#buster as an insult is underrated :((

[cleverclove]

I hate your carrd and it deserves to be bullied /lh

Those are gonna be your last words, buster

[art-of-manliness]

Podcast #522: What Is Wit and Why Does the World Need It?

When you think about wit, what comes to mind? Someone who’s quick with a funny remark? My guest today says that while humor is one part of wit, it’s really better thought of in a broader way, as a kind of “improvisational intelligence.” His name is James Geary, and he’s the author of Wit’s End: What Wit Is, How It Works, and Why We Need It. Today on the show, we discuss all things witty. We begin our conversation describing the nature of wit, and how it’s linked to one’s all-around sense of resourcefulness. James then makes the case that instead of getting our contempt, puns should actually be praised as a sophisticated form of wit. We then dig into what fencing and jazz can teach us about the role of improvisation in wit, why we need wit more than ever these days, and what you can do to start being a bit more witty.  Show Highlights * What is wit? What makes something witty? * The relationship between wit and humor  * The wit of Odysseus  * Why puns are underrated   * What fencing can teach us about wit  * The wittiness of insults (and verbal “combat” in different cultures)  * The neuroscience of wit  * What’s the state of wit today? * Cultivating a witty mindset  Resources/People/Articles Mentioned in Podcast * 20 Aphorisms I Thought Were Dumb as a Boy, But Now Appreciate * The Maxims of Francois de La Rochefoucauld * 21 Epigrams Every Man Should Live By * Buster Keaton * The Humor Code * MacGyver Manhood and the Art of Improvisation * The Dozens * Why Insults Sting and How to Handle Them * 50 Old-Fashioned Insults * Stanislaw Lec Connect With James James’ website James on Twitter Listen to the Podcast! (And don’t forget to leave us a review!) Listen to the episode on a separate page. Download this episode. Subscribe to the podcast in the media player of your choice. Recorded on ClearCast.io Listen ad-free on Stitcher Premium; get a free month when you use code “manliness” at checkout. Podcast Sponsors Visit Milwaukee. Have you ever had a craft beer while doing yoga in an art museum? •That’s the kind of stuff that happens in Milwaukee. Go to visitmilwaukee.org/plan to get your trip started.  Fruit of the Loom. Fruit of the Loom CoolZone Fly Boxer Briefs are designed with a ventilated mesh fly that allows airflow where you need it most. Go to fruit.com and use code “manliness” to save an additional 10%.  Harry’s. A great shave doesn’t come from gimmicks. Harry’s use simple, affordable hardware that simply provides a great shave. Get a free trial set that includes handle, blades, and shave gel at harrys.com/manliness.  Click here to see a full list of our podcast sponsors. Read the Transcript Coming soon! The post Podcast #522: What Is Wit and Why Does the World Need It? appeared first on The Art of Manliness. http://dlvr.it/R7ltnk

[seriouslycromulent]

(Lengthy) Thoughts on Fantastic Beasts 2: Crimes of Grindelwald

I don’t really plan to write a full review of FB2, but since I said I was more excited for it than Widows, Aquaman, and Bohemian Rhapsody, it feels wrong not to share some general thoughts on the second installment of the Fantastic Beasts franchise. 

Especially since I just got back from seeing it a second time in the theater.

As usual, I haven’t read any reviews, nor do I plan to. I think I’ve established by now I don’t care what critics think. Never have. The only opinion that truly matters in how I view any work of art or entertainment is mine, so if you’re mostly expecting to see me repeat or refute any critics’ opinion of the film here, you might want to keep scrolling. (I address a few at the end. But it’s very cursory.)

Anyway, here are some of my reactions to FB2. And yes, there are spoilers below. I tried to keep them vague as to not give too much away, but I was not as successful in doing so as I might have hoped. You’ve been warned.

And away we go ...

Overall, I enjoyed the film greatly. It didn’t give me the warm fuzzies at the end that the first FB did, but it’s not supposed to. It’s not the first chapter that kicks off the story. It’s the next chapter that leads us down the darker path in the tale that introduces us to true struggle and turmoil that we’re going to have to deal with through the remaining 3 films.

It’s not meant to be shiny. It’s not meant to be sweet. But it is meant to present us with a few twists, turns, and new information to keep us invested in the story. And with that in mind, I was not at all disappointed.

I don’t know if I’ve communicated this yet, but I truly love the look of Fantastic Beasts in general. The 1920s is one of my favorite eras when it comes to design and history. From fashion to automobiles to architecture to hairstyles to music to literature to advancements in technology, etc., I think it’s a very underrated era when it comes to human ingenuity and cultural significance. And to set the second film in 1920s’ Paris was just brilliant. In the first film, I got to enjoy the ‘20s of New York, but now we get a splash of NYC and London, but mostly Paris as our backdrop, and the visual design and production were even more amazing.

I was nervous that they were going to use Leta Lestrange to drive a wedge between Newt and Tina, and even though they sort of did, I was happy to see it was a bit of a red herring. And she was never any real threat to Newt and Tina. Crappy love triangle averted!

Now with that out of the way, I really did feel sorry for Leta. Once we learn her backstory, it all comes together and makes sense. When she says the line, “Newt, you never met a monster you couldn’t love,” I was shook by the accuracy of that.

Newt was probably drawn to that ever-present, misunderstood sadness in Leta that he quite honestly sees in Tina as well. I like Tina, but she does have her terminal anxiety covered by that fake-it-til-you-make confidence that allows Newt to see a bit of himself in her. And I think in no small part, plays a role in their attraction to one another.

I do find it unfortunate that I’m seeing so many people rush to show concern for Queenie’s character and express empathy for her, wanting to protect that character going forward, but I see so little of that consideration and empathy shown toward Leta. Which is ... telling.

While we’re also on Leta Lestrange, I was pleasantly surprised by Zoe Kravitz’s performance. I’ve been a bit hard on her for the past year or so. Not because I don’t like her, but because, frankly, I’ve yet to see her deliver a great acting performance worthy of all the love and praise she gets from fans. I feel like most people just like her because of who her parents are, and they want to see her succeed in Hollywood because of it. But she’s yet to really impress me with her acting at all. I’m not saying she’s changed my mind entirely in FB2, but this performance was definitely one of her better and stronger ones. So kudos to her.

Now I’m not disappointed in terms of performance, but a part of me is really annoyed by Queenie in this. I get that she wants to marry Jacob, and the Ministry in America says no, but what was she thinking in enchanting Jacob?! Like he said, when was she going to wake up him? After they were married and had 5 kids? Come on, Queenie! How was that the answer to your problem?

Yes, I’m upset she joined the dark side in the end. But I’m trying to be understanding because Grindelwald is making some enticing points on why people should join him. For Queenie, she thinks that if Majs are in charge, they can get rid of this silly rule about who can marry whom. But at the same time, she knows Grindelwald is dangerous. Does she think Majs will gain control over the No-Majs without casualties? Does she even care? And with her telepathic abilities, she’s going to make Grindelwald a powerful operative -- as we saw in the end when he asked her about Credence’s mental state. Damn it, Queenie! Why did you have go to the dark side?!

It does make me wonder: If Queenie had known what Grindelwald had done to the family that originally lived in that Paris apartment, would she still have joined him? Is she willing to see innocents killed (even children) in the name of creating Maj rule just so she can marry Jacob?

Also, can someone explain to me why it was OK for Queenie to call Jacob a coward -- especially since we know he fought in the war -- but it wasn’t OK for him to think she was crazy? Why is she allowed to insult him, but he’s not allowed to insult her? Again, she annoyed me with this.

Going back to the look of the film, I not only enjoyed the production design, but I also loved the many special effects. From the Kappa (the Japanese water demon in the tub at the circus) to whatever that giant deer with the enormous jaw Newt was feeding in his lab to the Zouwu (the giant Chinese New Year dragon-meets-Falcor from Neverending Story creature) to the simple stone statue of the woman in Paris who hid the underground entrance, I thought most of the special effects were ... well, quite fantastic.

The only effect that threw me at all were the protective felines, Matagots, at the French Ministry. They not only looked disturbing, but they also didn’t look real enough. They almost felt like they stepped out of a video game. And not one of today’s video games either, but one from like 2013. Perhaps it was intentional because they’re meant to be a bit surreal with their huge eyeballs, but I’m afraid that also made them appear just a tad less believable. Which is odd considering all the things we’ve seen in the Potterverse that skirts the concept of realistic. Oh well. It wasn’t enough to make me dislike the other special effects, so I’ll shrug it off.

Shallow moment reveal: I want Tina Goldstein’s leather trench coat and I don’t even wear leather.

I adore Jacob Kowalski. That is all. Change nothing about him. 

I love that their solution to showing Young Dumbledore even younger is to remove the strands of gray he has from his beard. 

This is going to sound odd, but Callum Turner’s face is perfect for this film. Why? Because he has that classic bone structure we used to see all the time in old films from the 1920s and 30s. Seriously, put a straw boater hat on Theseus and give him a bamboo cane, and he looks like he walked out of the background of a Buster Keaton movie. Maybe it’s just the combined effect of the movie’s setting and wardrobe. Maybe it’s the fact that Callum’s skin is so damn tight across his cheekbones he looks like if he sneezes, he’s going to rip his jawline from the bone. I don’t know. But I do know that he has the perfect face for this film.

When I heard that J.K. mirrored Grindelwald’s speech at the cemetery after some of the things Hitler used to say in his speeches, I knew he was going to be a great villain. In the first Fantastic Beasts, Grindelwald is really just a boogie man. What we know of him is more in relation to how people react to him. Even when it’s revealed that he was wearing a Percival Graves-glamour to hide while doing his dirty work, we still don’t truly see him as the dangerous menace that he is. In that respect, he was a man seeking power (and Credence) to get his ultimate plan underway. The rest are newspaper headlines.

But to see Grindelwald talk to his minions in the Paris apartment and at the cemetery with such effortless manipulation was somewhat jarring. Especially when you think of present day parallels with the rise of more authoritarian regimes around the world. Grindelwald uses seductive language to coax his followers into believing their desires are born from love and a need for safety, not born from hate and fear. He tells them that No-Majs are not worthless, but simply of “other value.” He softens the declaration of war by painting what could be an impending genocide by insisting it’s for the betterment of all mankind. 

This is a villain for a story written for adults. Voldemort is for children. He doesn’t get the window-dressing and subtlety of true real-life villainy. Grindelwald, on the other hand, can exist in our world today. Voldemort cannot.

Now I’m aware that a lot of people are talking about the reveal regarding Credence’s lineage -- which was the truth bomb that left quite a few people stunned while the credits rolled. Understandably. But until I see someone piece together a theory on how Credence can be a Dumbledore (although it would lend itself to explaining his Obscurial nature), I’m inclined to believe that Grindelwald was just lying through his teeth.

When he says that the Phoenix comes to Dumbledore family members in their time of need, why did the bird that Credence was nursing suddenly transform into one? At that moment in time, Credence was not in his most need. Why wouldn’t the Phoenix have shown up in New York prior to Newt’s visit? Why didn’t the Phoenix show up after Credence had gone ballistic and ripped up half of NYC and retreated into the subway? 

Hopefully, at some point in the next film, Credence will question Grindelwald and demand some sort of proof. But even if he does, I can see Grindelwald manufacturing something semi-credible to manipulate Credence further. We’ll have to wait and see.

One of my favorite lines: The line where Dumbledore says he and Grindelwald were more than brothers ... I see what you did there, J.K. ... I see what you did there. ;-)

You know what I want for this film series now? More Nicolas Flamel in future FB films. :-)

I also want more Dumbledore, but I suspect that wish will be easily granted as the series continues. And if we can have more Dumbledore with Grindelwald, I would like to order that as well.

I’m not sure of the name of the actor who played a young Newt Scamander in the Hogwarts flashback scenes, but wow! Talk about matching the perfect youngun’ to the right adult actor. That kid was completely believed as a young Newt. Hell, he’d be believable as a young Eddie Redmayne.

Notice how when Credence goes to Grindelwald in the cemetery, he puts his head on Grindelwald’s shoulder? He did it just like he did when Credence thought Grindelwald was Graves. It was a nice, but subtle callback to the connection these two formed -- even if temporary -- in the first film. And back then, Grindelwald was manipulating him just like he is manipulating him now, by filling a void disguised as love, affection and genuine concern. And Credence is still susceptible because he’s spent most of his life devoid of that.

Although I feel like he would have shown more hesitation at the idea of leaving Nagini behind. But maybe he figured since this is what they were working toward all along, she might understand with time.

I did see some people complain about the exposition scene where we learn of Leta’s secret, Yousef’s oath, and Credence’s connection to the Lestrange family. I thought they did a wonderful job getting the audience through that level of detail without making it boring. You hear a narration, but the visuals communicate the story perfectly. For such a tragic tale to be included in a film where some may think it’s all about love stories and magic wands, I appreciate the inclusion of how evil like Grindelwald’s exists in every generation. And its lasting effects helped create the situation everyone is struggling with in this current story. That is some expert-level storytelling.

Can I just say I love the relationship between Newt and Theseus? It’s not perfect, but it’s not mean-spirited. When Newt says, “This is probably the greatest moment of my life,” after Tina uses her wand to tie Theseus to a chair so they can escape, you can see that these two brothers have had a bit of a rivalry in the past, but you also see love there in the beginning when Theseus warns Newt that the ministry is watching him. And when Theseus is heartbroken after Leta tries to take down Grindelwald, that hug from Newt with the line, “I’ve chosen a side,” really says it all about their relationship. They’re brothers who love each other, even if at times, like many brothers, they don’t always like each other.

It was sad to see the poor Niffler get hurt because of the whole blue fire scene, but it’s also awesome that he snagged Grindelwald’s keepsake. One of the trailers said “No nifflers were harmed in the making of this movie.” Better not be. ;-)

OK. I think that’s all I have for now in terms of original reflections on the film. I’m sure more will come to me as I am exposed to other’s feedback. Like I said, I don’t read reviews. But I do hear different things being uttered by others on social media and in casual conversations. And to that, I say this: I’ve yet to hear one complaint about this film that I agree with. Not. One.

For example:

I don’t agree with the complaint that it had too much plot. (What the f*ck does that even mean?!)

I don’t agree that Queenie was acting out of character. (How is that possible if the person who created the character wrote her doing those things in the script? Not liking what a person does is not the same as acting out of character.)

I don’t agree that J.K. didn’t do a good job with the screenplay. A) She wrote the screenplay for the first one, and B) That’s utter bullsh*t because your desire to not think when you go into a cinema doesn’t have to translate into a script that caters to your desire to not think.

Johnny Depp did a phenomenal job, as expected. And no. He should absolutely not be replaced or recast.

And no. Leta Lestrange was not a disappointment. Quite the opposite.

I try to stay away from reviews, because mainly, I enjoy thinking for myself. So I honestly don’t know what all the critics are saying. All I keep hearing is that the movie is getting “mixed reviews.” So clearly some people like it. While others don’t.

I don’t know what others were looking for, but I do know that this film was exactly what the next act in this story should be. I look at Fantastic Beasts like a 5-act play. The Crimes of Grindelwald is the second act, and it did what a second act should do. The second act introduces a significant complication, develops the primary and secondary characters’ personalities further, and increases the action on all fronts in the plot. 

I think it’s unfortunate that some critics (and perhaps fans) thought that they were going to walk out of FB2 feeling the same way they did when they walked out of FB. And I can’t help but feel that some of the criticism being lobbed at J.K. has more to do with trying to take her down a peg and attempting to find a flaw in her skillset than it is about a genuine critique about what appears on the screen in Fantastic Beasts 2.

I don’t support mindless entertainment. I don’t even want my cartoons and action films to be mindless. It’s a sad state when we see critics demanding films cater to the lowest level of attention spans and depth. And I’m happy to see J.K. not give over to that idea.

As I said in the beginning, I enjoyed the film greatly -- enough to see it twice in 4 days. So you’ll likely see me praising the movie as much as the previous one until the next chapter (or Act 3) is ready for me to enjoy.