#considering the last show I watched was an episode of House MD it would be the same | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

impostoradult · 4 years ago

Text

I finally figured out why it feels like Supernatural murdered a unicorn (AKA why you need to STOP telling me to watch Black Sails)

I’ll start by saying, everything everyone else has been saying CERTAINLY bothers me:

- the queer-baiting - the bury your queers - the undermining of Dean’s character arc - the wasted opportunity for a certain kind of overall narrative closure - the flat out disrespect to Misha Collins and Jensen Ackles

All of that bothers me tremendously.

But there has been something else rather ineffable about this that has left a horrible taste in my mouth that I couldn’t quite pin down until last night. Bear with me, if you will, because this will require some set-up.

*** This is not the first show to ever disappoint me in a spectacular fashion, nor will it be the last, I suspect. And one of the ways I’ve always coped with that disappointment was to remind myself that there will be other stories, other characters, other chances to get it right. (”It” being any number of things from just pure narrative emotional coherence to not burying your queers to not stringing along your queer audience and then yelling fuck you to them on the way out)

But somehow that assurance -- that there will be other stories, other characters, other chances to get it right -- has rung particularly hollow in this instance, and I couldn’t quite put my finger on why until yesterday.

I kept asking myself, why do I still have this feeling, deep in the pit of my stomach, like something was lost here that can never be recovered?

Because something was lost here that I am doubtful can ever be recovered, and I don’t think I’ve seen anyone else talking about this aspect of it at all.

***

A few months ago, TV critic Maureen Ryan did a great interview piece with Mike Schur (of Parks & Rec/The Good Place) discussing the death of long-form TV in the streaming era. They explore how the longer seasons and longer runs of traditional broadcast/cable TV provided an opportunity to tell particular kinds of stories that you simply can’t when seasons are 8-10 episodes and series typically run 2-4 seasons (thanks Netflix).

One key thing we’ve all lost in this new era of highly condensed TV storytelling (and of prestige TV narrative styles)? The traditional (several season’s long) slow-burn/will-they-won’t-they romance. Not only is there simply no longer the time or space to write such romances, it has also come to be seen as hacky, manipulative, cheap, artistically impoverished, low-brow, a embarrassing vestige of the era before TV became art™.

Everybody is trying to be Fleabag now. No one wants to be Frasier. (”It’s really more like a 10 hour movie” they all like to brag)

Obviously TV still has romances, even ‘drawn out’ romances. But ‘drawn out’ in 2020 is like 2-3 seasons, maybe. More commonly it’s like half a season. Take Schitt’s Creek. The number of episodes between when David and Patrick first meet and when they first kiss? Seven. Seven episodes. Half a season. If you watched it live, it took less than 2 months for them to move from introducing that dynamic to consummating it. And I’m not bagging on Schitt’s Creek; I think the David/Patrick’s story is very lovely and well-written.

But Niles & Daphne (Fraiser) had to wait 7 years and over 150 episodes before they finally got there. Josh & Donna (The West Wing) had to wait 6+ years, and 145 episodes. Mulder & Scully (The X-Files) had to wait 7 seasons and 143 episodes. Booth & Bones had to wait...you see where I am going with this.

And my point is (and I can’t believe I never realized this explicitly until now): there has NEVER been a queer slow-burn/will-they-won’t-they romance of that type on TV ever. EVER.

I’m going to say that again, because I think it bares repeating:

There has never been a queer, slow-burn/will-they-won’t-they romance that fits the 100-150 episode paradigm of delayed gratification on TV.

Not ever.

I can’t think of ONE example Not a single, solitary one. And I know queer TV pretty well. Arguably the closest we’ve ever come is Legend of Korra, and that ran 50 episodes, a THIRD of the length of old school will-they-won’t-theys like Booth & Bones or Josh & Donna.

Queer people have had a fair number of canonical romances on TV by now, even fairly long running ones. But we never got a primary/front-and-center romance that you had to root for for 100+ episodes before you got any kind of canonical consummation.

That is a particular kind of TV experience that queer people and queer characters were just 100% shut out of until it was too late. And because of how the TV landscape has changed in the last 10 years, I don’t know that that opportunity will ever come back around in our lifetimes.

***

Dean and Castiel are/were a legacy of an earlier era of TV, an era that still contained the possibility for a will-they-won’t-they of that particular mold. There were other shows that could have also filled this gap at one time - Rizzoli & Isles, OUAT, House MD, etc. But one by one all of them were killed off, their queer romances unrequited, until Supernatural was the only one of its’ generation left standing.

And they should have acknowledged that they were a species about to become extinct.

There are plenty of other valid and compelling reasons Supernatural should have gone full Destiel, don’t get me wrong.

A) It would have been the most emotionally satisfying ending to the series and to those characters (and that would have been reason enough).

B) It would have stopped the manipulative queer-baiting of the (disproportionately queer) fanbase (and that would have been reason enough).

C) It would have been queer representation of middle-aged men, of bi men, of queers who came to their queerness later in life (and any/all of those would have been reason enough).

D) It could have been a glorious subversion of the bury your queers trope, considering how often they’ve died and been resurrected (and that would have been reason enough).

But point E) on this list is the reason this one hurts in a singular way that no one even appears to be acknowledging.

Almost all of the other wrongs and missed opportunities contained in this Supernatural debacle have the possibility of being rectified (at least to a degree) elsewhere. I can and I likely will get more bi male characters from TV as time goes on. I can and likely will get more middle-aged queer characters. I can and likely will get more queer characters coming to their queerness later in life, and starting queer romances later in life. I can and likely will get more queer characters who aren’t killed cheaply and prematurely. I can and likely will get more genre TV shows with sprawling myth arc plots that are resolved in a coherent, satisfying way. I can and likely will get Misha Collins and Jensen Ackles involved in other projects that value their work and their talents.

All of those other things are at the very least POSSIBLE, and many are even likely.

But a queer 100-150 episode slow-burn romance a la Mulder & Scully or Niles & Daphne or Booth & Bones? That is the one baton Supernatural dropped spectacularly that no one else even has the possibility of picking up again for the foreseeable future. (They don’t even write those types of romances for heterosexuals anymore!)

Seriously. It was a TV unicorn. And rather than letting it run wild and free, they stabbed it with a rusty nail.

***

Given the monumental shifts in the TV landscape that have occurred in the last decade, I don’t know that TV will ever go back to the slow-burn/will-they-won’t-they romance spanning 100-150 episodes. Today it is a miracle if you can get ANY show to last longer than 50 episodes in the first place.

And that is the piece of this that makes it feel (to me) like they murdered a unicorn.

Because queer people have gotten a lot of things from TV, and they will get a lot more as time goes on. But that one? That one could very well be a totally extinct species.

That is the larger missed opportunity here that has left this feeling especially hollow and destructive. That is the thing that makes me balk when people tell me to go watch Black Sails or Pose or whatever other prestige TV show is doing this representation ‘better.’ Because that’s not really the loss I am mourning here. I KNOW there is ‘better’ representation elsewhere.

But the will-they-won’t-they/slow-burn romance is a qualitatively unique thing that queer people literally just never got. Ever. There is no substitute, no alternate, no other show I can turn to with that kind of build-up and pay-off for a queer couple, and there probably won’t be in my lifetime. Not unless the TV industry undergoes another monumental evolution similar to the streaming revolution that shifts the incentives back to telling those types of stories again.

All those shows you want me to displace Supernatural with? None of them can give me the one thing I uniquely wanted (and could have gotten) from Supernatural. THAT ALTERNATE SHOW DOESN’T EXIST. It doesn’t exist. And I have no reason to hope it will ever exist in my lifetime.

So stop telling me to look somewhere else; you don’t understand what made this one a unicorn.

***

Addendum: The only other possible show that could perhaps fill this gap is It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia (re: Mac/Dennis). But I’m hesitant to say it exactly meets that criteria, for a number of reasons:

1 - It’s far less serialized relative to Supernatural and (except for a handful of stand-alone episodes) very little of the story is grounded specifically in Dennis/Mac’s romantic dynamic (unlike SPN, where it is absolutely central to much of the narrative)

2 - IASIP is fundamentally satirically in nature/tone which makes it much harder to have genuine romantic pathos (not impossible, but harder)

3 - All the characters on IASIP are fundamentally crummy people who you aren’t exactly supposed to root for. Which doesn’t mean a romance between two of them can’t have its value/charm/worth but it’s not the same as when it is between characters who unequivocally deserve nice things/happy endings

#Supernatural #Destiel #queer representation #sorry this is long

8K notes · View notes

illumynare · 4 years ago

Text

How the Enneagram explains all of Ford and Stan’s problems

….well, most of them, anyway.

So in my ongoing quest to learn all personality typing systems ever, I’ve recently started reading about the Enneagram, and it struck me that Ford and Stan both fit extremely neatly into the system, and it provides a great framework for analyzing why these two idiots can love each other so much and yet continually hurt/trigger/drive each other crazy.

(descriptions taken from the Enneagram Institute website, not linked because apparently that means this post won’t show up in the tags??)

Stan: Type 2, “The Helper”

The Caring, Interpersonal Type: Generous, Demonstrative, People-Pleasing, and Possessive

Twos are empathetic, sincere, and warm-hearted. They are friendly, generous, and self-sacrificing, but can also be sentimental, flattering, and people-pleasing. They are well-meaning and driven to be close to others, but can slip into doing things for others in order to be needed. They typically have problems with possessiveness and with acknowledging their own needs. At their Best: unselfish and altruistic, they have unconditional love for others.

Basic Fear: Of being unwanted, unworthy of being loved Basic Desire: To feel loved

This is Stan in a nutshell: somebody who loves deeply and unconditionally, sacrifices himself without a second thought, but also easily becomes possessive, and whose “helper” actions are often in some way an attempt to earn people’s love. He rescues Waddles from the pterodactyl so that Mabel will stop being mad at him, and he rescues Ford from the portal hoping that will restore the relationship they had as children. It’s not that Stan doesn’t genuinely care about Mabel or Ford’s suffering, it’s just that, on some level, he’s always trying to earn the love of the people he cares about.

Ford: Type 4, “The Individualist”

The Sensitive, Introspective Type: Expressive, Dramatic, Self-Absorbed, and Temperamental

Fours are self-aware, sensitive, and reserved. They are emotionally honest, creative, and personal, but can also be moody and self-conscious. Withholding themselves from others due to feeling vulnerable and defective, they can also feel disdainful and exempt from ordinary ways of living. They typically have problems with melancholy, self-indulgence, and self-pity. At their Best: inspired and highly creative, they are able to renew themselves and transform their experiences.

Basic Fear: That they have no identity or personal significance Basic Desire: To find themselves and their significance (to create an identity)

Feeling vulnerable and defective, yet disdainful and exempt from ordinary ways of living: if you looked up “Stanford Filbrick Pines” in the dictionary, that’s the first thing you’d see. People have argued a lot about whether Ford is arrogant and how much, but I don’t think that’s actually the most helpful way to analyze his character. Ford has, at different times, considered himself a genius, a fool, a hero, a puppet; but what never changes is that he’s obsessed with the question of his own identity, and driven by the fear he’s either a freak or a non-entity. Even at the end of Journal 3, when he finally starts to chillax, he doesn’t abandon the question of his identity and say, “Who cares if I’m a hero or not.” Instead he chooses a new identity: “I’m a hero’s brother, and I’m okay with that.”

So how does this explain their problems?

Because, as much as these two dumb idiots love each other, they have primal fears that are often at cross-purposes, and that make them hypersensitive to each other’s worst tendencies. Stan fears being unloved and alone, and at his most desperate he is willing to do anything—including literally immolate his identity—to keep his loved ones around him, or bring them back. Ford fears having no separate identity or personal significance, and at his most desperate he is willing to do anything—including cut his twin out of his life, and summon unknown spirits of insane power—to grasp that identity.

This is why I think that, even if the whole science fair debacle had never happened, they would have still had some kind of major rift. They both grew up bullied by other children, emotionally abused by their father, and without any kind of support network or healthy relationship models; I don’t think either of them had the resources, at that point, to deal with their issues in a healthy way. Stan would have tried to cling to Ford no matter what, without realizing Ford experienced it as suffocation; Ford would have tried to strike out on his own no matter what, without realizing that Stan experienced it as complete rejection.

And this dynamic is also what drives their conflict after Ford comes back through the portal. I’m thinking, particularly, of their scene at the end of “Tale of Two Stans”:

Ford: Okay, Stanley, here’s the deal. You can stay here the rest of the summer to watch the kids. I’ll stay down in the basement and try to contain any remaining damage. But when the summer’s over, you give me my house back, you give me my name back, and this Mystery Shack junk is over forever. You got it?

Stan: You really aren’t gonna thank me, are you? Fine. On one condition: you stay away from the kids; I don’t want them in danger. Cause as far as I’m concerned, they’re the only family I have left.

A lot of people have interpreted this scene as Ford planning to kick Stan out of his life and onto the streets (and written angsty fanfics accordingly). This may indeed be how Stan saw it, but I don’t think that’s a fully accurate perception. A moment before this, they’re laughing about being old men. Ford’s voice in delivering his ultimatum doesn’t read as angry or cold so much as somebody trying to put his foot down.

I think the key to Ford’s speech is the implicit link between “you can stay here the rest of the summer” and “I’ll stay down in the basement.” Ford is primarily thinking about the issue of his stolen identity: there can only be one Stanford Pines, so while he’s willing hide himself away and let Stan keep playing the role for the rest of the summer, he wants to be Stanford Pines again. He wants his own identity, and to have a say in what goes on in his house. Which is completely reasonable!

But of course, Stan is approaching this conversation from a completely different direction. He’s spent thirty years trying to save Ford, not just because of his own guilt but also because he wants their relationship back: think of how he throws his arms wide and shouts “Brother!” when Ford steps through the portal. From Stan’s point of view, Ford is saying that everything Stan suffered and accomplished is still not enough to earn his love. Which is why Stan lashes out, having finally reached the limits of his willingness to martyr himself. Objectively, it’s kind of terrible to disown your brother for not saying “thank you,” but in context it completely makes sense for Stan to react this way. (And honestly, it’s really good that he has managed to discover ONE boundary, even if he’s being petty about it.)

….but of course, Ford still doesn’t understand what’s going on in his brother’s head, so he interprets Stan’s anger as something along the lines of “how dare you want to make decisions, you should just live in my basement for the rest your life to make me happy.” Which in turn drives his hostility and posturing in later episodes (like the DD&MD game—yes, Ford was swept away by enthusiasm, but I think he was also very much trying to mark his territory when he covered the TV room in graphs.) And that just escalates Stan’s hurt and anger, creating his determination Not To Care even when the world is ending and Ford is a prisoner, and culminating in the Zodiac Fight which is hands-down the pettiest thing either of them has ever done.

What saves them is Dipper and Mabel, who remind them it’s possible for two radically different siblings to work together—and who give them something to care about outside their own tumultuous dyad. Threatened by the loss of Dipper and Mabel, they find they can still trust and understand each other well enough to pull off a desperate, last-minute con. In one way, their final gambit seems to echo their earlier patterns: Stan burns up his identity to save his family, Ford grimly makes a choice that will cut him off from his brother. But there’s an important difference: Stan doesn’t expect to get anything back from this, not admiration from the kids or love from his brother, because he doesn’t expect to be himself after. He burns the dream of the Stan-o-War along with all the rest of his memories. Ford, on the other hand, gives up all claim to being the hero, The Man Who Killed Bill Cipher; more than that, he trusts Stan to carry out that role for him.

And that’s how, after everything, they’re able to reconcile and be at peace with each other.

#stanford pines #stanley pines #gravity falls #stan pines #ford pines #enneagram #reposting to see if i can get this in the tags

19 notes · View notes

thejakeformerlyknownasprince · 5 years ago

Note

Can we have the tea on why firefly getting cancelled was a good call tho?

My confidence on this website grows in direct proportion to my follower count, and thus the opinions I post get steadily more controversial. I actually got a mostly-positive response to my pro-Twilight post, so [glances around nervously] [dons fake beard] here it is:

IMHO, the producers were right to meddle in Firefly after its pilot, and they were right to cancel it after 12 episodes.

I enjoy Firefly. I’ve rewatched “Safe” and “Out of Gas” over a dozen times, I had a Serenity poster on my wall in college, and I’ve got Mal’s quote about statues as an epigraph in my current NaNoWriMo project. However.

First: they were right to kill the pilot. (And I don’t mean Wash.)

The biggest problem with the first first episode, in a nutshell, is Mal. He’s a potentially intriguing character, but he’s not likable, he’s not competent, and he’s not entertaining. No antihero has to be all three, but every antihero has to be at least one, right off the bat. A couple examples of antiheroes that got whole shows:

Dexter Morgan (Dexter) is a literal serial killer, so definitely not likable, but the pilot showcases that he’s terrifyingly competent with cellophane and also has an entertaining interior monologue.

Greg House (House MD) is questionably competent, and not that likable, but he’s highly entertaining because he immediately makes us laugh.

Jed Bartlett (West Wing) is largely incompetent at social matters, and he’s not funny at first, but he’s immediately charismatic and likable.

Frank Castle (Punisher) isn’t classically entertaining, and he’s not likable, but he’s shown as highly competent from minute one.

Malcolm Reynolds isn’t funny at first. He responds to insults by punching Simon in the face or throwing Jayne out of the room, barely tolerates Zoe’s fond teasing, and doesn’t joke around much. Malcolm Reynolds isn’t likable at first. He acts openly contemptuous toward Book’s and Inara’s chosen professions, seriously considers killing Simon for trying to protect River, loots corpses, and ignores Kaylee. Malcolm Reynolds isn’t competent at first. He fails twice to find a fence for the protein blocks, fails to detect either Simon’s or Dobson’s lies, gets himself and his first mate shot in a bad deal, and barely escapes with his life. He tells Simon that any day where he manages to keep his ship in the air counts as a success.

I don’t want to watch an entire show about this guy after seeing just the pilot, and I sympathize with anyone who feels the same way. The only moment in 120 minutes of screentime that intrigues me is the smash cut between Mal announcing to Simon that Kaylee died and Mal roaring with laughter with the rest of his crew over a prank well-pulled. It’s competent, funny, likable, and enough to make me want to tolerate this guy long enough to see what he’s going to do next. I don’t blame the producers for demanding that we see Simon-pranking guy more, Simon-punching guy less.

The other tone or setting inconsistencies in the pilot — the characters riding horses when they’ve got a faster-than-light ship, the dirt and platinum constructions, the Chinese vendors offering street meat made out of dog, the heroic depiction of the vainglorious Confederate Browncoat cause, the crew all being fluent in Mandarin but not having a single Asian character in the whole cast* — make it hard to get a sense of what the show is meant to be. The different elements just don’t make sense together.

Contrast that with “The Train Job,” the second first episode. There are undeniably Western and sci-fi elements, but they actually make sense together: instead of characters inexplicably swapping land speeders for horses, there’s a spaceship swooping low over a bullet train. Crow uses frontier weaponry, but it’s an intimidation tactic, and he does own a blaster. The Asian-influenced elements make a lot more sense, appearing mostly as background details that hint at a melding of cultures. Mal is warm and affectionate with his crew, willing to joke around to entertain the audience, and at least 43% less misogynistic toward Inara. Niska plays an important role in plot and character, setting up the possibility that we haven’t heard the last of this plot and also acting as a foil to the Serenity crew, who might kill the occasional unarmed prisoner but at least do their best not to poison entire towns.

Is “The Train Job” as unique an episode as “Serenity”? Nope. Does it do a better job at getting someone who’s never heard of this show before to want to tune in next week? I think so.

And then the cancellation.

Obviously, we’ll never know if people would’ve kept on turning in, because the series got less than a single season. And I think that was the right call, from the producers’ point of view. Firefly as a show might not have had the budgetary demands that, say, Game of Thrones did, but even an amateur like me can take one look at that series and go “damn, that looks expensive.”

There are NINE (9!) main characters, with series-regular salaries.

CGI was a lot more expensive and time-consuming in 2002, and literally every episode includes some exterior footage of the ship.

Every single episode involves the characters, or at least the cameras, leaving the ship and going to different phantasmagorical settings.

Even “Out of Gas” and “Objects in Space” had to take the time and money to build the junkyard and Jubal Early’s ship, respectively.

“Trash,” “Serenity,” “Jaynestown,” “The Message,” and “Heart of Gold” each introduces (and requires a build for) an entirely new fake planet.

Every single episode involves minor characters, and over half of them involve crowd scenes that require hundreds of extras.

Horses. And cows. Cost money. As Wash says, shoulda gone with the counterfeit beagles.

The Serenity set itself was built to scale. That’d save money in the long term, but in the short term required more camerawork to actually film in partially-enclosed locations. When you add in the fact that the on-planet shots always required dollies, cranes, and similar equipment, it adds up.

On a similar note, “the Firefly shot” (as it became known) requires days of planning followed by hours of shooting to include all of the characters in one single extremely long camera pan (almost five minutes long, the second time it happens). As a stylistic choice, it was a pricey one.

If Firefly had been spectacularly successful right from the start, it might have been able to justify its enormous budget. The fact that it was modestly successful didn’t justify the amount of money it was sucking from other projects. Over 90% of shows that make it as far as network deals never even get a pilot; over 90% of shows that go so far as shooting a pilot never make it past that first episode. The network decided to spread the love (and the budget) around, rather than sinking it all into a single project currently taking the place of maybe a dozen other potential shows.

Not only that, but Firefly didn’t have a ton of options for cutting its budget down. It could use fewer camera tricks, but that wouldn’t change the need for CGI just to convey the basic premise of the show. It could cut a character or two, but the cast would still be unusually large. It could have fewer on-planet scenes, but there’s only so much one can do with the characters if they’re cooped up inside their ship the whole time. Firefly was also leeching resources away from that team’s two other enormously successful projects – Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel — and the low ratings of Buffy’s season 6 and Angel’s late season 3 into season 4 reflect that fact. If it’d been allowed to continue, Firefly ran the risk of killing both those golden geese without ever getting to the point of producing eggs itself.

Do I wish there was more of the show out there? Yes. Do I wish the show had had time to evolve, hopefully into something with fewer problems of casual racism? Hell yes. Would I have pulled the plug as well, if I’d been in the room when it happened? Probably yes.

*I am aware of the theory that, given the heavily Asian-influenced settings in the “Safe” flashbacks, the popularity of “Tam” as a Chinese last name, the choice of dark-haired light-skinned actors, and specific elements of the family’s pressure to excel but conform, that the Tams are meant to be Chinese. Given that all four actors are white, and that there are already ample problems with anti-Chinese racism in this show, I strongly prefer not to ascribe to that theory.

#firefly #serenity #nothing to do with animorphs #firefly negativity #serenity negativity #joss whedon #whedon negativity #long post #anonymous #asks

98 notes · View notes

missjackil · 5 years ago

Text

4th Anniversary

Today marks 4 years that I have spent with the Winchester boys.

I remember the day clearly, as Leap Day has always stood out to me as some sort of magical kind of day. I know it’s only to keep up with the Earth’s rotation so that June doesn’t land in winter eventually but as a kid, I thought of it as a special day, like a “gift from above” kind of thing. So I have no trouble remembering I started watching SPN on the Leap Day.

The day itself had nothing to do with why I started watching, It had been a very cold, very snowy winter so my friend Dawn, my daughter and I, got into binge-watching stuff on Netflix like House MD and Nurse Jackie. When it was Dawn’s turn to pick, she said we should watch Supernatural, she had been watching it since day one and we would probably like it.

At the time, it was live in S11 and there were 10 seasons on Netflix and I was like “11 seasons is a huge commitment” and she said “Yeah but I think it’s the last season, and if it helps any, it stars 2 hot dudes that just keep getting hotter every season!” So I listened to her pitch, she knows I love bromance, and assured me if I enjoyed House and Wilson’s bromance, I would LOVE Sam and Dean’s, and it has a lot of religious elements which she knew I was interested in. So we watched the first 2 episodes.

I will admit, I wasn’t sold. Sam and Dean were cute and they had interesting interactions with each other but they were too young for me to consider “hot” and I didn't think they were very good actors. Not only that, but the color was nearly black and white which bothered me, and made the dark scenes almost impossible for me to see and low budget horror isn’t my thing at all.

Dawn was disappointed and didn't think I gave the show much of a chance, Sarah kinda liked it, she was about the same age as Sam and he was her favorite. So I agreed to watch the first 2 seasons, but if I still wasn’t sold, we move on.

I’d say the first episode to really impact me was Faith. Until that point, I didn’t think Sam cared all that much for Dean. I felt like Dean was (forgive me y’all) whiney, clingy, and too immature for me to believe he was 26-27 yrs old. I thought Sam was snobby and Jared, as an actor, was trying too hard. However, Faith changed my mind about Sam. It showed he really did love Dean. This was very important for my love of bromance. If one seems to want to get far away from the other, then that’s not very bromantic., but the scene in the Hospital when Dean says “I’m gonna die and there's nothing you can do about it” and Sam says “Watch me” made me go “hmmmmmm”

Season 1 did get better, but the first half of season 2 still had me thinking I wouldn't want to continue watching. Playthings was the next episode to impact me. No, not really because of the Wincesty-ness of it because TBH drunk Sam was cringy to me LOL but I loved Sam’s rescue scene in the pool! After that episode, S2 was better and by the time we got to All Hell Breaks Loose, I knew I was hooked!

I never would have thought such a show would become so much a part of my life that I'm literally heartbroken that it's almost over., I wonder where I'll be the next time Leap Day rolls around. I wonder if I will still have such fond memories of that one time, the Leap Day was literally, Supernatural.

#supernatural #my 4th anniversary #i love this show #sam and dean forever #my stuff #spn

9 notes · View notes

fizzingwizard · 6 years ago

Text

I reread the Sherlock Holmes stories at least once a year. Every time, I’m impressed with something new. I’ve really got to start a Holmesian side blog.

For now, enjoy what is basically me live-tweeting “The Problem of Thor Bridge,” although I actually read it a few days ago. Holmes is in his late 40s.

The story in short: A woman has been killed, and the family’s governess is accused, because the woman’s jackass husband is totally into her.

It was a wild morning in October, and I observed as I was dressing how the last remaining leaves were being whirled from the solitary plane tree which graces the yard behind our house. I descended to breakfast prepared to find my companion in depressed spirits, for, like all great artists, he was easily impressed by his surroundings.

We start off with an image of the moody, artistic, disconsolate Holmes, and a depiction of Watson, the guy who knows everything about him.

On the contrary, I found that... his mood was particularly bright and joyous, with that somewhat sinister cheerfulness which was characteristic of his lighter moments.

"You have a case, Holmes?" I remarked.

"The faculty of deduction is certainly contagious, Watson," he answered.

Every. Little. Thing.

Also, please note, sinister cheerfulness.

Watson: Holmes, you’re... happy. Good Lord, who’s been murdered!?

"... We may discuss it when you have consumed the two hard-boiled eggs with which our new cook has favoured us. Their condition may not be unconnected with the copy of the Family Herald which I observed yesterday upon the hall-table. Even so trivial a matter as cooking an egg demands an attention which is conscious of the passage of time and incompatible with the love romance in that excellent periodical."

Ooh. Victorian burn!

"I am getting into your involved habit, Watson, of telling a story backward."

Holmes’s pastime - casually insulting Watson.

Watson’s probable reaction:

By the way, let’s keep track of Holmes burns, shall we? So far he’s roasted both Watson and the poor cook at Baker Street.

"... A revolver with one discharged chamber and a calibre which corresponded with the bullet was found on the floor of her wardrobe." His eyes fixed and he repeated in broken words, "On—the—floor—of—her—wardrobe." Then he sank into silence.

Sherlock Holmes abruptly cutting off, repeating himself in staccato, then getting lost in thought and forgetting he was talking to someone. Just a day in the life of Dr. Watson.

When this sort of thing happens for a prolonged time, Watson has a habit of... falling asleep. Lol. Not that I blame him

Enter Bates, who is a manager for today’s client, Gibson, a gold mining magnate. Bates does not like Gibson.

"Those public charities are a screen to cover his private iniquities."

A breakdown of big business if I ever saw one.

Holmes doesn’t like Gibson either.

"What the devil do you mean by this, Mr. Holmes? Do you dismiss my case?"

"Well, Mr. Gibson, at least I dismiss you."

Holmes Burn Count: 3.

I sprang to my feet, for the expression upon the millionaire's face was fiendish in its intensity, and he had raised his great knotted fist.

Gasp! Someone makes a threatening gesture at Sherlock Holmes, something that surely happens with regularity!

Watson:

We learn Gibson has a crush on his governess, who is accused of killing his wife.

"I could not live under the same roof with such a woman and in daily contact with her without feeling a passionate regard for her. Do you blame me, Mr. Holmes?"

"I do not blame you for feeling it. I should blame you if you expressed it, since this young lady was in a sense under your protection."

Holy cheese whiz, Batman! Don’t hit on your employees! See! Even in a world without bills against sexual harassment in the workplace, this was understood!

"I've been a man that reached out his hand for what he wanted, and I never wanted anything more than the love and possession of that woman. I told her so."

"Oh, you did, did you?"

Holmes could look very formidable when he was moved.

Sherlock Holmes:

"I said that money was no object and that all I could do to make her happy and comfortable would be done."

"Very generous, I am sure," said Holmes with a sneer.

Holmes Burn Count: 4

On a side note, more Holmes actors should sneer.

"Some of you rich men have to be taught that all the world cannot be bribed into condoning your offences."

PREACH IT BROTHER.

"And women lead an inward life and may do things beyond the judgement of a man."

I love how this is just accepted in this time period. Gibson is speaking, and Holmes and Watson are gentlemen, but no one’s going to contradict this statement.

Man: does something completely against his character. Everyone else: How strange! There must be some reason. Meanwhile, Woman: does something completely against her character. Everyone: Well, she’s an illogical woman, what do you expect?

I mean dude. They talk this way in the original Star Trek, which had female character working in high-level positions (albeit not starship captain). And the “illogical woman” line appeared pretty much every time a plot involved a woman. It’s crazy how persistent a stereotype this was. At least “female hysteria” was still considered a Thing in Holmes’s time - by Star Trek’s time it had been dropped since the 1950s.

Anyway, I can’t understand a thing men do.

"[My wife] was crazy with hatred and the heat of the Amazon was always in her blood."

Whenever a character isn’t English, they are assigned some ethnic trait that usually makes them more passionate and unreasonable than English people. The English don’t escape critique, but foreigners definitely feel the burn the greatest. If an excuse can be found to blame something on a character being “tropical” or “fiery” because they’re from the Mediterranean or overseas, it will be used. And it’s usually a female character. (Though probably the one who gets it the worst is the poor Andaman Islander in The Sign of Four, who is a man, but barely even afforded humanity by the text.)

Holmes and Watson travel out to investigate. They meet the local police, who’s grateful to work with Holmes.

"And your friend, Dr. Watson, can be trusted, I know."

This is just how you react when Holmes shows up with Watson, since Holmes’s modus operandi is “Anything you say to me will eventually get back to Watson anyway.”

"Well now, Watson, suppose for a moment that we visualise you in the character of a woman who, in a cold, premeditated fashion, is about to get rid of a rival..."

So there’s an episode of House MD where House asks Wilson to envision himself as his patient, who is a middle-aged Chinese woman. Wilson is like “ok” and House says “Say it.” So Wilson says “I’m a middle-aged Chinese woman.” And House is like, “good.” And clearly it’s from “Thor Bridge” bwahahahaha.

"Your best friends would hardly call you a schemer, Watson, and yet I could not picture you doing anything so crude as that."

Watson Cannot Lie. It Is Known. At least, he cannot lie convincingly for more than a few minutes. Also, he is a Good Guy, Whom Holmes Trusts Implicitly.

(The Casebook has quite a few Watson-validating moments.)

"I can see now that I was wrong. Nothing could justify me in remaining where I was a cause of unhappiness, and yet it is certain that the unhappiness would have remained even if I had left the house."

^This is the governess, Ms Dunbar, teaching us all that a good deed never goes unpunished. I disagree with calling Ms Dunbar the “cause” of unhappiness, as the cause is clearly the husband. Ms Dunbar’s one bad decision was in not putting some form of distance between herself and Gibson. She seems to have thought they were safe as long as they were not being physically intimate, but other forms of intimacy were okay. And, to be frank, it seems not unlikely by the end that for all Gibson’s lack of morals, and in spite of her own, Ms Dunbar loves him back.

At the same time, she’s also right that no matter what choice she made, Gibson and his wife were not going to be happy together. It’s completely Gibson’s fault though. And the fault of a society where leaving a marriage left a black mark.

"How do you know [the murder weapon wasn’t already planted in your room]?"

"Because I tidied out the wardrobe."

"That is final."

Who is she, Marie Kondo?

Holmes did not answer. His pale, eager face had suddenly assumed that tense, far-away expression which I had learned to associate with the supreme manifestations of his genius. So evident was the crisis in his mind that none of us dared to speak, and we sat, barrister, prisoner, and myself, watching him in a concentrated and absorbed silence.

More of Silent, Pensive Holmes and his Rapt Audience. Watson won’t fall asleep when others are around, so instead they all stare at Holmes. Literally. That’s what it says. No one dares speak and they all just stare at him.

Suddenly, as we neared our destination he seated himself opposite to me—we had a first-class carriage to ourselves—

I like that Watson feels compelled to explain this to us this.

and laying a hand upon each of my knees he looked into my eyes with the peculiarly mischievous gaze which was characteristic of his more imp-like moods.

The body language in this passage. Holmes getting all silly and excited. Watson still just staring. This scene is probably the most Guy Ritchie-like it gets.

Also, please note imp-like.

Watson: Get your hands off my knees Sherlock Holmes you adorable fucker.

"Watson," said he, "I have some recollection that you go armed upon these excursions of ours."

It was as well for him that I did so, for he took little care for his own safety when his mind was once absorbed by a problem so that more than once my revolver had been a good friend in need. I reminded him of the fact.

"Yes, yes, I am a little absent-minded in such matters."

Holmes: Hey Watson, are you packing heat?

Watson: Well YEAH, you careless bastard. Someone’s got to prevent your death, since you won’t.

Holmes: YOLO

(Although, it’s more like YOLT, in this specific case.)

"See, Watson, your revolver has solved the problem!"

^After using Watson’s revolver in an experiment which results in the gun falling off the bridge into the depths of the river.

Watson: Thank you, Holmes. I liked that revolver.

Holmes: Psh, quit your bitching, we’ll drag the river for it.

In the end, it turns out the wife concocted a plan for her own suicide that would make it look like the governess murdered her. Although this story would definitely have been better without the racism and sexism, one thing that I can’t help but appreciate is that Gibson, a Generally Bad Guy, is not The Bad Guy, and gets to continue living his rich and ruthless life. On top of that, he’s even rid of his wife who wasn’t beautiful anymore, and potentially going to marry the beautiful younger woman. So he gets no consequences for treating his wife terribly, putting the moves on his employee, or just for being a jackass. Instead, he gets even More. It’s hyper realism. ACD ain’t pulling his punches with this one. /cynicism

And that’s it for “Thor Bridge!” This was very fun for me to do though I doubt anyone will read it! But I’ll almost definitely make more so I can continue to share the running inner monologue that goes on in my head whenever I read Holmes stories. I enjoy snickering to myself with or without an audience.

Our Holmes Burn Count was only 4, though I could have included a few more barbs he threw at Gibson.

This probably doesn’t need mentioning, but all the Sherlock Holmes stories are in public domain so y’all should go read them.

#sherlock holmes #john watson #fizz spams sherlock holmes #the problem of thor bridge

5 notes · View notes

orbemnews · 4 years ago

Link

28economy-briefing Daily Business Briefing May 28, 2021Updated May 28, 2021, 8:19 a.m. ET A worker at a JD.com distribution center. JD Logistics, the company’s supply chain division, raised $3.1 billion Friday in an initial public offering in Hong Kong.Credit…Thomas Peter/Reuters JD Logistics, a supply chain unit of JD.com, the big Chinese internet retailer, raised more than $3.1 billion in a share listing in Hong Kong on Friday, the latest Chinese company to raise money in a record-breaking year for the city’s stock exchange. Investors were watching the initial public offering to gauge whether there was still an appetite for splashy debuts by Chinese internet companies at a time when the technology industry is facing intense regulatory scrutiny from Beijing. The scrutiny did not appear to bother traders, who sent the stock up by as much as 18 percent during its first day of trading on the Hong Kong stock exchange. But the stock pared most of those gains during the session, and closed 3.3 percent higher than its listing price, at 41.70 Hong Kong dollars, or $5.37. The offering by JD Logistics, which helps JD.com provide same-day and next-day delivery for tens of thousands of counties and towns in China, valued the company at $4 billion, making it the third-largest share offering in Hong Kong this year. Beijing has imposed record fines on some of China’s biggest internet companies like Alibaba as regulators try to tame the power and anticompetitive nature of the country’s most popular and ubiquitous technology companies. On Friday, Yu Rui, the chief executive of JD Logistics, addressed the regulatory scrutiny and said the company would use the money it had raised to improve its ability to serve smaller cities and pursue overseas markets. Some of the company’s biggest shareholders are Blackstone, the Wall Street private equity firm; Temasek, Singapore’s sovereign wealth fund; and the hedge funds Tiger Global and Oaktree. Read more President Biden’s $6 trillion budget will be officially released on Friday. The White House is relying on historically low interest rates to argue for major investments to combat climate change and reduce income inequality. Credit…Doug Mills/The New York Times The whirlwind trading of small retail investors who concentrate on driving up the share price of a handful of companies energetically returned to markets this week. Shares in AMC, the movie theater chain, surged more than 20 percent in premarket trading and was the most traded stock on Friday morning as traders pounced on the company’s stock. The trading is reminiscent of the GameStop frenzy in January. One of the aims of the retail traders is to push up a company’s share price to force losses on hedge funds that have bet against the stock in what is called a short squeeze. AMC shares have jumped 120 percent this week, to $26.52, giving the company a market value of $13 billion. At the end of 2019, before AMC became a “meme stock” darling like GameStop, the video game retailer, and Blackberry, the phone company, the share price for AMC was about $2. GameStop shares have risen 44 percent this week. AMC Entertainment share price United States U.S. stock futures rose on Friday. The S&P 500 is set to rise 0.4 percent when markets open. It has already climbed more than 1 percent this week and is less than 1 percent away from a record high. Stock prices have been kept by buoyant by expectations of ample federal spending and low interest rates. President Biden will propose a $6 trillion budget on Friday, according to documents obtained by The New York Times. The budget will finance Mr. Biden’s two-part plan to upgrade American infrastructure and expand the social safety net, contained in his American Jobs Plan and American Families Plan. Data coming on Friday is expected to show that a measure of inflation jumped in April. The Bureau of Economic Analysis’s personal consumption expenditure inflation measure probably rose 2.9 percent, according to economists surveyed by Bloomberg. It would be the highest reading since the early 1990s. The inflation index, which is closely watched by the Federal Reserve, is expected to rise sharply because of the effect of a drop in prices last year. But the jump is likely to continue the focus by policymakers and investors about how long this increase in inflation will last. Europe Most European stock indexes were higher after a measure of economic confidence in the European Union climbed to its highest level since early 2018. The Stoxx Europe 600 rose 0.6 percent, gaining for a seventh consecutive day to a record high. Read more A Texmark refinery plant in Galena Park, Texas, has been retrofitted to refine renewable jet fuel.Credit…Christopher Lee for The New York Times The worst of the pandemic may be over for airlines, but another crisis looms for the industry: an accounting over its contribution to climate change. There’s growing pressure to do something to reduce and eventually eliminate emissions from travel, but that won’t be easy, The New York Times’s Niraj Chokshi and Clifford Krauss report. Some solutions, like hydrogen fuel cells, are promising, but it’s unclear when they will be available, if ever. That leaves companies with few options: They can make tweaks to squeeze out efficiencies, wait for technology to improve or invest today to help make viable options for the future. “It’s a big crisis, it’s a pressing crisis — a lot needs to be done soon,” said Jagoda Egeland, an aviation policy expert at the International Transport Forum, a unit of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. “It’s a hard-to-abate sector. It will always emit some carbon.” Experts say commercial air travel accounts for about 3 to 4 percent of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. Planes become more efficient with each new model, but growing demand for flights is outpacing those advancements. The United Nations expects airplane emissions of carbon dioxide, a major greenhouse gas, to triple by 2050. Some researchers say emissions may grow even faster. Investors are pushing businesses to disclose more about their efforts to lobby lawmakers on climate issues, too. There has been some progress: Some large corporations, whose employees crisscross the globe and fill plush business class seats, are reviewing travel budgets to reduce expenses and emissions. A recently announced United Airlines deal will result in the airline’s buying about 3.4 million gallons of sustainable fuel this year. And in France, lawmakers are considering a ban on short flights that can be replaced by train travel. Someday, hydrogen fuel cells and synthetic jet fuel could help to decarbonize the industry, and pilot projects have already begun, mainly in Europe, where Airbus says it plans to build a zero-emission aircraft by 2035. But renewable jet fuel has its limits, too. Despite the challenges, Scott Kirby, the chief executive of United Airlines, is optimistic that investments in alternative fuels and carbon capture technology will yield a breakthrough. “In the near term, it’s about getting them to work economically,” he said. “Once you cross that threshold, you will have an exponential increase.” Read more Fuel holding tanks at Colonial Pipeline’s Dorsey Junction Station in Woodbine, Md. this month.Credit…Drew Angerer/Getty Images The Biden administration will require the nation’s pipeline companies to report to the government any time they are hit with a significant cyberattack, and to create 24-hour emergency centers for such episodes, Alejandros N. Mayorkas, the secretary of homeland security, said Thursday morning. The move is the first of several, administration officials said Wednesday night, to address the lessons of the Colonial Pipeline ransomware attack this month, which forced Colonial to shut off the systems that send gasoline and jet fuel to nearly half of the East Coast. But based on the details released by people familiar with the order, it does little to solve the central problems that were revealed by that attack. The new requirement will essentially assure that the pipeline companies always have at least one employee with some cybersecurity training monitoring their systems, though it is unclear what that employee would be empowered to do other than raise an alarm. The order also sets a 30-day period to “identify any gaps and related remediation measures to address cyber-related risks” and report them to the Transportation Security Administration and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency. But the gaps identified in the Colonial ransomware attack most likely would not have been anticipated by any such review, many experts note. And the company’s intense secretiveness in dealing with the government during the episode — including its decision to pay the ransom — was a source of constant frustration to government officials. Read more Video transcript Back transcript Senate Republicans Unveil $928 Billion Infrastructure Bill Republican senators outlined a $928 billion infrastructure proposal to counter President Biden’s plan. Their plan involves unused coronavirus aid, and focuses on rebuilding roads and bridges. “We are looking at today as a $928 billion package over eight years. It sticks to the core infrastructure features that we talked to initially. It’s a serious effort to try to reach a bipartisan agreement. The president said to me and us in February that he was really agnostic as to whether we passed a bunch of small bills or one large bill. And we’ve heard him say inaction is not an option for him. We’ve now passed two of the smaller — and actually the surface transportation hasn’t gone out of the full Senate yet — but it is a major anchor to this piece of legislation. And so I think that shows that there’s a real hunger for bipartisanship in the United States Senate. There’s a real ability to achieve that. And we’re hoping that this moves the ball forward.” “This is of substance and significance, what we’re bringing forth today. And it’s what people at home in Wyoming think of as infrastructure. It’s, you know, roads with potholes that need to be fixed.” Republican senators outlined a $928 billion infrastructure proposal to counter President Biden’s plan. Their plan involves unused coronavirus aid, and focuses on rebuilding roads and bridges.CreditCredit…Shawn Thew/EPA, via Shutterstock Senate Republicans on Thursday proposed spending less that one seventh of what President Biden has requested in his expansive $1.7 trillion infrastructure initiative, countering with $257 billion in new funding for roads, bridges and other public works. The narrow scope of the plan, which Republicans said would amount to a total of $928 billion over eight years when paired with existing programs — $1.4 trillion short of Mr. Biden’s proposal of new funds — illustrated the long odds that negotiations will yield a workable bipartisan compromise. The latest Republican plan contains another probable deal breaker: They suggest paying for much of their proposal by repurposing funds from the $1.9 trillion pandemic relief law, an approach that White House officials have repeatedly rejected. Instead, Mr. Biden has proposed large tax increases on corporations and wealthy taxpayers to pay for his much larger package, a prospect that Republicans, in turn, have refused even to consider. “I haven’t had the chance to go over the details” of the counterproposal, Mr. Biden told reporters Thursday before boarding Air Force One to visit Cleveland. The president said he had spoken with Senator Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia, one of the lead authors of the Republican plan, and planned to meet with negotiators next week, adding that he wanted to see a bill “done” soon. But his spokesman, Jen Psaki, while careful to praise the work of Ms. Capito and her allies, cast doubt on whether their comparatively small spending plan would ultimately pass muster. White House officials “remain concerned that their plan still provides no substantial new funds for critical job-creating needs, such as fixing our veterans’ hospitals, building modern rail systems, repairing our transit systems, removing dangerous lead pipes, and powering America’s leadership in a job-creating clean energy economy, among other things,” Ms. Psaki said in a statement. The White House also signaled a willingness to pursue talks into early June, when Congress returns from a Memorial Day recess, even as officials expressed concerns about the package’s narrow scope and its intention to repurpose pandemic relief funds. The quartet of Republicans who proposed the latest plan includes Ms. Capito, Senators Patrick J. Toomey of Pennsylvania, Roy Blunt of Missouri and John Barrasso of Wyoming. The group said the proposal was proof their party was negotiating in good faith on an infrastructure deal. They had initially presented a $568 billion plan for five years’ worth of overall spending, which also contained only a fraction of new spending; the outline presented on Thursday included about $70 billion more. “We believe that this counteroffer delivers on what President Biden told us in the Oval Office,” Ms. Capito said, referring to a private meeting the senators attended with the president earlier this month. “It sticks to the core infrastructure features.” Still, optimism for a bipartisan deal on infrastructure has dwindled despite an exchange of offers between the administration and Republicans, who have continued to object to Mr. Biden’s ambitions for the scope and size of a package. White House officials have expressed frustration with lawmakers’ reluctance to significantly increase the amount of new spending. Several Democrats, wary of losing valuable time to act on their key priorities, are urging leaders to abandon the bipartisan talks and use the fast-track budget reconciliation process to advance the legislation, protecting it from a filibuster and allowing it to pass with a simple majority. A bipartisan group of senators is also quietly discussing their own proposal as a fallback option should talks between Republican senators and the White House collapse. The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee also unanimously advanced on Wednesday a $304 billion reauthorization transportation bill, an effort that Ms. Capito said was “a major anchor” for a bipartisan accord. Read more Video transcript Back transcript Top Finance Executives Testify on Economic Recovery and Oversight Executives at major financial institutions testified for a second day to Congress about how they were helping aid economic recovery. “We are living through unprecedented times, which history will judge the leaders of government and industry by actions we take to address the health and economic crises, and longstanding structural inequities. At JPMorgan Chase, we entered this crisis from a position of strength and leveraged our size and scale to contribute to the stability in our country and ongoing support for the real economy — our customers, employees and communities impacted by the global crisis. In 2020, we extended credit and raised capital totaling $2.3 trillion for customers and businesses of all sizes, helping them meet payroll, avoid layoffs and support operations. We waived fees and delayed payments on about three million accounts for customers who said they were affected by Covid with no questions asked.” “At Citi, we recognize this has been an incredibly challenging time for Americans, millions of whom we’re very proud to call our customers. The origins of this global crisis are very unlike the last one. This is a public health crisis with severe economic consequences for many. Through the pandemic, Citi has shown we are a very different bank than the one that entered the financial crisis more than a decade ago. We’re smaller, but we’re safer, we’re stronger and we’re far less complex. We have had the financial resources to support our clients and communities through Covid, and we’re laser-focused on driving a sustainable and an equitable recovery. I’ll always be proud that we were the first bank to provide relief programs for retail and small business customers in the U.S.” “In our institutional business, we’re a financial adviser to companies. We help them raise debt and equity capital, from taking companies public to helping them issue bonds so they can grow and create jobs. We help public-sector entities raise municipal financing. We help pension funds, mutual funds and other financial institutions trade and manage assets.” Executives at major financial institutions testified for a second day to Congress about how they were helping aid economic recovery. A day after testifying to the Senate Committee on Banking, the chief executives of the six largest banks faced a second round of questioning from lawmakers on Thursday in an hourslong hearing before the House Committee on Financial Services. Some of the lawmakers’ questions on topics like overdraft fees echoed Wednesday’s Senate hearing. Others questioned executives for their views on financial regulation. David Solomon, the chief executive of Goldman Sachs, said he believed more disclosure was needed on special purpose acquisition companies, the blank-check firms known as SPACs that have become a Wall Street favorite for bypassing the traditional public offering process. “I think there’s an opportunity for more plain language disclosure, so that investors really understand the sponsorship economics in plain clear language, and they also understand the process,” Mr. Solomon said. Mr. Solomon also said there were “opportunities to think carefully” about disclosure and liabilities in a typical I.P.O. process. Jamie Dimon, the chief executive of JPMorgan Chase, called for more regulation of cryptocurrencies, noting that the bank will offer some forms of digital currency as clients demand them. “My own personal advice to people is stay away from it — that does not mean the clients don’t want it,” he said. Lawmakers also questioned Mr. Dimon and Jane Fraser, Citigroup’s chief executive, about the banks’ resistance to conducting racial equity audits, as urged by some investors. Nearly 40 percent of JPMorgan shareholders said they were in favor of a racial equity and audit report at a recent shareholders’ meeting, but Mr. Dimon said he did not believe one was necessary. Mr. Dimon highlighted the investments the firm has made and committed toward racial equity, a mission to which he said the firm is “devoted.” “That is completely different than the bureaucracy and B.S. of having outside orders come in to certify something,” Mr. Dimon said. “If there are best practices that we can learn from, we’ll learn from them, but this kind of thing is not going to make it much better over time — it just adds a whole layer of unnecessary cost.” Citi shareholders recently voted down a proposal that would have required the company’s board to oversee a racial equity audit. “We didn’t think it was needed to have a separate audit,” Ms. Fraser said of that proposal, which was pushed by CtW, an adviser to union pensions. “But it is something that we’re looking at again given it was brought up by our shareholders.” Read more Administering a dose of the Pfizer vaccine at a center in Montigny-le-Bretonneux, near Paris, in April.Credit…Dmitry Kostyukov for The New York Times The mysterious London public relations agency sent its pitch simultaneously to social media influencers in France and Germany: Claim that Pfizer’s coronavirus vaccine is deadly and that regulators and the mainstream media are covering it up, the message read, and earn thousands of euros in easy money in exchange. The claim is false. The purported agency, Fazze, has a website and describes itself as an “influencer marketing platform” connecting bloggers and advertisers. But when some of the influencers tried to find out who was running Fazze, the ephemeral trail appeared to lead to Russia. “Unbelievable. The address of the London agency that contacted me is bogus,” Léo Grasset, a popular French health and science YouTuber with more than one million followers, wrote on Twitter on Monday. “All the employees have weird LinkedIn profiles … which have been missing since this morning. Everyone has worked in Russia before.” Mirko Drotschmann, a German health commentator with 1.5 million YouTube subscribers, said in a tweet that the P.R. agency had asked if he wanted to be part of an “information campaign” about Pfizer deaths in exchange for money. After doing some research, he concluded: “Agency headquarters: London. Residence of the C.E.O.: Moscow.” Their responses prompted two other social media influencers to come forward and say that they, too, were approached last week with the offer of a “partnership” to criticize the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. One was offered 2,000 euros, about $2,400. It’s uncertain how many influencers received the solicitations, or if any acted on them. And it’s not at all clear that there ever was a Fazze agency. Within hours of the questions on social media, the employee profiles on the agency’s LinkedIn account had disappeared, and someone scrubbed its Facebook page blank. Its Instagram account was made private. Its website offers no way to contact the company. The French health minister, Olivier Véran, denounced the operation on Tuesday, calling it “pathetic and dangerous.” He did not elaborate on whether the government was investigating the matter. Read more Source link Orbem News #28economybriefing

0 notes

mdwatchestv · 7 years ago

Text

The Magicians 3x03: Witches and Hoes

Happy another week has gone by since the last Magician's episode! I am very tired and once again banging this out on the Tuesday before the new episode, so I'm going to launch into in a lazy and unoriginal introductory device that is partially plagiarizing someone else's thoughts and feelings. Sorry, here we go. My friend g-chatted me this week to talk about the Magicians. "Did you like it?" I began. "Nothing happened in it," she replied. "What are you talking about?" I rejoined, "Penny DIED." "That did not feel permanent" Not to be thwarted by Penny's astral projection, I came back with, "Tom Amandes DIED!" "Yes but he is like a guest character so whatever."

Whatever indeed.

Frustrated by her lackadaisical, yet impenetrable argument, I struggled to come up with more things in this episode that had actually...you know...happened. Although there were many fun set pieces, there was not a lot of forward momentum in the plot. This is mostly noteworthy because the Magicians usually tears through plot with reckless abandon, speeding through storylines at the speed of light. It is strange, mildly confusing, and completely glorious. To see them tread water and take time for some light set up, while commonly seen in other shows, is a bit jarring here. Like we didn't even get a key this episode? Penny did die though. I mean, sort of.

Once again we see our magic heroes broken up into little task forces, perfect bite size pairs for us to crunch right through. Alice is back on her cat-murdering bullshit as she snatches a fuzzy babe up out of the woods. Rude as hell. She then returns home to find her parents opulent manor, and her parents themselves, in a state of disarray after the loss of magic. Possessed Quentin also follows her there in a creepy, totally non-terrifying way. I kind of love how none of Quentin's closest friends (Julia, Alice) noticed any change in his general disposition when possessed by a slug monster. At the house, the lamprey fux with Alice, eventually possessing her father (the aforementioned Tom Amandes) and forcing Alice to electrocute him. Alice's dad isn't the only thing that dies in this storyline however, as Alice also puts her relationship with Quentin to bed. That's right, Old Alice can't come to the phone right now. Why? Oh because she's dead. New Alice has also abandoned her peter pan collar a-line dresses, but now wears shirts in a clingy material I can just FEEL my underwire getting caught in. By far the most stressful costuming in any show.

Elsewhere on Earth, Kady and Julia gather some random household items in order to summon a demon to cure Penny. Oh also a mysterious old lady lays down a warning to Julia. Is this lady a Cassandra-like sage? Or is she being possessed by a larger force to speak to Julia? What's clear is that Julia is not as far in her magical development as *someone* wants her to be. Anyway with the help of Mayakovsky's battery, Julie and Kady are able to summon A demon, if not necessarily the right one, to help Penny. The demo sucks up all of Penny's cancer (nom nom nom), but is too late to save him! Yes Penny's bodily form is dead, but his astral projection is alive and kicking. I like Penny most when something terrible is happening to him (see: no hands), and look forward to his invisibleness.

We got the most action this episode in good ole Fillory. King Eliot's quest is briefly halted when his ship is overtaken by pirates! While cowering in his cabin, Eliot espies a keyhole in the hull of the ship. This is a timely find considering he just got a magical key last episode, and what do you know it's a fit! After revealing a magical mystery door, Eliot, Fen, and Fairy Daughter disappear for the rest of the episode. Their absence was missed. However there were other beloved characters to take their place as Margo swept in with the help of the Fairy Queen to save Eliot from the pirates! Margo has a brief flirtatious parley with the FABULOUS AF Pirate King whose too-short appearance on the show was simply not enough. Honestly I would watch a series about Margo and Pirate King sailing the high seas together, killing men, and getting into sexy trouble.

In the less fun department, the Pirate King reveals she wants her ship to essentially rape Eliot's ship, and seeing how the ships are sort-of conscious, this is a morally difficult request. Margo can't force the ship to undergo the trauma and instead asks her (the ship) what she wants to do. The Fairy Queen is moved by Margo's consideration, and dispatches of the pirates in quick, bloody fashion. RIP Pirate King, we hardly knew ye. Earlier Tick pick-pocketed Margo's eye back from the Fairy Queen (since he can finally see her), which obvi the Queen notices almost immediately. Not sure what the long game was there. Her Royal Fairiness demands its return, but Margo chooses to smoosh it, rendering her permanently mono-sighted. What a badass.

So that's where we stand, not too much farther ahead than last week. Alice has successfully vanquished her lamprey stalker, Penny is dead-ish, Eliot is in another world (or maybe just a magical broom closet), and Margo still maintains a tenuous truce with the Fairy Queen. I'm hoping for big shake up crazy next week, perhaps a transformation? Introduction of five new minor characters? A shocking revelation? Hit me baby, I'm ready!

I mean at the end of the day this is still a show where a girl crushes her own eyeball into the hand of a vengeful fairy queen, so i’m not complaining THAT much.

XO, MD

#the magicians #martha writes #magicians #magicians syfy #syfy #the magicians gifs #tv gifs #tv recaps #tv reviews #magicians recaps #margo the destroyer #summer bishil #jason ralph #quentin coldwater

4 notes · View notes

firelxrdazula · 7 years ago

Text

I was tagged by @prinsesseazula

1. What’s your favorite character ever?

*screaming into the void* AZULAAAAAA

2. Can you dance anything?

Well, no. Because first of all, I don't want to xD

3. What’s your favorite holiday?

Christmas when I was a kid. But now? Not really, since I can never spend Christmas with my family because of school. I can't go to where my family lives because I'm too busy tbh

4. Do you live by yourself?

Nope, but I might as well be because it's so quiet at home. It barely feels like anybody is home.

5. What’s your new years resolutions?

Uhhhh, I've given up on myself and resolutions. Although, HYPOTHETICALLY, it would be to start managing my time better. I always end up not finishing what I'm supposed to do because I run out of time. Or to study more, and complain less(which is like almost impossible. gotta set more realistic goals)

6. Cats or dogs?

Dogs. Cats are cute, but dogs are just way more friendly.

7. Have you ever been to another country?

Yep, I've been to China, Hong Kong, Qatar, UAE, and Saudi Arabia.

8. How many languages do you speak?

Three. In my country, there's a main language which I know how to speak, and the main dialect in my region of the country.

9. What was the last show you have watched?

The last show I binged was Broad City which I enjoyed a lot. It was hilarious. Although, if you mean like a show in general, I watched an episode of House, MD. It's like my go-to show.

10. What is your favorite book?

I can't remember the last time I ever read a novel, nor do I even have any novel I consider a fav nowadays so... My favorite book is Henry's Clinical Diagnosis and Management by Laboratory Methods, since I hold that book like the bible. XDDDD

My questions:

What's the thine you've always regretted yet ended up loving it in the end?

Can you say that you are happy right this moment?

Would you call waffles just pancakes with abs?

Would you eat that thing Bato of the Water Tribe made with sea prunes?

Do you agree that clapping is just weird? Like, who decided it was nice to just put your hands together to... Express amazement?

How many fries is okay for your friend to take before you tell them to order their own?

What material (besides swords) would you want your throne to be made of?

Do you agree that pigeons are just rats with wings?

Is croissant the best bread?

If you have any siblings, which of them do you love the least? If you don't, which parent do you love more?

I'm tagging: @citrusrealm @tamanthud @focusas @madshape @fanwright @seyaryminamoto (im tagging u back just bc) @prinsesseazula (im tagging u back too) @scarletspimpcane

7 notes · View notes

abumblebeeat221b · 7 years ago

Text

Sherlock and the Female Gaze

If anyone asked me to point them to the most revolutionary piece of media ever created I’d probably show them Doctor Who (because guys - nothing beats a show that is basically Sherlock Holmes in space and keeps reinventing itself every other year).

But the second thing would be Sherlock. Not Doyle’s original, not the Rathbone, Granada, Soviet, new Russian adaptations (even though they are dear to me). Just 13 episodes of a TV show that was only ever meant to win some obscure film award in Eastern Europe and became a success over night instead.

The fandom that does its research has spent seven years trying to pinpoint its secret and the only thing we can agree on are three little words: it looks pretty.

On a more serious note: it is probably the first thing which made male eye-candy unashamedly mainstream. It is the millennial version of Pride and Prejudice, of Mr. Darcy, only that this time society doesn’t expect the story to bore our boyfriends to death.

And I’m not even sure that was something Mofftiss and Co were aiming for.

You see. It is a truth universally acknowledged that men have no idea what women like. They confuse it with male power fantasies ALL THE TIME because that’s what the media tells them we are day dreaming about. They are shocked to learn that we think Loki to be the sexually most appealing hero villain in the Avangers, that we consider Rodger from the original 101 Dalmatians to be perfect boyfriend material, that yes, we’d happily choose a dog loving, kind individual (with great hair) over most more manly super heroes out there.

And Sherlock ticks all the right boxes for women to find him attractive, while most guys wouldn’t think that lanky nerd to be much of a competition for them.

The cherry on our metaphorical fandom-cake is that Sherlock is pretty much the first thing produced for a main stream audience I know of* which treats its leading male character as if he was a woman in order to cater to the female gaze (because the lgbqt+ community was not the only reason why the name Cumberbatch has showed up on most versions of the sexiest men alive lists since 2010/11).

Women look at Sherlock and think ‘sexy’ because we’ve been conditioned by the media to recognise this is what ‘sexy’ looks like.

And this my friends is where the magic happens.

You want the list? Here have the list:

A well-tailored suit is to women what lingerie is to men. And let me tell you Sherlock wearing suits doesn’t look like a coincidence from over here.

The coat. It’s like a cape. Only way cooler.

The buttons which deserve their own award™. We all know the story behind the coat™, but I’m not aware of the official one explaining why Sherlock couldn’t buy the purple shirt of sex™ in a bigger size (lucky us he didn’t). On a sidenote: too small dress sizes and strained buttons are exactly what actresses are expected to wear in front of the camera.

The white sheet of possibilities. Sherlock Holmes visits Buckingham palace wearing nothing but a sheet BECAUSE THE SCRIPT SAYS SO and I can’t be the only one feeling reminded of the long standing tradition of women having to take off their clothes for very important plot reasons™. Two series later, Moffat does it again, and while IMHO Sherlock should have kept his hospital gown on in His Last Vow, I’m aware that is a pretty problematic™ thing to say given how it belongs to the most beloved (i.e. gifed and photoshopped) bits of that episode. (While at the same time, apart from Irene Adler, we have no idea what the Sherlock ladies wear underneath).

The cheekbones. Oh. The. Cheekbones. It is shocking exactly no one that Carrie Fisher was asked to lose weight every time she played Princess Leia (yes, also that one). Benedict Cumberbatch lost weight for series 2, then went to play the villain in Star Trek: Into Darkness, came back to series 3 having to lose those muscles and some weight - which goes against the *typical* male beauty standards in the industry, just saying. (NB: I’m pretty sure he did it again for TAB and series 4, but series 2 and series 3 are the only instances I’m aware of him mentioning it).

The weapons of a woman. When was the last time the male hero was allowed to lose? James Bond gets the girl because he is the best agent out there. It’s always the best knight who slays the dragon and saves the princess. I agree today personality matters - but that just means that now he needs to slay the dragon AND be charismatic on the top of it.

Heroes aren’t damsels in distress, they don’t get favours because of their looks and smiles, they don’t rely on other people or need emotional support. They are lone wolves, strong and self-efficient in every possible sense of the word and they have more than just their muscles to show for it.

Not in Sherlock.

Odds (*literally odds*) are Sherlock wouldn’t have survived the first episode without John.

Here we have someone who manipulates Molly (and clients alike) using his charm to get what he wants. Sherlock relies on his social network all the time, his adventures are about showing us how being the Cleverest™, the Best™ does not equal success.

He gets saved, beaten and drugged by Irene Adler, and just in case we’d still have some illusions left, the script for that scene describes the leading male character with the words ‘weak as a kitten’. I leave you to draw your own conclusions.

In the same episode he wins a fight because of pepper spray.

He relies on his brother’s help to beat Moriarty. He shoots Magnussen because even Mycroft’s long arm doesn’t end up being long enough. The only reason he makes it out of that mess alive is his freaking sister he isn’t even aware of.

The point is. Sherlock is right when he points out the obvious: he is no hero, but a mess who solves crimes as an alternative to getting high. Yes, he is phenomenally good at what he does. But he also needs an assistant, someone who takes some part of the responsibilities off his not-so-bulky shoulders and helps him to win those victories.

The fairytale of the high-functioning sociopath. For some baffling reason, sometime between now and the dark middle ages humankind decided that European culture only ever allows men to seek companionship when somehow sex (or bragging about sex) is involved.

This is why “being friendzoned” is the worst that can happen to the modern man™. This is why they honestly don’t get the concept of just friends™. To a good deal of them female friends are like unicorns in that they don’t exist. To them the age old “if I’m not getting sex out of it then why should I bother?” argument works on both sides: “if you are not getting sex out of it then why should you care?”.

(Before you spam my inbox yes, I know Scrubs exists, I’m more than just familiar with House MD *laughs uncomfortably for ten years*. But. For every single piece of media that happens to get it right there are 10 AU remakes of Fifty Shades of Grey being published).

Now. What on Earth does this have to do with Sherlock?

NOTHING. We see Sherlock having more healthy relationships in every single episode (yes even that one) than Bond will have in a lifetime. And no matter how much Sherlock insists on being a sociopath, the hero in this story has friends, imperfect friends, and whether he likes it or not they do care about him. And he cares about them too.

Otherwise Mycroft wouldn’t need to tell his little brother that caring is not an advantage and Sherlock wouldn’t meet those words like an old friend.

On top of it, the writers never code Sherlock and John as gay. No, they don’t. To be fair, they also don’t say he’s straight. However, they do make him canonically fall for Irene Adler (FYI: if him going ALL THE WAY to Karachi for her sake wasn’t a big enough clue, then MP!Sherlock keeping a picture of her in his pocket watch should have been).

And while we do see Sherlock invested in plenty of typical male stuff (he fights, he wins, he plays the rude smart arse, the hero, the brilliant detective) at the same time he also accepts it when in TEH John decides he wants to keep his distance, and Sherlock leaves the matter in Mary’s capable hands, John’s love interest, the woman who should be traditionally the mortal enemy of male friendships.

We had a whole episode which was basically Sherlock helping Mary with wedding preparations and not (just) having a bad time.

The next episode has him do his best to save his friends’ marriage. It also has him fake a relationship with a woman (who ends up owning a cottage in Sussex that comes with bees). But he never takes advantage of her even though she wouldn’t mind being taken advantage of. And when she gets her well deserved revenge he admires her for her agency. That boy is so smitten by Janine Hawkins that the original shooting script for His Last Vow had them agreeing to marry each other should they end up without anyone else by the time they are old end grey (page 72, you’re welcome).

Sherlock gets his support system and it doesn’t ask for anything in return. He is allowed to struggle, to become emotional, to not deserve his victories and still be the hero of the show. Those 13 episodes have Sherlock stumble from one failure to the next but every single time we learn it doesn’t matter. He gets to learn from his mistakes, he gets to grow.

Yes, he has his ghosts and demons but he never needs to face them on his own, which is something I’ve only ever seen on this stupid show

_____ * If anyone wants to point out the masterpiece that’s George from the Jungle then yes, I’m aware of it (also, surprise surprise another film that was pretty popular with the LGBTQ+ folks). However, generally speaking it never became mainstream. Which is what I’m talking about here. And while Marvel’s Loki is mainstream, he is not the main character in The Avengers.

#Sherlock #Sherlock BBC #BBC Sherlock #Benedict Cumberbatch #Steven Moffat #Mark Gatiss #long post #now excuse me as I look for the alternative universe where Martin Freeman got to play Sherlock and Benedict Cumberbatch became his Watson

31 notes · View notes

the-organizing-principle · 7 years ago

Photo

‘Twin Peaks as Fugue’ Theory, Part 4: What Does Part 8 Mean?

Continuing with the theory that all of Twin Peaks takes place inside Dale/Richard’s mind, I’ll now explore how “Part 8″ could be interpreted from a psychoanalytic perspective.

I you haven’t already, I recommend reading my earlier posts first for some context: theory summary, Part 1 (The Log Lady), Part 2 (The Black Lodge), and Part 3 (Diane/Naido).

In the eighth part of TP:TR we see Mr. C nearly die before he is reanimated by the Woodsmen, a Nine Inch Nails performance at The Roadhouse, the advent of nuclear warfare, the spiritual conception of both BOB and Laura Palmer, and the hatching of a frog-moth that finds its way into the mouth of an unconscious girl. It seems like a lot to unpack, but I think that in a nutshell this episode provides a glimpse back into Dale/Richard’s psyche at the moment it shattered, when the traumatic incident (involving Judy) occurred. This incident—hereafter referred to as “The Event”—is being compared to and represented by the Trinity nuclear test at White Sands, New Mexico in 1945. Let me explain.

Presumably, David Lynch considers the Trinity nuclear test to be a major turning point in history: an event that would have disastrous ramifications, and the harbinger of a new kind of evil in the world. Likewise, Dale/Richard’s traumatic episode involving Judy (again: “The Event,” for brevity) marked a major turning point in Dale/Richard’s life and, by extension, in his consciousness. From this Event, BOB was born: BOB is a personification of what Dale/Richard considers to be an evil and destructive force (’the evil that men do,’ etc.), but ultimately BOB is really just a projection of Dale/Richard’s psyche. I mentioned before how I think BOB personifies the Id aspect of Dale/Richard’s tripartite psyche (i.e. his repressed, dark, unchecked impulses). BOB is so ‘evil’ because Dale/Richard has repressed this aspect of himself so severely that it/he has taken on exaggerated proportions.

Sometimes used interchangeably with the Id, the Shadow persona can also be attributed to BOB, especially when he/it inhabits Dale’s evil doppelganger, Mr. C (an Id-possessed Shadow self of Dale/Richard; see previous post).

“Everyone carries a shadow,” Jung wrote, “and the less it is embodied in the individual’s conscious life, the blacker and denser it is.”

Mr. C and BOB are both products of Dale/Richard’s unconscious Shadow. “Dale”—as in the Special Agent we know and love—is so good-natured that it stands to reason that his Shadow self would be bad-natured in equal proportion. Remember how Dale runs away from his doppelganger in the second season finale? His inability to confront his Shadow self with “perfect courage” in the Lodge resulted in the Shadow’s takeover: the “good Dale” became the repressed persona (technically, the Shadow) while the evil doppelganger took his place in the ‘real world.’ I’ve discussed this concept before, but bring it up again for some necessary context to Part 8.

Back to the Trinity explosion: David Lynch has us not only witness this explosion, but enter it. We get a depiction of what is going on inside the blast, both on a molecular and surface level (the engulfing flames, etc). In a sequence reminiscent of Gaspar Noé’s post-death visuals from Enter The Void, we travel through a visually and aurally intense, abstract expressionist journey into the heart of the explosion. Along the way, we see two very important, parallel events.

First, the Convenience Store. In order to understand what’s happening in this scene, we first have to figure out what the Woodsmen represent. I don’t think there’s an easy answer to this one, but it’s possible that there’s a clue in another work by Lynch: in Mulholland Drive, we see a character commonly referred to as the “Evil Hobo” both in Diane’s dream (as witnessed by the character, Dan*), and in the real world. I think we can use this recurring motif (i.e. the scary, dirty hobo with otherworldly powers) to speculate on what the Woodsmen might represent. There has been a lot of speculation on what the Evil Hobo from MD represents, but one theory I’m particularly interested in posits that s/he represents—in a literal sense—the discarded, neglected members of society, and so by extension, s/he represents a discarded and neglected aspect of Diane (note I’m referring to the Diane from MD, not TP), specifically her schizophrenia. The bum is powerful because its repression made it dangerous. Ultimately, it “controls everything.”

Likewise, in TP:TR the Woodsmen—whose faces are covered in the same black soot as the bum from Mulholland Drive and who also move between worlds and possess the power to manipulate the ‘other’ world—might be interpreted as repressed and neglected aspects of Dale/Richard (his psychoses). Remember, according to this theory, Dale/Richard is actually institutionalized somewhere. He doesn’t recognize that he has mental issues (e.g. that he’s psychotically depressed, probably schizophrenic, etc), and lives in a fantasy world / fugue state wherein he is the good-natured hero, Special Agent Dale Cooper.

In Part 8, we see the Woodsmen appear as a result of The Event. The way this scene plays out is very telling: we watch what resembles out-of-sync time lapse footage as smoke and flashing lights precede the appearance of the Woodsmen; when they appear, the score cuts out and the sound becomes very glitchy, as do the images of the Woodsmen shuffling around outside the convenience store. To me, this reads as a depiction of the shattering of Dale/Richard’s psyche, as all kinds of psychoses result from The Event. The heavy distortions signify the way his mind is being distorted: events are being rewritten, and time is not advancing in proper sequence. Then the Woodsmen vanish and the convenience store goes in and out of focus; the scene seems to be imperfectly rewinding before we travel through a brief tunnel and find:

The Experiment/Mother of All Evil. The event that plays out here parallels the last: we see The Experiment floating in a dark void before she vomits a cloudy, plasma-like substance containing eggs and the black ball that houses BOB. Here is another glimpse into what is going on in Dale/Richard’s psyche following The Event. From a faceless, phantom-like female form, BOB is born. This is Dale/Richard’s ‘origin story’ of how this ‘evil’ entered the world, happening at an unconscious level (I’m leaning toward the notion that all black-and-white scenes take place in the unconscious).

After entering this plasma, the scene transforms and we are back inside the atomic explosion, linking these events (i.e. linking the traumatic Event with the emergence of a new form of evil). The scene shifts as we come to a kind of ‘eye of the storm’ where we find a nebulous golden metallic substance; entering it, the score picks up with a rapid string arrangement as we move quickly past red-tinted, suspended particles which then fade away to reveal the great purple sea [of the unconscious; see previous post]. We soar over this sea until arriving at a mountain projecting out of it, on top of which sits the enormous, silvery structure that houses The Fireman. This transition is important, because it suggests that the world that the Fireman inhabits is accessible through the center of The Event, i.e. that the unconscious realm where the personified Superego resides is central to Dale/Richard’s psychotic break. The Fireman resides behind/beneath it all, and attempts to resolve it from ‘behind the curtain’ (the subsequent theatre imagery is significant, as is the understated nod to Lynch’s beloved and oft-referenced The Wizard Of Oz.

The scene plays out like so: we enter the structure through a relatively small opening and travel through darkness for a moment as phonograph music plays, then we see the Diva in the parlor room seated near the bell-shaped electrical transformer. Eventually an alarm goes off and the Fireman emerges, who looks around with apparent concern before disabling the alarm. We then follow him into the theatre where he summons a projection to appear on the screen; we see the atomic blast at White Sands, the convenience store, and the Experiment’s projection where BOB appears. Pausing on the image of BOB’s face, the Firemen gets into position and levitates in front of the screen. The Diva shows up to watch as a sparkling gold light emerges from the fireman’s head (while the screen now shows moving stars), forming an apparent galaxy of golden light; from this astral projection, a golden orb appears; the Diva pulls it down from the air, takes it reverently into her hands, gazes into it and smiles as she sees the face of Laura Palmer. She kisses the orb before releasing it back into the air, where it floats toward a funnel; the orb is taken up by the funnel, which deposits it onto the screen where an image of the Earth is projected. The orb travels through the screen and into the projected image, where it is finally seen floating over North America (ostensibly headed for Twin Peaks).

So what did we just watch? I believe that the alarm is a signal to the moderating aspect of Dale/Richard’s mind (here, the Fireman/Superego) that something is wrong. To compensate for the trauma’s effects, the Fireman/Superego dreams up the character of Laura Palmer (presumably a stand-in for Judy). It is around this character that Dale/Richard will build the entire Twin Peaks narrative; this was necessary in order for Dale/Richard to survive after The Event occurred, but eventually we will see The Fireman/Superego gently try to steer Dale/Richard toward an understanding of the truth (when he needs it / is ready for it). Note that the Earth appears as an image on the screen: I think this hints at the artificial nature of the world Dale/Richard inhabits in Twin Peaks. We also see this screen in Part 17: first it shows the Palmer house, then the Sheriff’s Station where Mr. C is deposited. This seems to indicate that all of Twin Peaks is a projection, which is how Dale/Richard’s alter, Mr. C, is able to travel there via the unconscious apparatus.

Finally, we see an image of a dark desert landscape: the year 1945 starts to count up before stopping at 1956 (we have advanced in time). It is “AUGUST 5, NEW MEXICO DESERT.” We watch as an egg hatches to reveal the frog/moth creature that will eventually inhabit the sleeping girl.

I’ll briefly summarize the last act of Part 8 by noting that the black-and-white cinematography likely represents another unconscious episode in Dale/Richard’s psyche. Canonically, this is supposed to occur about two years after “Dale Cooper” is born: could the sleeping girl be Judy herself, or Judy’s mother? Will she eventually give birth to a girl possessed by the frog-moth, who will later became a central figure in Dale/Richard’s life? The timeline would be out of sync, since the frog-moth hatched from an egg that resulted from The Event (which should properly take place in the future, though it is being metaphorically linked to the Trinity test in 1945). Is this how “the past dictates the future”? It would be a Möbius strip of a timeline, and we already know how much Lynch loves those. I’ll leave you to ponder that one, since this seems like more of an intentional mystery than anything else.

A clue might be found in the lyrics to the NIN song that we are treated to in the Roadhouse scene in the second act:

You dig in places till your fingers bleed Spread the infection, where you spill your seed I can’t remember what she came here for I can’t remember much of anything anymore She’s gone, she’s gone, she’s gone away She’s gone, she’s gone, she’s gone away Away Away A little mouth opened up inside Yeah, I was watching on the day she died We keep licking while the skin turns black Cut along the length, but you can’t get the feeling back She’s gone, she’s gone, she’s gone away She’s gone, she’s gone, she’s gone away��

Hint: try to interpret these lyrics from Dale/Richard’s point of view, where Judy is the “she” referred to.

That’s all for now; if there’s anything from this episode or any other that you’d like me to elaborate on, feel free to ask!

*Patrick Fischler also appears in TP:TR as Duncan Todd, whose character could conceivably be an extension of Dan… They each live in fear of similar dark entities that will eventually kill them

7 notes · View notes

thisdaynews · 6 years ago

Text

Dems eye Lewandowski, Christie and Manafort as new star witnesses

New Post has been published on https://thebiafrastar.com/dems-eye-lewandowski-christie-and-manafort-as-new-star-witnesses/

Dems eye Lewandowski, Christie and Manafort as new star witnesses

Former Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski leaves a hotel in New York in April 2018. “If they want to call Corey that’d be their biggest mistake,” said former federal prosecutor Joe diGenova. | Mark Lennihan/AP Photo

congress

House Democrats are prepping a new oversight strategy to circumvent Trump’s stonewalling.

Democrats investigating Donald Trump for obstruction of justice are eyeing a new strategy to break the president’s all-out oversight blockade: calling witnesses who never worked in the White House.

Key lawmakers tell POLITICO they hope to make an end run around Trump’s executive privilege assertions by expanding their circle of testimony targets to people outside government who nonetheless had starring roles in Robert Mueller’s final report. That includes presidential confidants like former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski and former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie.

Story Continued Below

Other Russia-related figures who never served in Trump’s administration and would make for prime congressional witnesses include Paul Manafort and Rick Gates, the former top campaign officials who both pleaded guilty and faced extensive questioning by federal prosecutors working on the Mueller probe, as well as a former attorney for Michael Flynn who is cited in the special counsel’s report in an episode involving a dangled presidential pardon.

“These people could be called without any reasonable shred of a claim of executive privilege,” said Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), a pro-impeachment member of the Judiciary panel that’s leading the obstruction probe.

The new line of thinking comes amid Democrats’ mounting frustration at the White House’s ability to slow their investigations to a crawl by blocking witnesses and documents. Such a move might circumvent the president’s resistance and show much-needed momentum for the party.

Democrats have hoped a series of high-profile hearings featuring witnesses who played central roles in the Mueller report would galvanize the public. And lawmakers who favor impeachment have argued that hearing directly from these individuals could stoke sentiment in favor of beginning proceedings to remove the president.

House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) first telegraphed his interest in a widening orbit of Trump figures back in early March when the committee blasted out requests for documents and testimony not just from the White House, but from longtime Trump associates, the president’s two adult sons and people who worked for his namesake company, charity, 2016 campaign, transition and inauguration.

Most of the Democrats’ targets either ignored the committee’s requests, said they had no documents for the committee or refused to cooperate. A handful turned over limited materials, and the committee has issued subpoenas for others.

Last week, the full House voted to give Nadler authority to go directly to federal court to compel compliance. And Democrats also secured access to some of Mueller’s underlying evidence, including interview transcripts, witness notes and other materials central to the special counsel’s 448-page report.

While Trump’s lawyers have so far blocked House Democrats from talking to former White House counsel Don McGahn, who is cited more than any other aide in the report’s obstruction section, they notched a win by securing closed-door testimony this Wednesday from Hope Hicks, the longtime Trump confidante and former White House communications director.

While Hicks is expected to decline to discuss her White House tenure — the period that is the primary focus of the committee’s investigation — she may open up about her work on the campaign and transition team. And even if Hicks appears but doesn’t answer key questions, some lawmakers say it could encourage other witnesses to show up and cooperate.

Still, Trump isn’t going to make things easy for Democrats.

The president’s lawyers, in an unrelated matter, appeared to lay the groundwork for an effort to block even outside advisers from speaking to Congress about their interactions with Trump and his inner circle by arguing that even some people who don’t work for the White House can be subject to claims of executive privilege.

“The Executive Branch’s confidentiality interests are not limited solely to communications directly involving the President and other Executive Branch officials,” Michael Purpura, a deputy White House counsel, wrote in a letter to the House Oversight Committee last month. “Rather, a President and his senior advisers must frequently consult with individuals outside of the Executive Branch, and those communications are also subject to protection.”

Rhode Island Rep. David Cicilline, a senior Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, said any White House effort to block these witnesses from testifying would probably fail in the courts.

“They don’t have any privilege,” he said, though he noted the committee would have to invite them to appear voluntarily before testing any executive privilege claims.

The House Intelligence Committee also has taken steps to secure witness testimony from figures outside the White House in their probe of potential counterintelligence risks identified in Mueller’s probe.

Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) last Thursday issued subpoenas for testimony from Flynn — Trump’s first national security adviser who still awaits sentencing after pleading guilty to lying to the FBI — as well as Gates, the former Trump deputy campaign chairman and a longtime Manafort aide. Flynn and Gates are still cooperating with prosecutors in other ongoing criminal matters, and it’s unclear whether they will respond to the committee subpoenas.

Several of the other people at the top of Democrats’ wish list are staying silent about the prospect they’ll face new rounds of congressional scrutiny.

An attorney for Lewandowski, the combative former Trump campaign manager, declined comment. His client is cited in the Mueller report as the recipient of a message the president dictated to him to give to then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions requesting the scope of Mueller’s probe be limited to “future election interference.”

The former Trump campaign manager didn’t deliver the message to Sessions but instead tried to pass it along to Rick Dearborn, then a senior White House official who had worked for Sessions in the Senate. According to the Mueller report, Dearborn “was uncomfortable with the task and did not follow through.”

Reached by phone about the prospects he’d be called to testify to Congress, Christie replied, “No comment, my friend.” The former New Jersey governor, who still speaks to Trump, described to Mueller’s investigators a 2017 conversation in which Trump seemed to believe firing Flynn would help to end the Russia probe.

Flynn’s former lawyer, Robert Kelner, also declined comment. He’s mentioned in the Mueller report as the recipient of a November 2017 voicemail from then-Trump attorney John Dowd just after Flynn withdrew from a joint defense agreement with the president to cooperate with the special counsel.

Legal experts say Democrats would be smart to make it a top priority to bring in the central players from the Trump world beyond his administration.

“Where’s Paul Manafort? He’s in a prison somewhere. He’s readily available. Get him a suit. Get him a haircut. Have him testify,” said John Q. Barrett, a St. John’s University law professor, in reference to the former Trump campaign chairman, who is serving a 7½ year sentence for a series of financial fraud, lobbying and witness tampering crimes.

He also argued that others, including Flynn, Gates and former Trump attorney Michael Cohen should be summoned back to the Hill for questions, particularly those who can’t claim attorney-client or executive privilege on their conversations.

“The people who were actors in the conduct are available,” said Barrett, a former associate who worked under independent counsel Lawrence Walsh during the Reagan-era investigation into secret U.S. arms sales to Iran. “They’re fully and cleanly available to the Congress.”

More broadly, Barrett said House investigators should consider casting a wider net in search of current or former Trump staffers willing to defy orders from above to stay silent.

“Go to homes and ring doorbells. Ask. You never know who’s found Jesus, who’s got qualms, who recognizes criminality, who’s broken with the authority of the president to command their life,” he said. “Maybe that springs some information.”

But Democrats may regret calling witnesses who remain loyal to Trump and are willing to push back on lawmakers, said Joe diGenova, a former federal prosecutor who represented two witnesses in the Mueller probe: Mark Corallo, a former spokesman for the president’s legal team, and Trump campaign aide Sam Clovis.

“You know what happens in a hearing like that, the witness says, ‘You know what, Mr. Nadler, go to hell. I’m sick of you. I’m sick of what you’ve done to my family,’” added diGenova, who nearly joined the president’s team of personal attorneys in March 2018 and continues to give Trump informal legal advice.

“If they want to do that, I’d be there with a camera to watch that. How stupid. They think people are gonna roll over and play dead for these morons? They may accept just to have the opportunity to spit in the face of Elijah Cummings, Schiff and Nadler, and I would recommend that they do it,” diGenova said.

“If they want to call Corey that’d be their biggest mistake,” diGenova added. “Ooohoo! I hope they do it. They’re going to regret it.”

Lewandowski reportedly had that exact experience when he testified to the House Intelligence Committee behind closed doors last year, telling Democrats he no longer intended to answer their “fucking” questions.

#Foreign #Manafort #Politics #witnesses

0 notes

adoranymph · 7 years ago

Text

WTF WatchMojo.com?

Okay, I’m gonna say up front that WatchMojo’s top ten lists are pretty meh. Some entries they’re spot on, and other times it’s like, “what show/movie/anime did YOU watch?” (Or I guess in the case of games, “what game did YOU play?”)

This is one of those FAILs, concerning their top ten worst anime couples list. Why? Because of one entry. Well, there were probably one or two more that people might take issue with, but this is the one that got under my skin the most, no less because they picked by #1 OTP of all time: Kiritsugu Emiya x Irisviel von Einzbern, or…KiriIri (can we officially make that a thing?)

And let me tell you, oh did they get SO much wrong.

Now, first off, one could argue that their placement on this list could have some merit, if one were to work off the angle that their relationship was a bad IDEA, because it was doomed to tragedy from the very start, and both Kiritsugu and Irisviel knew that. Except that WatchMojo, in their infinite wisdom, totally missed that point entirely. Basically they characterized their relationship as being that of a man who cheats on his wife, and then kills her.

But I guess I understand. I mean, to list all the pyscholgocial and emotional nuances would be a list unto its own–so let’s boil it down to something so basic that it’s completely wrong. You know, like abridging (lolz, srsly though I love that stuff).

Okay, so let’s get the negative stuff out of the way. Yes, Kiritsugu does act like a you-know-what to his Servant Saber, and yes, he does have something of an affair with his assistant, Maiya. And I won’t forget that he understandably lost a lot of people’s respect points with the way he took out Lancer and Kayneth in Season 2, Episode 3. Moreover, for some people his reasoning for these actions could be considered weak justifications: he gives Saber the cold shoulder because he knows the two of them won’t agree on anything so why bother waste energy trying to converse or collaborate with her in any way? he has the affair with Maiya (though it’s implied that they’ve had relations before he met Irisviel, but still) because he’s steeling himself for when he ultimately has to “kill” his wife–admittedly, a poor reason to have an affair (not that there’s ever really a good reason, but anyway). And as for how Lancer got taken out, well, yeah, that was a bitch move. A win-at-any-cost strategy, and we know that about how Kiritsugu approaches these things, but a bitch move nonetheless.

Speaking of that whole “ kill your wife thing, here’s a good segue into where WatchMojo veered into wrongness. Um, there was waaaaaay more to it than that. First of all, the concept of him killing her was more that he loved her even though he knew she would have to be sacrificed to the Grail, and as a Master in the Grail War, he is indirectly playing the role of killing her, as are all the other Masters. Now, in the vision he has inside the Grail, his “killing her” there to me is in part symbolic of his philosophy, that he must sacrifice the people he loves if he wants to be the hero who saves the world, which I think deconstructs the concept of hero in its own way (thank you, Urobutcher).

The other thing is that Kiritsugu is EXTREMELY reserved when it comes to self-expression. For a number of reasons. One is that he takes that MD method of “not getting attached” to the extreme so he can make his kills without letting emotion cloud his reasoning (that, “needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few” method of saving the world). The other main one I’d like to point out is the fact that he suffers from an emotionally crippling pattern of losing the people he’s close to. So he’s not exactly keen on getting emotionally close to anyone. Add that to the fact that he already knows he’s going to lose Irisviel, and not only that, but play a hand in it, it makes sense that initially he was actually quite reluctant to be with her as someone who reciprocated her developing feelings for him. At the same time though, as Irisviel points out to Kirei Kotomine when he has her in his clutches, Kiritsugu can’t help but love people, because he still has that capacity and need to do so (which is played against Kirei’s inability to do anything of the sort).

The long and short of it is, because of all these, we don’t really get any scenes where Kiritsugu and Irisviel engage in anything couple-y. But oh is it inferred. Very subtly, but inferred. Like when Irisviel tenderly calls him, “The man that I love,” and he gives her the smallest of smiles. Or the way he plays outside with their daughter Ilyasviel one last time before leaving for the Grail War. Moreover, it’s a mark of the intimacy between that the first outburst of emotion we get from the guy (we do get a scene prior where he hugs Ilyasviel goodbye, but that was a gentler emotional display) is a moment when he and Irisviel are alone, and he can’t help spilling his guts out about how trapped he feels, how growing to love her and having a family with her has changed him from being able to be the killing machine he was before he met her, which makes it hard to do what he needs to do to fight in the War, as well as see to it that Irisviel gets sacrificed as the Grail’s Vessel as part of that fight.

There are other bits here and there, and a few of them come from Irisviel relaying breadcrumbs of what they’re relationship is like to Saber, like when she wonders aloud if Kiritsugu’s getting them a “Japanese mansion” for a new base of operations in the second half of the war means that he remembered the time she told him she really wanted to see a house like that, or when she explained that when Kiritsugu is “happy, it seems to cause him pain”. Which I personally think is a breath of fresh air as far as anime couples go. All this and more culminate into my reasons for why Kiri x Iri is my #1 OTP of all time, and further convinces me that half the time, you dunno what you’re talkin’ about WatchMojo (but you know, respect for your Internet popularity).

2 notes · View notes

divorcedfiddleford · 8 years ago

Note

i know this is random, but do you have any tips on writing ford and fiddleford? you do a really good job on their characterizations and even though i'm very familiar with their characters i always write people out of character when i'm writing, lol! thanks !!!!

ghhhgg i Kid but anyway im like super distracted so i just made a list of a bunch of common mistakes i see when people r writing themedit: i was so wrong i made such a long fucking post im sorry this was a Mistake (rip mobile users)

first things first everything in the journal was Fake

fiddleford:

“fiddleford is a poor precious cinnamon roll who is helpless and did nothing wrong uwu” fuck off he built all those robots and probably killed a bunch of people in the process he isnt some innocent sunflower he’s more like a rowdy dandelion

yes this applies even if you’re writing young fiddleford he was just more patient and less open with his life of crime because he didnt want to go to jail

his eyes are blue. theyre fucking blue. theyre fucking b

“he doesnt like swears/he’s soft-spoken” wrong he’s literally the only character to have sworn on-screen

“he started the society because he was traumatized by what he’d seen” no, where did you get that idea. he literally says he invented the gun because he was “haunted by the thoughts of what I’d done” >literally stating that it was guilt not fear that was bothering him. eventually yes he used it for erasing scary memories but that was not his initial intent

he’s not bald anymore

really any idea that fiddleford is pathetic is grossly ooc i can think of one situation in the show that he wasn’t able to get himself out of and thats because he was turned into a fucking arras

what is this southern belle bullshit… he chews tobacco and wrestles pigs please stop woobifying this force of nature

a banjo is not the same as a guitar. a banjo is not the same as a guitar. a banjo is not the same as a guitar.

if youre going to write accents don’t be obnoxious about it

EX: “How are y’all doin’ this fine evening?”NOT: “Hower y’all doien’ this fain evenin’?”you don’t have to use the mannerisms in every sentence and you don’t have to drop the g in every -ingphonetic spelling is a pain to read like at the most you should be using apostrophes not respelling words (“Stanferd” more like kill me now)

also make sure your mannerisms are geographically accurate he’s not from texas i never want to see him say “sugah” again

his accent isnt even that strong in the show …what……….

tip: fiddleford is salty as FUCK he has NO MERCY and holds onto grudges like a lifesaver in a storm

tip: he loves being around people and will talk to them about fucking anything such as his multiple cases of manslaughter but doesn’t usually open up about his insecurities unless prompted