#complete with heavy handed christ allegories

[h-worksrambles]

You know what? I’m gonna say it.

Shadow in Sonic 06 is a complete Gary Stu. I do not understand why people praise his characterisation in this game. He’s incredibly boring here.

[theburningsunset]

my adhd can't chill tf down enough to sleep so may i present this (uhhh spoilers for new-who):

Everything in Doctor Who that ought to be fixed and why:

Any time the doctor shows racism, queerphobia, sexism, ableism, classism, etc. Unless a specific prejudice of Gallifreyan society exists, it would never make sense for the Doctor to be bigoted, even the one from the '60s

Related: when Thirteen breaks the Master's perception filter so the nazis would see he's a man of color and thus endanger him—the Doctor would never.

Completely abandon former companions. Maybe some, maybe originally, but even 2000 years of lessons learned later? The Doctor is a good man, abandonment is too inconsistent with his characterization to be a reoccurring, unchallenged trait.

Wiping Donna's memory. Cruel, erased her character arc and was not a fulfilling or meaningful end. Either kill her or have her decide to retire.

The convoluted reason the Ponds were stuck in 1939 New York. C'mon, if I tried for five seconds I could come up with a sensical reason why the Doctor never saw them and they were stuck. Or just don't make them stuck 🤷🏼‍♀️ maybe they decide to adopt and retire to avoid danger to the kid but the Doctor and River still regularly visit.

The "War Doctor". Showrunners confirmed this only existed because Christopher Eccleston refused to come back for the 50th Special (no shade to his choice). It might've backfired or seemed disrespectful of Chris's performance, but they should've simply recast Nine for it.

Just throw out Kill the Moon, it was bad writing, the heavy-handed abortion allegory was exhausting and weird (regardless of intentionality) and I don't usually cry "but the science!" but...the moon being gone, even if soon after it replaced itself, would cause apocalyptic destruction on Earth and possibly wipe out humanity. The primary salvageable bit that I think is integral is the Twelve/Clara fight at the end.

Danny Pink either doesn't die or doesn't stay dead. The paradox it would cause for him to die before him and Clara have kids when her and Twelve have MET those descendants and been on two separate adventures down that family line is irreconcilable. Full stop.

Bill doesn't die. The end. (Do NOT bury your fucking gays)

Don't have Graham be the last white seat on the Rosa episode, for fucking christ's sake. Plus where the fuck is at least the mention of Claudette Colvin?

Fourteen regenerates into Thirteen's clothes, following well-established rules of regeneration (BBC were cowards for breaking that just to sidestep having David Tennant "crossdress")

Headcanon bits that aren't necessarily tied to quality/consistent writing but I think would've been great:

The Doctor does find Melody. Maybe only by age six or so, if wanting to keep the Silence story intact, but rework Let's Kill Hitler to avoid the Mel situation. It makes me sad that they never got their baby back. She can still turn out to be River, maybe the regen into River only happened post season-six, keeping the reveal. Maybe Melody was eventually re-kidnapped by the Silence and then turned into River Song, or maybe Melody was always a kind of troubled trouble-maker and took on the River Song alias on her own.

Thirteen and Yaz absolutely get together.

keep in mind I haven't finished Thirteen's run (the stink of neolib BS from the Rosa Parks episode tanked my interest in keeping up until Chibnall fucked off), haven't seen the 60th Special yet, still have 20-something seasons of Classic Who to go, and don't remember everything I have seen, nor am I always right. I think on re-watch I'd find more issues but for now it's the list I've got that exactly zero (0) people asked for.

[brother-hermes]

GOYIM AND KABBALAH

Look. This is going to be one of the most difficult things I’ve ever tried to explain because my very being- my opus- is involved.

As I sit under the light of the full moon, back to the tree in my front yard, the very pulse of earth is moving within me. I am accutely aware of which trees have sprung from the seeds planted by the parent tree at my back. The night is still and yet it’s teeming with life. It is Ru’ahh- the breath of G-d I feel moving through all things but how did this happen? At what point did I become aware of Her presence and abandon all else on my journey? Where is the line between Christian and Jew in my mind? At what point did I cease to be Catholic?

The library unearthed at Nag Hammadi completely changed my perspective on the life and message of Christ. His own promise of the gift of Ru’ahh HakoDesh sent me within. After all, didn’t He urge us to sit in a closet and pray? Then a Rosicrucian text written in 1923 quoted the Gospel of Peace 30 years before its “discovery.”

Years of meditation- constant recital of the 72 triplets- later and The Chymical Wedding of Christian Rosenkreutz was given to me. A Frater from my order handed me his personal copy full of annotations and footnotes. This seemingly simple doctrine follows a similar pattern of the one found in the Apocalypse of John, what Christians know as Revelations. In it he speaks of communing with Sophia- Solomons Woman Wisdom. This mystical experience is one I recognized instantly having long since meditated in Her presence. I sought Her like silver just as Solomon suggested and found Her within.

Anyways, as I read of Christian Rosenkreutz taking this spiritual journey I couldn’t help but notice how blended the Rosicrucian path actually is. Here is a doctrine where the spiritual journey is divided into a seven day journey-referencing Genesis- to attend a Wedding on an evening before Easter- referencing, not only the Gospels, but the Wedding at Cana as well. It’s Alchemical in nature urging us to remember Hermès teachings and alludes to Platos Cave- the metaphysics behind Greek philosophy. He cuts the bread. That only happens in 9 books of the New Testament. There are also 9 Lords in attendance at this Wedding.

Genesis is tied into the story as a way to connect the dots between these seemingly different paths- all of which lead to One. “G-d said” appears 10 times. “G-d made” appears 3 times. “G-d saw” appears 7 times. The word G-d is used 12 times. 10 sefirot. 3 horizontal paths. 7 vertical paths. 12 diagonal paths. This is the Tree of Life. It serves as the basic framework for how Christian Rosenkreutz made it to this Castle- what I understand as a mountain Temple- to commune with the Creator.

There are Four Paths mentioned that one can take to achieve this goal. Couple that with several references meant to imply a connection between the Emerald Tablet and the Tree of Life and it’s no wonder I set out to understand why. Why would a Christian mystic explain how movement from Yesod, Hod, and Netzach moving from below to above correlates to the three step process of the Emerald Tablet? I mean, even the first day of Rosenkreutz journey ends painting the 4 step descent, 3 step ascent, and the one step re-descent. Why? What do the Emerald Tablet and Kabbalah have to do with what Christ taught? The question drove me mad.

The Wedding at Cana was the first of 7 miracles to be taken as signs of the Messiah. Specifically, the lawful Union of man and woman- or the reconciliation of polarity. The same polarity reconciled after 6 days of Creation through use of duality described in Genesis. It’s an allegory. Christ was teaching us how to reconcile our seemingly dualistic nature. The changing of water into wine implies the integration of our vehicles of consciousness- body and mind, waking mind and Spirit.

Even the number of disciplines outlined by Rosenkreutz isn’t merely a play on the 12 disciples. It’s 12 disciplines in three groups of four. Emanation, Creation, Formation, and Action. There’s no getting around going from below to above requires merkava- vehicles of consciousness. At the level of Assiah/Action, it’s easy to see this vehicle because we touch, taste, see, smell and hear with it, but as we move beyond that it gets decidedly more difficult. When we approach Atzilut/Emanation where we have no vehicle of consciousness because we are consciousness, what then? Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh. That same “I am” that manifests in the first word of the 10 commandments is the Divine expressing itself in the metaphor of Creature. That was Sophia/Chochmah manifesting within. Years of meditating at the Temple within my heart had taught me to trust the breath of G-d beyond anything else.

There was no escaping this truth. Prayer. Meditation. Study. Living a simple life. All of these disciplines had moved me to a place where I needed guidance. The Hermeticists of my order had much more in common with the Sorcerers of Kemet- Biblical Egyptians- than they did with those faithful to the Law. What could the descendants of Isis cults who genuinely believe we can reach the point of being gods teach me about ascending to the throne room of the one true G-d? Nothing.

Now I never abandoned Christ in all this. Even as I dove into deep meditative periods with heavy study almost never touching the Bible- Christian Rosenkreutz bridegroom I was still aware of how Christ is involved. See, if Chochmah/Wisdom is waves of energy, Binah/Understanding is form. With Christ as my template- the One manifested in the World of Formation- I chose to live in love. To be “the light that shone in the darkness.” But what Church would understand this journey? What Christian could hear this tale and not label me a heretic? Aside from one Anglican priest I had been completely isolated from the entire realm of Christianity.

So I did the only thing I could do. I turned to the source of this Ancient Mystery and joined a Kabbalah study group. I am a Gentile amidst the Chosen seeking Wisdom above all. Am I treated differently within the confines of said group? No. I came to this path after decades of prayer and meditation and it is doubtful this is the first lifetime I have spent in such a manner. I didn’t wake up yesterday and say “let me jack this culture and make it my own.” They know that because mystics are measured on what’s within more than they’ll ever be measured by appearance, race, or…

Trust and believe that every post I write comes from a place of love and I never intended to hurt or offend anyone. Mysticism had never been a game or a fad to me. This life cycle is one of dedication and servitude to G-d and humanity. That is the fulfillment of the Law- to love G-d with all of my mind and soul and to love my neighbor as I love myself. Humility may not always be my strong suit but my approachability runs high. You can always reach out to me with questions and ask why or how. Even in the mix of frustration I will gladly address anyone with the respect and dignity I would like to receive. Hehe. To receive.

That’s all I got.

[theresgloryforyou]

my review of the mother! review, which I wrote last night in an attempt to break through some writer’s block I’ve been experiencing on top of everything else.  this is what I do when I am bored apparently:  apply feminist praxis to mass produced “entertainment” I refuse to otherwise engage with, because, as a family member recently told me, I’m no fun.  I’m no fun because I can’t enjoy trashy shit like this for “what it is”.  I said no,  I’m not fun because I can’t enjoy trashy shit because I know exactly what it is.

anyway, my stupid review of the stupider review.  david sims’ review in italics where applicable.  if you care to see this movie and don’t want spoilers, do not read this, or david sims’ review in The Atlantic.  you have been warned.

1.  tried not to get too hard assed on the pretentiousness of the title, but every time I see it I immediately think JEB!

2.  The plot of mother! is very simple—at least until it starts getting more unhinged. It begins on a shot of a woman’s crying face in the middle of a vast inferno, after which a man (Javier Bardem) inserts a crystal into a pedestal and magically repairs the burnt home around him. Cut to: an unnamed woman (Jennifer Lawrence) who lives in this gorgeous house in the middle of nowhere with her husband (Bardem). He’s a poet of some renown, busy toiling on his next great work (although he appears to be suffering from writer’s block). She’s devotedly renovating their home, painting the walls and such, and seems to have some mystical power to “feel” the heart of the house, by touching the walls and visualizing a giant, pumping organ.

 Soon enough, another man (Ed Harris) shows up, identifying himself as a doctor looking for a place to stay. Bardem (the characters have no names, so it’s easier to identify them by their performers) invites him in and the two rapidly bond, to Lawrence’s discomfort. Harris quickly gets sick, with some unspecified ailment creating a bruise on his side. Then his wife (Michelle Pfeiffer) shows up, unafraid to snipe at Lawrence over the large age gap between her and her husband. Harris, encouraged by Pfeiffer, accidentally breaks Bardem’s crystal, inspiring his rage. The visiting couple’s grown-up kids (Domhnall and Brian Gleeson) then show up and immediately get in a fight, with the elder killing the younger and receiving a scar on his forehead in the struggle. As the family holds a funeral in the house (while Lawrence’s agita only increases), there’s a deluge of water prompted by a guest breaking a fancy sink fixture, which finally drives everyone out for good.

btw this reminds me of a student film I saw in the eighties, made by some dude who thought he could get into my pants by showing me his AMAZING movie and then, when that didn’t work, he asked my dad if he could marry me.  true story.  I’ll leave you to imagine how that worked out for him.

This covers the first half of the film, which, as Orr noted, you could cheekily call a “testament”: one where Bardem is a stand-in for God, Harris and Pfeiffer are Adam (down to his rib injury) and Eve (as much of a temptress as ever), and their kids are Cain and Abel, with the former killing the latter and being “marked” for this primal sin. Bardem’s magic crystal is a violated forbidden fruit, and the burst sink pipes are the flood punishing God’s early followers and wiping the world clean.

 *yawn*  what?  oh, yeah, sorry, I mean it was extremely subtle and not even slightly heavy handed, thank you for explaining the not obvious parallels.

 3.  When the film’s second act begins, Bardem’s new poetry is complete and Lawrence’s character is pregnant. By the end, her baby (likely some sort of stand-in for Christ’s body) has been eaten alive by a crazed mob of Bardem’s followers. They initially burst into the house as fans of his work but devolve into violence and surreal scenes of warfare, ravaging the house before Lawrence burns it down in a fit of grief at the loss of her child. As she dies cursing her husband, Bardem asks for her love, and she assents. It comes in the form of her heart, which he pulls out of her chest and turns into a crystal that he then uses to rebuild the house again, creating a new bride, played by a new actress.

It’s wild stuff— but the Bible allegory only goes so far, even if Aronofsky himself hinted at it when introducing mother! at the Toronto International Film Festival (he referred to Harris’s character as “the man,” then added, “that’s a clue”). Lawrence’s character has no obvious counterpart in either testament; instead, she’s some sort of analogue for Mother Earth, or Gaia, an embodiment of nature and creation, with the house (which slowly gets destroyed by its callous houseguests) a stand-in for the planet itself. Or you could see her as the warmer, welcoming half of the Godhead, with Bardem representing the aloof, unknowable half. There are vague concepts of reincarnation and renewal in the film’s ending, too, more reflective of Hinduism or Buddhism than anything Judeo-Christian. 

jesus fucking christ shut up.  what you, and aronofsky, and jennifer too (I’ve read her Vogue interview, thanks to lili) are missing here is an ancient trope, in which males take a goddess and rob her of her power by handing her power to a new god.  what you are missing is the ancient cycle in which the MALE is the one who is disposable, the Great Goddess the ancient one, the Great Goddess is creator/destroyer, the male is her consort. but he’s taken this and flipped it to the more acceptable (at least much less imaginative), yes, LESS WILD STUFF, version of events, in which the FEMALE becomes disposable.  and incidentally, if she is “gaia”, there’s no second chances and no god to supercede her power.

and leaving aside paganism, just from a general science view, what is innovative about stoking humanity’s hubris and pretending it’s the PLANET that gets destroyed and not, you know, US?

what I’m trying to express here, based on this review, is what is described isn’t innovative at all, it’s just arsty and pretentious but otherwise totally run of the mill patriarchal bullshit, and here, let me…

4.  The joy of mother!, to me, lies beyond the religious metaphor of God and Adam and Eve and so on; judge it just on that level, and it feels bludgeoning from a storytelling perspective. There’s a lot more to dig into, some of it probably conscious on Aronofsky’s part, some of it not so much. He’s spoken in interviews of the environmental message he’s trying to get across, telling The Hollywood Reporter, “I think [the planet’s] being undone by humanity. I don’t blame one gender over the other gender. I think it is about how people are insatiable, how there’s this endless consumption.”

there’s that amazing innovative thinking again, in which 150,000 years of non-insatiable human history ends up as a footnote to what should be a remark on three hundred years of capitalism and instead skews off towards gender (?), by which I mean this was an idiotic statement and if a (especially blonde) woman had made it everyone would be calling her a stupid hollywood bimbo, but aronofsky’s a dude so “oh wow he is so DEEP.”

5.  But, like so many films (especially one with such obvious personal investment on Aronofsky’s part), mother! is clearly also a movie about art and the creative process, one with a rather negative view of the great creator at its center. The brooding Bardem can’t help but hold Lawrence at arm’s length, sometimes storming off to write, other times brushing off her concerns about the invading houseguests (from whom he draws inspiration). Though she loves him, Lawrence can’t help but fixate on the major age difference between them, and after their relationship eventually falls apart, Bardem uses her heart—her inspiration—to build a grand new work and, with it, a new female partner.

I’ll write this out, more literally, in one sentence:  male uses female up and spits her out in the name of art.

(also “after their relationship falls apart” is a unique way of rephrasing “As she dies cursing her husband, Bardem asks for her love, and she assents. It comes in the form of her heart, which he pulls out of her chest and turns into a crystal that he then uses to rebuild the house again, creating a new bride” like omg you fucking weirdo, you just wrote that a few paragraphs ago! did you forget it already?  it was that fucking forgettable to you, the disposable female partner?  well that makes sense, actually, that’s such a boring repetitious done-to-death trope!)

6.  Aronofsky is, ironically,* now romantically involved with Lawrence, though they met during the filming of mother!, well after he’d written the movie. (*not the definition of “ironically”, what you’re looking for is “coincidentally”.  pray continue.) But of course, such industry romances are hardly unusual, and neither is the idea of artists writing about their own relationships; it’s just fascinating how Aronofsky has turned that dynamic into something grand, destructive, and ultimately horrifying. Lawrence’s character, at times, seems like a parody of the “barefoot and pregnant” stereotype, always padding around the house without any footwear. The actress called this a conscious choice, saying, “It never would have been right for my character to wear shoes. Nature is her creation.”

BITCH NO IT IS NOT, everything is HIS creation!  the amazing nameless poet’s creation!  made up of bits and pieces of females he has used up and stolen from! HOW IS THIS DIFFICULT TO GRASP?!?

deep breath

conclusion:

��okay, I haven’t seen this movie.  I’m reviewing the review.  and the review, clearly, on one level, is about a story in which a creator god who doesn’t do much besides stalk about, brood, and not create, lets the guests he’s invited in do whatever they want including EAT HIS WIFE’S BABY and then when she destroys the house she still FORGIVES HIM and gives him HER LITERAL HEART so he can repeat the exact same thing.  one feminist way of reading that is, yeah, this is a warning.  this is what men do, on a small scale and on a global scale.  why do women keep lending themselves to this?  what is the nature of love?  how is it truly love to keep lending yourself to it, to males like this?  but we all know this is not the intent behind this film.

on another level, this is a white boy’s typical film school masturbation piece that happened to get him a super hot girlfriend who is deceiving herself into thinking she is anything other than disposable too, yes, even jennifer lawrence is disposable.  as beyonce said, more or less, the most bomb ass pussy is disposable.  that’s what this movie is about too.

but if gaia is involved, if we decide to lean into the conceit that Nature Herself is involved, guess who is actually disposable?  and guess who doesn’t know how Nature Herself works?

because that’s the thing about taking ancient ideas that are based on truth and twisting them to serve the patriarchy.  men been doing that for centuries, and underneath it sits all kinds of truths, no matter how they try to cover it up.  if aronofsky was making something that was really a commentary on “the environment” and “both genders” and whatever the fuck, it would look more like EVERYONE DIES REGARDLESS OF HOW MUCH POWER THEY HAD BECAUSE THE FEW WHO HAD IT DECIDED CAPITALISM WAS AWESOME, and THE PLANET GOES ON.  this was such a stellar opportunity to make a genuine commentary, no matter how pretentiously and weirdly, but boys done gotta fuck everything up.  lemme fix it, in one paragraph:

enraged by the death of her divine child she burns down the home, including bardem’s unpublished works, and his followers.  bardem comes crawling to her, begging for her love.  she just stares at him as he is consumed in flames.  final scene:  the house is charred, damaged, but already signs of life are appearing, grass between the stones.  it is foggy, but “nature is her creation”, and sadly, in bare feet, comes j-law waltzing softly through her home.  she sighs, and resumes renovating until the next consort crawls out of an ocean and takes a million years to evolve away his gills.

[top5internetsourceshighscho-blog]

Robocop - A Postmodern Film Study

1. Discuss what you visualise close to great/ enkindle/relevant/significant/ progressive about the photograph and why.\n at that place are many striking facets that the film Robocop present from the permeative and sharp social mockery of capitalism, the media and American society, just now the approximately striking aspect for me in person is the heavy use of christian symbol, in the most lustrous style. This stems greatly from the use of the of import character Alex Murphy or later known as Robocop as a deliverer figure.\nAs a film, in terms of visual representation alone this connection to Christ can be seen in several scenes. First of each(prenominal) in Murphys death scene, it is the most dramatic, drawn out and methodically visceral. The process seems completely to see mensuration by step with the crucifixion story, with Murphy creation forced onto the floor as though being plant on the cross and the attendant shooting off of the excrete recounts rescuer hand s being nailed to the cross. He furthermore is shot in the chest several quantify and finally suffers a bye wound like that of the vest of thorns. One may cope it is simply the style of the film with over the top violence, but it also highlights one of the nominate aspects of the Christ allegory the taxonomical pain and torture endured during the crucifixion.\n more visual Christian symbolism is used late in the film, in the concluding passage of arms against Clarence Boddicker, the character Robocop, trapped and unable(p) to move, is seen being pierced with a broken rod as for when Jesus was pierced with a lance during his crucifixion. This is just minutes after Robocop is seen striding across the water supply almost as though he was miraculously walking on it as Jesus is said to have done. In the same story he is said to have saved a sinking apostle, whereas in the film, Roboco... If you want to get a full essay, order it on our website: Custom essay writing service. Free essay/order revisions. Essays of any complexity! Courseworks, term papers, research papers. 100% confidential!Homework live help. Custom Essay Order is available 24/7!