothing missing and not an ounce of spare meat on it. It’s a lean, nasty predator of a movie and, if you let it, it will pin you down and rip out your jugular. I’ve only ever described one other movie as ‘transcendent’- a little psychological horror called The Perfection. Well, Feedback gets that exact same sticker but for completely different reasons. If you’re going to watch it- and you should- stop reading this review right now and go do it. It’s amazing.

And now for the spoilers. Consider this more of an analysis than a review. You see, the film reveals early on that the masked psychos invading the studio aren’t just randos with a political or philosophical axe to grind. They have beef with the radio host (whose name is Jarvis, incidentally. You don’t see enough Jarvises, either in real life or in movies. It’s a fun name and grossly underused, but I digress). You see, they think Jarvis’s friend raped a woman, killed another woman and beat the shit out of her boyfriend… and they think Jarvis knows all about it and may even have been involved. They force Jarvis to extract a confession from his friend early on and then kill him live on air, meaning that the rest of the film is devoted to a battle of wills between them and Jarvis as they try to force him to admit complicity, again live on air. Along the way, it’s also revealed that they aren’t just crusaders: they’re survivors of the incident and relatives thereof. Now, from the moment all these pieces were in place, I watched with an expectation of being disappointed. You see, I thought I knew what I was watching: Jarvis is visually and linguistically coded as am older slightly privileged but spiky elitist, so in most movies made after 2010 he’d automatically have been the bad guy (fuck me but do ageing white movie directors love to pretend they’re ‘woke’), while the people attacking him are visually and linguistically coded as youngish (except in one case) and victims, meaning that, in most movies, they would automatically be the good guys (hey, everyone loves an underdog, right?). I assumed I was watching one of those films. You know the ones I mean. One of those oh-so-clever ones that gets you to connect with and root for a character then reveals that he’s a shit-bag and punishes him and- by extension- you the viewer for taking his side. That was clever once, but I’ve now seen it on at least eight separate occasions, and it’s become trite. It’s particularly irksome because the victim-coded characters always get a free pass for their own shenanigans: they can murder, torture, brutalise and dehumanise but it’s always okay because something bad once happened to them. Frankly, I thought that’s what I was in for. Luckily. I was super wrong. That’s like regular wrong, only sexier and with sharper graphics.

You see, Feedback is way too smart to go for a black-and-white good-victims-versus-evil-central-character narrative. Instead, it’s a film about dehumanisation… or is it? You’ll see what I mean. In order to force Jarvis to admit complicity, his assailants don’t just fuck with him and his friend: they straight-up murder an innocent bystander and threaten to murder someone close to the protagonist. They hurt and do terrible things to Jarvis and the people around him, using torture methods that would make fucking ISIS throw up its hands and go ‘steady on, bruv’. They have a version of events that they’re convinced of but have only one unreliable character’s word for and Jarvis has a version of events that they refuse, point-blank, to believe. Jarvis’s story does begin to alter, but it’s never really apparent if he’s actually done something or if he’s just saying he has in order to keep the people around him (and himself) alive. Meanwhile, the ringleader of the little troop trying to extract a confession from Jarvis might be victim, but it also becomes apparent that she’s an unhinged psychopath intent on spilling as much blood as possible for her own personal sense of satisfaction and has as much interest in justice as a black hole has in the history of the stars it swallows up. Hooray! Some fucking moral ambiguity in a movie! I thought the entire industry had just forgotten how to fucking do that!

Much to my delight, Feedback doesn’t stop there. Merely by forcing the audience to make up their own minds about what they think happened and who’s actions are most justified, Feedback is already introducing a level of sophistication alien to modern cinema. But then it goes one step further by also subverting narrative expectations. You see, in a bleak, introspective, what-monsters-are-we-all flick like this, you expect the antagonists’ plan to succeed: you expect the last shot to be of the protagonist broken by the moral blankness of his reality, sitting in the wreckage of his life, unsure of whether he deserves what has happened to him or not. And that would have been a perfectly acceptable way to end this movie. But it doesn’t end like that. Because Jarvis is that rarest of things: a competent and determined dude. He’s not a superhuman. He doesn’t have special training. The flick doesn’t turn into an action movie or anything ridiculous. Jarvis just refuses to accept the bullshit happening to him and systematically works through every possible strategy to extricate himself without caving and admitting culpability that he doesn’t feel. He tries reasoned negotiation. He tries subduing one of the assailants temporarily and using them as a bargaining chip (the minimum necessary force approach), he tries escape and, finally, when all else fails, he uses a combination of psychology, surprise and familiarity with his environment to fight back with lethal force. It’s a considered, intelligent approach and, because his assailants aren’t organised terrorists just ordinary people who may (or may not) have a legit grievance with him, it succeeds and- to cut a long story short- he kills all of them in incredibly satisfying ways. There’s a bit involving a smug, I-can-be-as-evil-as-I-like-because-I’m-a-victim character getting skewered with a pair of scissors that instantly outranks anything in the Saw or Friday the 13th franchises as one of my all-time favourite movie kills (outright all-time favourite still goes to that bit in John Wick 3 with the really creative use of a library book, but that’s off topic).

During the climatic scenes of the movie, Jarvis screams his confession, but- as I said- it might only be a tool to distract his attackers and gain the upper hand while preserving the lives of the people he cares about. Equally, though, it might not. There’s a coldness to the character at the end of the film that wasn’t there at the beginning. Has he just been changed by the trauma of recent events, or are we seeing the facade drop away to reveal the true face of ruthless monster? And here lies the film’s final genius: not only doesn’t it answer this question (ambiguity for the win!) it also seems to suggest that the answer might not matter. Jarvis didn’t prevail because he was innocent- though he might be. His attackers didn’t fail because they became as bad as the thing they sought to fight (though they did). Victory and defeat aren’t defined by moral superiority. The film doesn’t assign winners and loser based on ethical or philosophical standpoint. Jarvis wins because he knows what the fuck he’s doing and his attackers are a bunch of overemotional quarter-wits with a half-baked plan that they can’t even stick to because they get too worked up. Survival, Feedback reminds us, has everything to do with being good at things, and fuck all to do with just being good. At every turn, the film tries to convince us that it has a moral point to make. Characters talk endlessly about truth and lies, justice and injustice… but in the end, it’s all smoke and mirrors. The film doesn’t have a central moral thesis (or, if it does, it’s a profoundly nihilistic one). Its real subjects are survival and will. It’s a study of what happens when two packets of brutal, remorseless determination meet eachother coming in opposite directions. It’s a dissection of the self-preservation instinct and its only real moral is ‘don’t fuck with a smart, grimly determined guy on his home turf if all you have to bring to the table is a short fuse and a big hammer’. Maybe that shouldn’t be refreshing, but in a cinematic landscape where every movie is determined to plant its flag on one side or the other of the political or ethical spectrum, it really fucking is. The fact that it gets you to think about ethical issues and who you believe on route elevates it, but the core of the film- the thing that makes it solid- is that refreshing element of nihilism. Breathe it in, folks: we don’t get many movies like this very often.

[therealdragonnerdagain]

Game of Thrones S7 Ep5

So Jaime was trying to kill himself. I was pretty certain he'd be captured by Dany, but thanks to Bron he made it back to King's Landing. And I hope Bron really does leave when Dany comes because I don't want him to die. I forgot he's another character I love.

Tyrion is really starting to annoy me.

He wants Dany to show mercy but only to the people he likes. He would use her to shield his favorite people and let everyone else die. It's becoming more and more apparent.

I'm really glad Dany is not listening to Tyrion. She's right: she gave them a choice and going back on it would be showing herself as wishy washy and weak. This is war, and this is the way of war. Either you choose a side or you die.

Tyrion is a Lannister and is supposed to be a pragmatist. Instead, he is showing himself to be an idealist. He thinks they can win the war AND spare everyone he likes personally. And . . . it's just not going to work that way.

It's really annoying how they keep calling her army savages. Meanwhile, the people in Westeros have got heads on pikes and are blowing shit up and torturing each other. But no, no, they aren't savages at all.

Jon Snow is behaving the same way as Tyrion. Dany makes the point that Jon has killed thousands, yet he wishes for her to wage war "peacefully."

The reality here is, these men are terrified of the idea of a woman in power. They don't believe she can wield it responsibly, even though every war waged on Game of Thrones so far as been waged by men who ravaged their own countries.

It's really annoying how they're all lecturing her and telling her to be careful. If she were a man, absolutely no one would be questioning her methods. No one.

There's one scene where Tyrion and Varys are scared out of their minds that Dany is becoming her father. It perfectly illustrates everything I just said. When Dany's father did the same damn things with his dragons (before he went mad), no one questioned him. Even when he finally did go insane. Before he went insane, though, were his methods wrong? Was he wrong to burn people instead of beheading them like Joffrey? No one seemed to think so at the time.

Dany is not her father and -- so long as Bran doesn't make her go mad -- she never will be. But she's a woman. So all the men scrambling under her are terrified she can't wield power without going emotional, irrational, and insane.

It was also really fucking annoying to see Jorah come back. Ye gods, I hate him. I hated his gross, mouth-breather expression when Dany gave him a hug. As I said on an older post, Dany seems to show compassion to all the wrong people -- her brother, the witch, and now Jorah. With her brother and the witch, she learned too late that her compassion had been a weakness.

I'm not saying compassion is a weakness. I'm saying showing compassion to the wrong people is a weakness. Varys conspired to have Dany killed and she was very slow to forgive and trust him (which was wise). Jorah was a part of that, and yet he's forgiven so much quicker. And why? Just because Dany knew him longer? That’s insane.

On top of that, Jorah kept forcing his affections on her, kissing her, trying to isolate her from the other advisers and everyone around her so that he could control her. Dany has mistaken his obsession for loyalty, and in the end, if she has another downfall, it will be because of Jorah.

There was a reason Ser Barristan hated Jorah.

I am really, really hoping Dany's eyes are opened about him, but D&D love taking disgusting dudes from the books and making them Nice Guys (see: Tyrion). So I doubt we'll ever see Jorah get what he deserves.

And is it just me, or is Jorah afraid of Jon Snow? He was going to say something to Dany -- possibly that he "loved" her -- then saw Jon Snow coming and quickly took off. Seems like every skeevy guy (Little Finger) is -- rightfully -- afraid of Jon Snow.

As I said on an older post, there is no difference between Jorah Mormont and Little Finger. One is just more openly ratlike than the other. Jorah is an inversion of the knight in shining armor trope in that he is not honorable at ALL.

Arya seems to believe Sansa has a desire to be queen of the North. After watching the scene between them, I think it makes perfect sense. Sansa wanted to be queen of Westeros, but that was taken from her in the most brutal way. And she quickly went from dreams of riches and power to nightmare after nightmare. Now she could be queen of the North if Jon never came home and seems to be preparing herself for the possibility.

It's not bad that Sansa enjoys ruling and is prepared for the worst, but it seems to be something Arya despises about her sister. She just couldn't resist taking a jab at Sansa. Old habits and all that.

So that's where Gendry was? All that time? And why the fuck is he so bloodthirsty?

Gonna be interesting to see if Arya finally bangs Gendry (we all know she wanted to).

At first I was like "Why is Gendry important again? Just because he's the dead king's son?" But now I like the idea of him fighting alongside Jon the way Robert and Ned did -- even if they were wrong.

Gilly pretty much confirmed for everyone that Rhaegar and Lianna ran away and got eloped, but Sam was too hilariously pissed to notice.

So it's true then. Rhaegar and Lyanna were in love, and Robert led his great war to become king because he was jealous and/or because he sincerely thought she had been kidnapped.

Arya and Little Finger spying on each other? I guess Arya is a typical foolish Stark after all. Little Finger clearly set her up to get some information he wanted her to have.

Jorah says something toward the end of the episode that really makes me hate him more.

Tourmond says to Jorah, "Your father hunted us like animals."

And Jorah's response? "You returned the favor, as I recall."

Well, Jorah. You treat people like animals and they will behave like animals.

I hate that Jorah said that because it's always been the typical response of a white person during any discussion about the invasion of America by the Spaniards.

Everytime we try to have a discussion about the genocide and invasion the Natives faced, some racist white person pops up with, "Well, the Native Americans weren't innocent! They slaughtered people too!"

The Native Americans were killing people who were invading their land, raping their women, and enslaving them. And yet, somehow, that makes them just as bad? If invaders weren't trying to colonize land that wasn't theirs in the first place, then their innocent little villages wouldn't have been wiped out.

Ollie's village wouldn't have been destroyed or his family killed if the wildlings hadn't pushed off their own land.

I do sympathize with Ollie. In fact, I think I'm just about the only fan of the show who does. I even have a post about him on this blog stating a few things in his defense.

But at the same time, you can't point a finger at the people you invaded and condemn them for trying to push you back out of their land.

If you invade someone's land, take their much neaded resources, and then force them to get by on practically nothing, then you better be prepared for those oppressed groups to lash back in anger and frustration.

To use another example, this time (lord help me, I can’t resist) a video game one, the human colonies in Mass Effect were being attacked in the first place because humans had invaded batarian planets and kicked the batarians off their own land. The batarians fought back, and humans tried to act like they were "the bad guys" for trying to take back what was theirs in the first place.

As someone who played a Mindoir Shepard, I feel like my Shepard hated what the batarians did to her colony and her family, but at the same time, she didn't foster some shitty racism toward them. She knew that they were individuals. So when Ashley -- a racist -- made the assumption that Shepard was out in space trying to get vengeance on batarians, my Shepard always answered, "Hmm? No. I just wanted to see space."

I loved playing a Shepard who did not become racist due to a few batarians trying to take back their land. Maybe she went through that phase as a child like Ollie, but eventually she grew up and realized that hating an entire group of people for the actions of a few was wrong. And what was more, the batarians position was justifiable.

When I played the dlc where you stop batarians attacking a colony, my Shepard lost her head for a moment, got caught up in memories of Mindoir, and took out her hatred on the batarians. She even told them they were terrorists when one called her a terrorist. For a split second, my Shepard became the racist, angry child that Mindoir made her and she lashed out at the batarians without sympathy, when they explained to her why they were attacking.  

I'm not saying the batarians were right to try destroying that human colony, but their anger and their reasons for resentment were not unfounded, and it's something my Shepard always tried to keep in mind -- even though she failed during that dlc because of PTSD and old memories of Mindoir.

The solution to the batarian conflict was not to slaughter all the batarians, but to arrest the ones attacking colonies. The next step would be to give the batarians their own planets again as reparations for the past. Because humans need to own up to their shit. Rather than just killing the people whose land they stole and crying about “evil” batarian invasions, they should be making amends.And my ME3, Shepard was totally in a position to make that happen.

God, it was great roleplaying Shepard.

Anyway. 

The point I'm trying to make is that white people who respond to the bitterness and resentment of the people they oppress like Jorah often show zero empathy or understanding toward those people, as if the people they stepped on had no right to be angry or lash out.

To anyone who has lived a life of marginalization, riots in the street are a logical conclusion to systemically denying an entire group of people what they need to survive.

Jorah embodies white racist ideology to a T. He embodies misogyny to a T. This is why I hate him, and I hope Tourmond fucking kills him.

But as I said, D&D love their racists, misogynistic Nice Guys, so they'll probably keep Jorah around until the very end. Unfortunately.

So now all these people who hate each other are going on this stupid quest beyond the wall to catch a wight.

Did I mention that this was stupid? Why the fuck does Tyrion think he can win over Cersi's help with proof of the undead? This is tremendously stupid.

If they would just let Dany take King's Landing instead of wringing their hands over her (”Oh no! Girl power! Me so scared!”), the fucking season would be over.