#dominic watkins

[realllllmew]

 Best Of The Premier League - Match Week 6

[viir-tanadhal]

i was going to post about this but then forgot but anyway i feel like it really is the case that the reason neil and chris have been still going for over 40 years and haven't had a major falling out or break is because of the nature of how much they respect each other both on a personal level and also a working partnership level

[mariocki]

A Ghost Story for Christmas: Count Magnus (2022)

"The, um, the mausoleum - the Count's tomb - might I crave a..."

"Yes?"

"A visit? It would be so helpful for my researches."

"Certainly. It is in the care of the church in the next village. I shall have a word with the deacon."

"Ah, now that must have been him I saw earlier."

"I beg your pardon?"

"Well, I saw someone. Standing on the steps, locking, or unlocking I suppose, the door. That must have been your deacon."

"Yes. It must have been."

[prettiestofpisces]

Stoner!Juju Watkins x Reader

ya’llll baes birthday is HERE

nasty nineteen!

💋: smoking, kissing

─── ･ ｡ﾟ☆: *.☽ .* :☆ﾟ. ───

although you and juju were strictly bestfriends you couldn’t help but feel all warm inside whenever she did anything.

smile, laugh at your jokes or even look in your direction.

you felt those same sparks as she rested her hand on your thigh, left hand on the steering wheel.

you and juju were headed to an abandoned parking lot which you did often, to do none other than catch up or…smoke a blunt or two.

you toyed with the fingers that were placed on your lap the entire ride, up until it was time to pull over.

“i got different wrappers this time” juju says.

“oh really- what kind?”

you hardly ever smoked, unless with the right crowd, however the different variations, strands, and flavors always excited you.

“white chocolate, and i brought indica since you said you were stressed earlier” she’s says lowly.

you thank juju and your heart flutters knowing she was thinking about you.

you watch intensely as she begins to roll her blunt, laying everything out, the tray, the grinder and lighter.

she then pulls out her white chocolate cigar to empty the contents, grinding and sprinkling in the weed next.

you knew your favourite step was coming once juju brought the blunt to her lips, slowly licking the paper, spit glazing the brown cigar. her lips folding over the blunt to seal it shut, you could imagine just how good it’d feel if she did it to your neck.

safe to say you were jealous of the blunt.

she took the lighter brushing the flame up and down before finally sticking it in between her mouth to burn the end.

her first inhale burned which elicited a cough from the athlete, the other draws sailing down her lungs smoothly.

the effects taking over immediately, jujus eyes dimmed impossibly lower.

she handed it off to you. your first drag was calming, although a cough escaped and your eyes teared.

with three more puffs you offer it back to juju.

“keep it.” you cough out.

juju examines the blunt after taking it from you. “is this a new lipgloss?” she laughs.

your confusion dissipating when you see the thick shimmering ring around the blunt.

“oh shit juju i’m so sorry!” you hurry to apologize.

“i’m fucking with you, but i mean i’d rather it be transferred, directly…”

unaware if this was juju or the weed talking you awkwardly laugh and place your hands in your lap.

she didn’t mean it, you thought.

jujus eyes lasered into the side of your head as she took another hit, releasing it into the air.

“kiss me.” she challenged.

you were in disbelief, afraid this was too good to be true, so, you slowly faced her.

you watched her inhale the smoke again, never exhaling.

“you’re not serious?..”

“do it” she deadbolts.

taking one more second to think about it you lean in and

just before touching lips, she grabs your face to release the smoke of her previous inhale into your mouth.

you suck it in nicely eventually letting it out through your nose.

juju hummed in approval before pulling you into her lips. little pecks turning into tongue filled kisses.

it was now you who hummed while your mouths were connected.

the taste of the sweet white chocolate and tabacco faint on her lips, yet prominent enough for you to enjoy it.

you release, just to go back in for more. this time tongues fought for dominance and jujus grip on your jaw tightened, you let her win.

you felt pure ecstasy as your high took over. jujus face couldn’t get any close which made you want to crawl in her skin.

letting go a final time you sucked on jujus bottom lip, biting it in the process.

“ohh shit” she says turned on, freeing your face from her grasp.

you lean in to initiate another kiss and juju shuts her eyes, opening them when your thumb comes in contact with her lips.

you swipe the skin surrounding her mouth, only to remove the lipgloss smeared all over.

you giggled uncontrollably seeing the look on her face.

“man you gon be the death of me…” she smiles.

─── ･ ｡ﾟ☆: *.☽ .* :☆ﾟ. ───

sorry y’all i was going to post this days ago but i thought why not on her birthday?!

-lmk if y’all want more juju, kate, breanna (a given lol) orrrr someone else :)

kisses <3

🙌🏽🤍

[alixra]

oh my gosh i need so badly to talk about the attention that women’s basketball is getting right now.

it’s so exciting because this sport has always been great but it’s going to be even better now that it’s getting soo much media attention.

i think having such big names like paige bueckers, caitlin clark, angel reese, juju watkins, etc. (there are also so many more underrated players but you get the point) helps so much because they’re entertaining to watch.

also i just think the sport as a whole is getting more and more competitive. like now everyone has good players and it’s not just one school/team dominating.

anyways its so amazing to see it grow because womens sports have been judged and perceived so badly for decades and it makes me so happy to see these wonderful women finally get the recognition they deserve.

I LOVE WOMENS SPORTS!!!!

[fanhackers]

Abigail De Kosnik’s  Illegitimate Media, Part I

You might know Abigail De Kosnik, Associate Professor in the Berkeley Center for New Media (BCNM) and the Department of Theater, Dance, and Performance Studies (TDPS), as the author of  Rogue Archives: Digital Cultural Memory and Media Fandom (MIT 2016), which is about a lot of things including the founding of the OTW and the Archive of Our Own.  But I’m also a fan of her Ph.D. dissertation. Illegitimate Media: Race, Gender, and Censorship in Digital Remix Culture, which I cite a lot and which make arguments that, as far as I know,  have never been made quite the same way anywhere else. 

In particular, De Kosnik (here writing as Abigail Derecho) made connections between the remix cultures of African-American men “who, in the mid-1980s, began using digital samplers to cobble together pieces (or “samples”) of existing recordings to form new sonic composition,” and white American women, “who, in the early 1990s, formed online communities on Usenet groups to share fan fiction (fanfic) – stories based on their favorite characters from television and film texts.” The dissertation examines a wide array of sampling/remix/transformative practices not just in fandom but in music and the visual arts. But I find the connections De Kosnik makes with hip–hop most interesting and provoking:

What is remix? The historical answer is: Remix is a genre of artistic appropriation that began in the boroughs of New York in the late 1970s. The identity of its inventor is undisputed. Every reliable source names DJ Kool Herc, who immigrated to the Bronx from Jamaica as a child, as the person who first spun two copies of the same record on side-by-side turntables in order to extend the “break,” or “breakbeat,” usually defined as an instrumental part of a dance song or pop song, the part where the rhythm dominates, what S. Craig Watkins calls “the get down part,”  and what Grandmaster Flash calls “the best part of a great record.” In order to lengthen the rhythmic “best part” of songs, the part that made partygoers “get down,” Kool Herc spun two identical records on turntables at the same time, first throwing the needle down at the beginning of the breakbeat on one record and lifting the needle when the breakbeat finished, then immediately throwing needle down at the start of the breakbeat on the second record, and at the end of that break, playing the break again on the first record. Alternating between the records, Herc could, in theory, extend the break forever. Many DJs soon took up Herc’s method of spinning records to isolate and extend the breaks, and also adopted Herc’s method of speaking rhymes over the breaks. Several DJs became famous for the techniques of spinning and “rapping” that they invented; Flash and Grand Wizzard Theodore are the most revered of these. (21)

There’s a connection between remixing music to lengthen “the best part” of songs, and vidder Sandy Herrold grinning and declaring that, “Vidding is the good parts version: it’s the three minutes I want to see set to really good music.” (See below, “What is Vidding?” [2008])  Fanfiction also gives us “the best parts” of canon - or the parts we really really wanted and didn’t get.  

–Francesca Coppa, Fanhackers volunteer

[rabbitcruiser]

Mount Shasta, CA

Mount Shasta is a potentially active volcano at the southern end of the Cascade Range in Siskiyou County, California. At an elevation of 14,179 ft (4,322 m), it is the second-highest peak in the Cascades and the fifth-highest in the state. Mount Shasta has an estimated volume of 85 cubic miles (350 cubic kilometers), which makes it the most voluminous stratovolcano in the Cascade Volcanic Arc. The mountain and surrounding area are part of the Shasta–Trinity National Forest.

The origin of the name "Shasta" is vague, either derived from a people of a name like it or otherwise garbled by early Westerners. Mount Shasta is connected to its satellite cone of Shastina, and together they dominate the landscape. Shasta rises abruptly to tower nearly 10,000 feet (3,000 m) above its surroundings. On a clear winter day, the mountain can be seen from the floor of the Central Valley 140 miles (230 km) to the south. The mountain has attracted the attention of poets, authors, and presidents.

The mountain consists of four overlapping dormant volcanic cones that have built a complex shape, including the main summit and the prominent and visibly conical satellite cone of 12,330 ft (3,760 m) Shastina. If Shastina were a separate mountain, it would rank as the fourth-highest peak of the Cascade Range (after Mount Rainier, Rainier's Liberty Cap, and Mount Shasta itself).

Mount Shasta's surface is relatively free of deep glacial erosion except, paradoxically, for its south side where Sargents Ridge runs parallel to the U-shaped Avalanche Gulch. This is the largest glacial valley on the volcano, although it does not now have a glacier in it. There are seven named glaciers on Mount Shasta, with the four largest (Whitney, Bolam, Hotlum, and Wintun) radiating down from high on the main summit cone to below 10,000 ft (3,000 m) primarily on the north and east sides. The Whitney Glacier is the longest, and the Hotlum is the most voluminous glacier in the state of California. Three of the smaller named glaciers occupy cirques near and above 11,000 ft (3,400 m) on the south and southeast sides, including the Watkins, Konwakiton, and Mud Creek glaciers.

Source: Wikipedia

[coimbrabertone]

Le Mans vs. Daytona, Two Sides of the Endurance Racing Coin.

A bit of a belated blog on the 2024 24 Hours of Le Mans, how it compares to the other major 24-hour race - the Rolex 24 at Daytona - and how IMSA and WEC differ.

First things first, sports car racing in general is at a peak right now.

The largest prototype fields in decades, interclass competition of sorts with LMDh/GTP cars on one end and Hypercars on the other, and equally diverse GT3 fields to go with it. It's not a competition between IMSA and WEC as far as I'm concerned, both series collaborated on these regulations and that has benefitted endurance racing as a whole.

That being said, I've noticed some differences between the two, and I've had some discussions with friends about it lately.

The crux is this: the Rolex 24 at Daytona is the curtain raiser for the racing season, where drivers from every discipline from Formula One to NASCAR to half the Indycar field, plus all the regular cast of characters from endurance racing come to play. It's all within the confines of a 2.5-mile oval with big grandstands and clear sightlines, and the lights are all over the track, meaning you can see all the action pretty well. It's also in Daytona Beach a few weeks ahead of the Daytona 500.

Daytona is a party, a celebration of motorsport to kick off the next season of racing.

Le Mans, meanwhile, is a beacon of history. The start-finish line is where it has always been, the Dunlop Bridge has outlasted Dunlop itself making racing tyres, and it's an old school reminder to when those types of circular bridges were all over racing. Then onto the Mulsanne, the long, dark highway, with bits of civilization interspersed with woods, a theme with continues in the back half of the track. Some corners are named after historic tracks, like Indianapolis, others are named after the marques which defined era of Le Mans history - Corvette, Porsche, and Ford in particular.

Corvette, which has dominated GT racing at Le Mans for decades now.

Porsche, which is the most successful brand at Le Mans, and

Ford, who went back-to-back-to-back-to-back in the late 60s with the GT40, and then returned with the GT1 and GTE models in more recent decades.

That dedication to history shows in the broadcast too, with the broadcast often cutting to Tom Kristensen for interviews or by harkening back to similar events in Le Mans' past. Obviously, that's something that comes up in all racing broadcasts, but it was very apparent at Le Mans this year.

For the record, I'm not saying that's bad, this blog is proof that I'm a massive nerd when it comes to racing history, and I love that, I'm just noting it's a difference.

The crowd burning a couch in celebration after the 12 Hours of Sebring? Fans celebrating the misadventures of the Sean Creech Motorsports American flag Ligier LMP2 with its many cautions at Daytona and now Watkins Glen? You don't really see that at Le Mans.

In fact, there was one very fun thing from the 2023 Le Mans that was missing this year: the Garage 56 NASCAR. Now, i understand that was a one-off thing, and I do get the impression that the hydrogen car they showed off before the race - which was numbered #24, just like the NASCAR had been - was supposed to be a G56 entry for this year but they couldn't quite get it working yet, so I know that it's a bit of an unfair criticism to levy against Le Mans.

Still, 2023 had the big Camaro memes, the V8 sound, all those Freebird on the Mulsanne edits, it made Le Mans more fun.

And of course, Le Mans is fun even without those things - ferris wheels, fireworks, and, you know, the whole twenty-four hours of motor racing thing - all make for appointment television for racing nerds like me, but it is something I've noticed coming out of the 2024 race.

So does Le Mans need to change? No, i don't think so.

I like seeing cars coming down the Mulsanne, I like seeing the Ferrari hypercar racing against Toyota in addition to all the cars that do both IMSA and WEC, I like the announcers getting increasingly delirious as it gets into the night stint, and I like the fact that Valentino Rossi is now a BMW GT3 driver who competed at Le Mans.

The Rolex 24 at Daytona is probably more fun that Le Mans and its position on the calendar probably lets it get a handful of one-off drivers that may not be able to do Le Mans, but Le Mans also attracts plenty of unique talent as well. Ferrari doesn't do IMSA, nor does Toyota, nor does Valentino Rossi.

Would I like them to? Absolutely.

Am I fine with just having two different, successful endurance racing series on either side of the Atlantic? Absolutely. It's like the modern version of CART vs. Formula One as far as I'm concerned, only this time, I'm in a position to enjoy it.

So yeah, there are some things I prefer about IMSA, but there's plenty I love about Le Mans as well.

Hell, the fact that after the sister Ferrari won last year, we got to see the #50 Ferrari of Nicklas Nielsen, Miguel Molina, and Antonio Fuoco win. Both cars have now won Le Mans, and this means that last year's Antonio Giovinazzi, and this year's Antonio Fuoco - two drivers I've followed since the mid-to-late 2010s when they were actively in the open wheel junior series - are both Le Mans winners.

That's cool. I love the fact that drivers can fulfill their dream of winning for Ferrari, not just in Formula One, but now at Le Mans too. It's a great time to see, and between this and Indycar, I'm developing a lot of hope for talented junior drivers without F1 prospects.

Hell, on that very note, Felipe Drugovich raced at Le Mans for Action Express Cadillac this year, which seems to be his first time back in a major racing series since his F2 title campaign. Glad to see him back behind the wheel, just wish it went better for him.

Anyway, this last weekend of racing was a bit of a dud for me and I find myself busy yet again, so I'll leave the blogpost here, but do let you know what you think!

[feminism-of-course]

bell hooks and the definition of feminism

So I'm reading Feminism is for everybody: passionate politics by bell hooks (also known as Gloria Watkins). It's an accessible introduction to feminism (and one that I might recommend once I've finished reading it as it is promising thus far). As feminism is so often misrepresented, it seems important to occasionally take the time to define what the movement actually is. So this is hooks' words on the definition of feminism, quoted from the aforementioned book:

"[...] 'Feminism is a movement to end sexism, sexist exploitation, and oppression.' I love this definition, which I first offered more than 10 years ago in my book Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center. I love it because it so clearly states that the movement is not about being anti-male. It makes it clear that the problem is sexism. And that clarity helps us remember that all of us, female and male, have been socialized from birth on to accept sexist thought and action. As a consequence, females can be just as sexist as men. And while that does not excuse or justify male domination, it does mean that it would be naive and wrongminded for feminist thinkers to see the movement as simplistically being for women against men. To end patriarchy (another way of naming the institutionalized sexism) we need to be clear that we are all participants in perpetuating sexism until we change our minds and hearts; until we let go of sexist thought and action and replace it with feminist thought and action."

(from the introduction, page xii-xiii in the 2015 edition from Routledge) ([...] represents the beginning of the paragraph which I omitted due to irrelevance)

[miivrs]

talking about my faves, my wording will not be scholarly or intelligent rather completely zany and incomprehensible

god i LOVE the entire junkyard killer arc + the relationship between malcolm and john and just how complex it is to me. there was SO much going on and every scene, line, etc. burns a hole in my retinas. watkins was our first non “villain of the week” and that’s probably why im so attached to him, but god i love that we really get to see and understand why he does what he does. and he’s smart , I LIKE THAT. i like that he makes malcolm really truly struggle. i love their little cat-and-mouse type thing. john makes malcolm go through hoops and plays him like a stupid little fiddle and i love it. he makes malcolm’s brain (and body) hurt.

and the dialogue they share on the phone/in the basement is AN ABSOLUTE FEAST FOR ME and i love reading way too much into it. seeing how the power dynamics flip LIKE FOUR TIMES is just. UGH. their first call where things are mostly neutral, their second call where things get CRAZY, then FIVE MINUTES LATER their first face-to-face and john traps malcolm, their THIRD call where john now realizes he can manipulate malcolm and finish his mission, and then we get an ENTIRE EPISODE of what im 1000% sure is watkins leaving a breadcrumb trail JUST so he can get malcolm alone(remember guys, john is actually smart), which leads me to ALONE TIME. THE WHOLE EPISODE. and now they’re both fighting for dominance, malcolm with his new knowledge and watkins with his. well, aggressions LMAO.

their meeting was totally by chance (watkins definitely says otherwise), and i wonder what things would be like if malcolm had maybe met watkins under different circumstances (like NOT breaking to a junkyard to look for an abandoned station wagon because, lets face it malcolm, you broke in) because during their first call watkins seems..fond? of the whole junkyard meeting..he even SAYS he doesn’t want to hurt malcolm, so maybe at this point he’s over it?? so i wonder, if malcolm wasn’t a killer catcher and let watkins do his thing, would that have been the end of it? would either of them seek out the other? but that would be BORING im glad they decide to chase eachother its fun.

jesus they make my brain hurt. alone time shows us how they both try to hit jabs at eachother and stay superior, and really no one’s winning lmao. malcolm’s eating john alive via psychoanalysis and john has malcolm STABBED and CHAINED TO THE FUCKING FLOOR. oh i love them…

now, i have many MANY personal thoughts about them, but specifically john and his side of the relationship. the things he says/does to malcolm feels obsessive, and characters like that are always my favorite to dissect. hes so goddamn manipulative and its great. probably once of my favorite things about this arc is when he just ABANDONS HIS MISSION???? (M: “Force me to atone to my sins?” J: “I’m finished with that work.”) and for what??? just one guy? because this one guy who stabbed you when he was 10? we already know that john actually does not have a deep grudge against malcolm for that (or maybe he does…) so why bother trying to LEGITIMATELY CONVERT SOMEONE when you could have just killed them???

because he needs malcolm. like how he needed martin. (sort of but now in a cool new fresh way)

SIRENS ARE BLAAAARING IN MY HEAD. who wrote this dialogue you need to be shot dead (positive). malcolm not afraid to call him out and say “hey you’re a little bit of a codependent freak aren’t you??” also the “I don’t care what you think.” “Of course you do.” DONT. TALK. TO. ME..

why does he need malcolm?? because he’s the nearest target? because he’s the next best thing to martin? because they share such a complex connection spanning 20 years that he can’t left go of? WE MAY NEVER FUCKING KNOW..and mannnnnn dont even get me started on this shit..

this is about YOU and ME and that fucking scar. and them he gives him AN IDENTICAL ONE (probably much less painful but still) god WHAT was the POINT of that. and to that i say it is because watkins feels the need to deepen their connection (or he’s just fucking kooky but thats boring) and now they have matching scars wow so best friends core now they’re intertwined (even more than they already are..) fate (by the hand of god) brought them together and now he needs to make sure it stays that way.

and then we get this..

“Face it, you’re just like me. You judge, you hunt.” oh my GOD im gonna be SICK……… “mick hes just misreading malcolm’s character because he’s narcissistic” im gonna stop you right there because this is my blog and john watkins is my character ever since the pson writers made him complex and then threw him in a damn box (which is another scene i will ramble about at another point) if you use your brain that is literally the bare bones of what malcolm does, what defines his job. john has found the median, the simile, the connection (the one that he NEEDS so he can excuse himself and his actions and also to cope)

AND THEN..AND THEN…….

during this scene AND I SWEAR IM NOT TWEAKING as malcolm is trying his last ditch attempts and stopping watkins from actually murdering his family we SEE JOHN HESITATE..we see it i swear to god. i swear god for just a fleeting moment he actually considers what malcom is saying. but alas. he says “if i get help i’ll lose my sparkle” and goes anyway…

and then the fucking box scene, our very last look at watkins.

i hadn’t noticed it the first time i watched it because i was so hyped but around my second or third rewatch i caught it and heard it and physically shriveled up and died. our very last scene of him and (to me) its GUT WRENCHING. malcolm kept to his word and locked him up in the dark. but i find it so peculiar that watkins is crying. because, if anything, wouldn’t he be pissed?? kicking and screaming and rolling around in that damn thing? makes me wonder…what might have happened in the time between when malcolm wallops him with a fucking crowbar and when jessica reunites with him. what did malcolm say or do??? malcolm bright youre an awful sly little manipulator and you’re damn good at it and yes you use it for “good” but the way you did a 180 on those power dynamics. malcolm you are dangerous..

and that’s my extremely unnecessary deep dive and extreme analysis of john watkins and his relationship with our beloved malcolm bright. watkins really is one of my favorite characters that i feel could have been so cool if they had just given him a little more time or something like that. they are so complex to me in ways i haven’t even mentioned in this text post/probably forgot while i was typing this but i really wish we could see more of them even though what would happen. lots could happen, that’s what. now here’s my pitch for season 3 that revolves around just them where-

[songsofprotestpeacerevolution]

Ode to the Martyrs (Original Song) by Seth Staton Watkins

From Ireland to Cuba, Africa, and Turtle Island, exploitation and capital accumulation have driven imperial domination for the last five centuries. May it be no longer. May all the people of this world forced to fight for liberation see their aim fulfilled. May all forms of oppression and violent coercion be dismantled, from theocratic overlords to corporate kings. May we all share in the wonderous bounty of this earth, in harmony with all life therein. And may we rejoice for Syria today, Palestine, Ukraine, and the world tomorrow. Have hope and stay strong. - Seth Staton Watkins

[compneuropapers]

Interesting Papers for Week 44, 2023

Rhythmic temporal coordination of neural activity prevents representational conflict during working memory. Abdalaziz, M., Redding, Z. V., & Fiebelkorn, I. C. (2023). Current Biology, 33(9), 1855-1863.e3.

Which processes dominate visual search: Bottom-up feature contrast, top-down tuning or trial history? Becker, S. I., Grubert, A., Horstmann, G., & Ansorge, U. (2023). Cognition, 236, 105420.

Neural dynamics underlying associative learning in the dorsal and ventral hippocampus. Biane, J. S., Ladow, M. A., Stefanini, F., Boddu, S. P., Fan, A., Hassan, S., … Kheirbek, M. A. (2023). Nature Neuroscience, 26(5), 798–809.

A reservoir of foraging decision variables in the mouse brain. Cazettes, F., Mazzucato, L., Murakami, M., Morais, J. P., Augusto, E., Renart, A., & Mainen, Z. F. (2023). Nature Neuroscience, 26(5), 840–849.

Spike-phase coupling patterns reveal laminar identity in primate cortex. Davis, Z. W., Dotson, N. M., Franken, T. P., Muller, L., & Reynolds, J. H. (2023). eLife, 12, e84512.

Is all mental effort equal? The role of cognitive demand-type on effort avoidance. Embrey, J. R., Donkin, C., & Newell, B. R. (2023). Cognition, 236, 105440.

Ventral striatum dopamine release encodes unique properties of visual stimuli in mice. Gonzalez, L. S., Fisher, A. A., D’Souza, S. P., Cotella, E. M., Lang, R. A., & Robinson, J. E. (2023). eLife, 12, e85064.

Computational complexity drives sustained deliberation. Hong, T., & Stauffer, W. R. (2023). Nature Neuroscience, 26(5), 850–857.

Mathematical Model of Synaptic Long-Term Potentiation as a Bistability in a Chain of Biochemical Reactions with a Positive Feedback. Katauskis, P., Ivanauskas, F., & Alaburda, A. (2023). Acta Biotheoretica, 71(3), 16.

Geometric determinants of the postrhinal egocentric spatial map. LaChance, P. A., & Taube, J. S. (2023). Current Biology, 33(9), 1728-1743.e7.

Learning at your brain’s rhythm: individualized entrainment boosts learning for perceptual decisions. Michael, E., Covarrubias, L. S., Leong, V., & Kourtzi, Z. (2023). Cerebral Cortex, 33(9), 5382–5394.

Retinal motion statistics during natural locomotion. Muller, K. S., Matthis, J., Bonnen, K., Cormack, L. K., Huk, A. C., & Hayhoe, M. (2023). eLife, 12, e82410.

Neural dynamics and architecture of the heading direction circuit in zebrafish. Petrucco, L., Lavian, H., Wu, Y. K., Svara, F., Štih, V., & Portugues, R. (2023). Nature Neuroscience, 26(5), 765–773.

Elucidating a locus coeruleus-dentate gyrus dopamine pathway for operant reinforcement. Petter, E. A., Fallon, I. P., Hughes, R. N., Watson, G. D., Meck, W. H., Ulloa Severino, F. P., & Yin, H. H. (2023). eLife, 12, e83600.

Principles for coding associative memories in a compact neural network. Pritz, C., Itskovits, E., Bokman, E., Ruach, R., Gritsenko, V., Nelken, T., … Zaslaver, A. (2023). eLife, 12, e74434.

Critical Drift in a Neuro-Inspired Adaptive Network. Sormunen, S., Gross, T., & Saramäki, J. (2023). Physical Review Letters, 130(18), 188401.

Dopaminergic prediction errors in the ventral tegmental area reflect a multithreaded predictive model. Takahashi, Y. K., Stalnaker, T. A., Mueller, L. E., Harootonian, S. K., Langdon, A. J., & Schoenbaum, G. (2023). Nature Neuroscience, 26(5), 830–839.

Inhibitory control of sharp-wave ripple duration during learning in hippocampal recurrent networks. Vancura, B., Geiller, T., Grosmark, A., Zhao, V., & Losonczy, A. (2023). Nature Neuroscience, 26(5), 788–797.

Optogenetics reveals paradoxical network stabilizations in hippocampal CA1 and CA3. Watkins de Jong, L., Nejad, M. M., Yoon, E., Cheng, S., & Diba, K. (2023). Current Biology, 33(9), 1689-1703.e5.

The cholinergic basal forebrain provides a parallel channel for state-dependent sensory signaling to auditory cortex. Zhu, F., Elnozahy, S., Lawlor, J., & Kuchibhotla, K. V. (2023). Nature Neuroscience, 26(5), 810–819.

[new-berry]

for the england mens team could you say what each kink each player has

What I am currently discovering is that Anthony Gordon has really really flimsy morals when it comes to his “best friend”.

Also maybe some repressed rage at him scoring first. I don’t know man it’s a work in progress.

So many youths in the team. Don’t worry I also have flimsy morals.

Ollie Watkins, a very striker kink. Loves being worshipped likes being the centres of attention. Loves being watched. Not praise kink he knows he’s that good. Admired.

March Guehi dominant but not in a violent way. Just wants to maintain control. Very protective and wants to make sure the other person is okay but has to be in control. Swears during sex but never says “oh my god” or “Jesus.”

Conor Gallagher likes to fuck multiple times in a night. Likes being so fucked out they other fall asleep easy. Way too much energy.

Morgan Gibbs-White secretly lazy in bed. Prefers being fucked because the other person does most of the work. Works in praises is well can take or leave dirty talk of that “fuck your throat” variety but happy to his his face moved is someone else is setting the pace. Naps on people. Always wants to sleep in.

Jude Bellingham, best part of sex is when it’s close to the end and he can get really handy and grabby and messy and uncoordinated. Likes to pulls hair. Loves the way sec smells. Well absolutely bury his face is someone’s hairline or thigh. (Or armpit). Makes sure he’s scrupulously clean. Loves to shower with someone before but not after.

[bballlvr8]

UConn has too many injured players with impending returns to be at #1. I’m not saying I doubt us, but it’s too unsure to put them at 1. While South Carolina is losing their dominating center, they still beat us and other teams by a lot without her (and she’s the only player they lost). While Watkins return is unknown and she was a major part of their success last year, even if she doesn’t come back they still have the one up on UConn.

exactly, I agree now do I think that it’ll be a very good game come February 16 ? yes because then Jana and Sarah will have three months of college games under their belt but as of right now if they were to play the first game of the season, I think South Carolina would still beat them.

[durgamoviereviewer]

Top 10 Comedy Movies on Amazon Prime Video 

Amazon Prime Video's comedy collection has something for everyone, from classic and romantic comedies to sharp satirical films. Whether you prefer light-hearted fun or thought-provoking indie humor, the platform offers a variety of options to suit any mood.

1. Jackpot!

Directed by: Paul Feig

Written by: Rob Yescombe

Produced by: Joe Roth, Jeff Kirschenbaum, Paul Feig, Laura Fischer.

Starring: Awkwafina, John Cena, Ayden Mayeri, Donald Elise Watkins, Sam Asghari, Simu Liu.

Genres: Action, Comedy.

Running time: 1 hour 46 minutes

Jackpot! Movie Rating: 3/5

Jackpot! Movie Storyline: 

Jackpot! is set in a dystopian California, where a "Grand Lottery" offers a massive prize but only if the winner survives until sundown. Katie Kim (Awkwafina), a former child star, accidentally wins and must evade numerous killers looking to claim her prize. She teams up with Noel Cassidy (John Cena), an amateur protection agent, as they face off against dangerous and absurd threats. The film mixes action and comedy while exploring survival in a chaotic, violence-driven world.

Jackpot! Movie Review:

Plot: In Jackpot!, a dystopian California features a deadly “Grand Lottery” where the winner must survive until sundown, or risk being killed by those with losing tickets who want the prize. Katie Kim (Awkwafina), a former child star, accidentally wins and teams up with Noel Cassidy (John Cena), a freelance protection agent. Together, they battle through chaos, rival hunters, and corrupt agents to survive.

Criticism: Critics have found Jackpot! underwhelming, citing its juvenile humor, lack of originality, and poorly developed characters. While Awkwafina’s performance is praised, the film’s exploration of its themes is seen as superficial, with the comedy and action elements failing to mesh effectively.

Overall: Jackpot! is largely seen as a forgettable action-comedy, with some entertaining moments overshadowed by weak writing and reliance on clichés, leaving viewers craving more substance.

2. Late Night

Directed by: Nisha Ganatra

Written by: Mindy Kaling

Produced by: Ben Browning, Jillian Apfelbaum, Mindy Kaling, Howard Klein.

Starring: Emma Thompson, Mindy Kaling, Max Casella, Hugh Dancy, John Lithgow, Denis O’Hare, Reid Scott, Amy Ryan.

Genres: Comedy, Drama,

Running time: 1 hour 42 minutes

Late Night Movie Rating: 3.5/5

Late Night Movie Storyline:

Late Night follows Katherine Newbury (Emma Thompson), a legendary but fading late-night talk show host who hires Molly Patel (Mindy Kaling), a comedy novice, to revive her all-male writing staff. As Molly injects fresh ideas to help Katherine connect with a younger audience, they face challenges from network pressures to replace Katherine with a younger male comedian. The film explores sexism in entertainment, the struggle to stay relevant, and the unlikely bond between Katherine and Molly. Ultimately, their teamwork revitalizes the show and diversifies the writing staff.

Late Night Movie Review:

Plot: Late Night centers on Katherine Newbury (Emma Thompson), a veteran late-night talk show host struggling with declining ratings. To counter accusations of sexism, she hires Molly Patel (Mindy Kaling), a novice with no TV experience, to join her all-male writing team. Molly works to revitalize Katherine's show while confronting industry sexism, with their evolving relationship highlighting themes of empowerment and relevance in entertainment.

Criticism: Critics praise Late Night for its sharp writing and standout performances by Thompson and Kaling. The film effectively tackles sexism and diversity in entertainment but is sometimes criticized for predictable plot points and underdeveloped supporting characters.

Overall: Late Night is a witty, socially relevant comedy that blends humor with commentary on women's roles in a male-dominated industry. Strong performances and engaging themes make it a compelling watch for fans of character-driven stories.

3. IF

Directed by: John Krasinski

Written by: John Krasinski

Produced by: Allyson Seeger, John Krasinski, Andrew Form, Ryan Reynolds.

Starring: Cailey Fleming, Ryan Reynolds, John Krasinski, Fiona Shaw, Phoebe Waller-Bridge, Louis Gossett Jr., Steve Carell.

Genres: Animation, Comedy, Drama, Family, Fantasy.

Running time: 1 hour 44 minutes

IF Movie Rating: 3.5/5

IF Movie Storyline:

IF: Bea (Cailey Fleming), a 12-year-old facing her father’s life-threatening surgery and her mother’s recent death, starts seeing imaginary friends (IFs) left behind by their grown-up children. Partnering with neighbor Cal (Ryan Reynolds), she helps these lonely IFs reunite with their now-adult owners. The film, directed by John Krasinski, combines live-action and animation to explore themes of loss, hope, and imagination, delivering a heartwarming story about embracing childhood magic despite life's challenges.

IF Movie Review:

Plot: IF follows 12-year-old Bea (Cailey Fleming) as she copes with her mother’s death and her father’s heart surgery. Staying with her grandmother, Bea discovers she can see imaginary friends (IFs) abandoned by their grown-up creators. With neighbor Cal (Ryan Reynolds), she helps reconnect these IFs with their old friends, learning about childhood, imagination, and emotional connections.

Criticism: Critics praise IF for its heartwarming premise and emotional depth but criticize its predictable narrative and underdeveloped characters. The blend of live-action and CGI is noted as a strength, but some feel the film lacks focus and deeper world-building. Cailey Fleming’s performance adds charm to the story.

Overall: IF is a sweet, family-friendly film about childhood imagination. Despite pacing issues and narrative flaws, it offers humor and emotional moments, making it a worthwhile watch for families.

4. Om Bheem Bush

Directed by: Sree Harsha Konuganti

Written by: Sree Harsha Konuganti

Produced by: Sunil Balusu

Starring: Sree Vishnu, Priyadarshi, Rahul Ramakrishna, Srikanth Iyengar, Ayesha Khan.

Genre: Comedy

Running time: 2 hours 30 minutes

Om Bheem Bush Movie Rating: 3/5

Om Bheem Bush Movie Storyline:

Om Bheem Bush is a Telugu horror comedy about three friends Krishna Kanth (Sree Vishnu), Vinay (Priyadarshi), and Madhav (Rahul Ramakrishna) who, after becoming scientists, exploit village superstitions for profit. They pose as problem-solvers in Bhairavapuram but encounter a haunted mansion and the ghost of noblewoman Sampangi. Their comedic and supernatural adventure reveals deeper themes, including an LGBTQ storyline, blending humor with horror and lessons on friendship, love, and loyalty.

Om Bheem Bush Movie Review:

Plot: Om Bheem Bush is a Telugu horror comedy about three friends—Krishna (Sree Vishnu), Vinay (Priyadarshi), and Madhav (Rahul Ramakrishna)—who exploit village superstitions while investigating a haunted mansion and its ghost, Sampangi. Their journey blends comedy and supernatural challenges, leading to lessons on friendship and consequences.

Criticism: Reviews are mixed; the leads’ chemistry is praised, but the film suffers from a lack of originality and pacing issues. Attempts to address serious themes are noted, but execution is uneven.

Overall: The film offers a mix of laughs and supernatural thrills, with its heartfelt moments and thematic explorations making it a decent watch, despite some inconsistencies.

5. Anyone but You

Directed by: Will Gluck

Written by: Ilana Wolpert

Produced by: Will Gluck, Joe Roth, and Jeff Kirschenbaum.

Starring: Sydney Sweeney, Glen Powell, Alexandra Shipp, GaTa, Hadley Robinson, Michelle Hurd, Dermot Mulroney, Darren Barnet, Bryan Brown, Rachel Griffiths.

Genres: Comedy, Romance.

Running time: 1 hour 43 minutes

Anyone but You Movie Rating: 3/5

Anyone but You Movie Storyline:

Anyone But You follows Bea (Sydney Sweeney) and Ben (Glen Powell), who reconnect at a friend's wedding in Australia after a rocky start to their relationship. They pretend to be a couple to make their exes jealous, leading to a mix of comedy and heartfelt moments as their true feelings resurface. The film explores love, miscommunication, and modern relationship dynamics.

Anyone but You Movie Review:

Plot: Anyone But You features Bea (Sydney Sweeney) and Ben (Glen Powell), who reconnect at a friend's wedding in Australia after a rocky start. They pretend to be a couple to make their exes jealous, leading to genuine feelings and comedic moments. The film explores love and miscommunication in modern relationships.

Criticism: Reviews are mixed; the chemistry between Sweeney and Powell is praised, but the plot is seen as predictable and lacking originality. Sweeney’s performance receives mixed feedback, and the film’s Shakespearean influences are noted but not fully realized.

Overall: The film offers a blend of humor and heart, appealing to romantic comedy fans, though it doesn’t stand out in the genre.

6. Lucky Man

Directed by: Balaji Venugopal

Written by: Balaji Venugopal

Produced by: T. Kishore, Venkataswaroop, Siddavarapu Reddy, Shilpa Gaddam Reddy.

Starring: Yogi Babu, Veera, Raichal Rabecca.

Genre: Comedy

Running time: 2 hours 14 minutes

Lucky Man Movie Rating: 3/5

Lucky Man Movie Storyline:

Lucky Man follows Murugan (Yogi Babu), a man long deemed unlucky, who thinks his luck has changed after winning a car in a lucky draw. His fortunes take a turn when the car is stolen, leading him on a quest to retrieve it and reconcile with a local cop (Veera). The film blends comedy with introspection, exploring themes of luck and material attachment, but faces criticism for pacing and execution issues, especially in the second half.

Lucky Man Movie Review:

Plot: Lucky Man follows Murugan (Yogi Babu), an unlucky real estate agent who wins a car in a lucky draw, believing it will change his life. His luck turns sour when the car is stolen, leading him on a quest to retrieve it and confront a local cop (Veera), all while learning about luck and attachment.

Criticism: Reviews are mixed; the film starts strong with humor and character development but falters in the chaotic and emotionally shallow second half. Pacing issues and unrealistic sequences detract from the story, despite a praised performance from Yogi Babu.

Overall: The film offers an engaging premise but struggles with pacing and depth, making it entertaining but ultimately lacking in narrative cohesion.

7. The Lost City

Directed by: Aaron Nee, Adam Nee.

Written by: Seth Gordon

Produced by: Sandra Bullock, Liza Chasin, Seth Gordon.

Starring: Sandra Bullock, Channing Tatum, Daniel Radcliffe, Da’Vine Joy Randolph, Brad Pitt.

Genres: Action, Adventure, Comedy, Romance.

Running time: 1 hour 52 minutes

The Lost City Movie Rating: 3/5

The Lost City Movie Storyline:

The Lost City follows romance novelist Loretta Sage (Sandra Bullock), who is kidnapped by a billionaire (Daniel Radcliffe) seeking a real lost city from her book. Her cover model, Alan (Channing Tatum), sets out to rescue her, leading to comedic and adventurous escapades. The film blends action, comedy, and romance, showcasing the leads' chemistry and delivering a lighthearted, humorous adventure.

The Lost City Movie Review:

Plot: The Lost City features Loretta Sage (Sandra Bullock), a romance novelist kidnapped by a billionaire (Daniel Radcliffe) who believes her book’s treasure is real. Her cover model, Alan (Channing Tatum), attempts a rescue, leading to a jungle adventure that evolves their relationship and reveals the true treasure.

Criticism: Reviews are mixed; the film is praised for its action-comedy blend and Bullock-Tatum chemistry but criticized for a predictable plot and clichéd writing. The second half loses momentum, though the film’s scenic visuals and entertaining moments are noted.

Overall: The film is a fun, lighthearted adventure-comedy with strong leads. It may not offer new storytelling but is an enjoyable watch for genre fans.

8. Game Night

Directed by: John Francis Daley, Jonathan Goldstein.

Written by: Mark Perez

Produced by: John Davis, John Fox, Jason Bateman, and James Garavente.

Starring: Jason Bateman, Rachel McAdams, Billy Magnussen, Sharon Horgan, Lamorne Morris, Kylie Bunbury, Jesse Plemons, Michael C. Hall, Kyle Chandler.

Genres: Action, Adventure, Comedy, Crime, Thriller.

Running time: 1 hour 40 minutes

Game Night Movie Rating: 3.5/5

Game Night Movie Storyline:

Game Night follows a group of friends whose game night turns into a real-life mystery when one of their brothers is kidnapped by gangsters. The friends, split into couples, embark on a wild adventure filled with humor, action, and surprises. The film blends comedy and suspense, highlighting the chemistry of its talented cast.

Game Night Movie Review:

Plot: Game Night follows Max (Jason Bateman) and Annie (Rachel McAdams), whose regular game night turns into a real-life adventure when Max’s brother Brooks (Kyle Chandler) is kidnapped by real criminals. Mistaking it for part of a murder mystery game, the friends face comedic and dangerous situations while uncovering a black market scheme involving a stolen Fabergé egg.

Criticism: The film is praised for its clever writing and the chemistry between Bateman and McAdams, blending comedy with thrilling moments. However, some find the plot convoluted with predictable twists, and the dark humor may not appeal to everyone. Supporting characters could be better developed.

Overall: Game Night is a fun and unique blend of humor and action, offering a fresh take on the buddy comedy genre with engaging performances and unexpected twists.

9. My Spy: The Eternal City

Directed by: Peter Segal

Written by: Erich Hoeber, Jon Hoeber, Pete Segal.

Produced by: Chris Bender, Pete Segal, Jake Weiner, Robert Simonds, Gigi Pritzker, Dave Bautista, Jonathan Meisner.

Starring: Dave Bautista, Chloe Coleman, Kristen Schaal, Flula Borg, Craig Robinson, Anna Faris, Ken Jeong.

Genres: Action, Comedy.

Running time: 1 hour 52 minutes

My Spy: The Eternal City Movie Rating: 2/5

My Spy: The Eternal City Movie Storyline:

My Spy: The Eternal City follows CIA agent JJ (Dave Bautista) and teenage Sophie (Chloe Coleman) on a school trip to Italy. They get caught up in a plot to stop a terrorist attack on the Vatican, involving hidden Cold War nuclear codes. The film blends action and comedy as JJ and Sophie navigate their evolving relationship and thwart the terrorists, culminating in a high-stakes showdown.

My Spy: The Eternal City Movie Review:

Plot: My Spy: The Eternal City follows former CIA agent JJ (Dave Bautista) and teenager Sophie (Chloe Coleman) on a school trip to Italy, where they uncover a plot to attack the Vatican with hidden nuclear codes. The film blends comedy and action as JJ deals with his protective instincts and Sophie’s changes.

Criticism: The sequel is seen as a letdown with a clichéd, predictable plot. Bautista’s performance is noted but underused, and the humor is described as juvenile. Sophie’s character arc feels rushed, and the film struggles with balancing its comedic and action elements.

Overall: The film is a forgettable sequel that falls short of expectations, offering some entertaining moments but lacking substance and originality.

10. The Idea of You

Directed by: Michael Showalter

Written by: Robinne Lee

Produced by: Cathy Schulman, Gabrielle Union, Anne Hathaway, Robinne Lee, Eric Hayes, Michael Showalter, and Jordana Mollick.

Starring: Anne Hathaway, Nicholas Galitzine.

Genres: Comedy, Drama, Romance.

Running time: 1 hour 55 minutes

The Idea of You Movie Rating: 3/5

The Idea of You Movie Storyline:

The Idea of You stars Anne Hathaway as Solène, a 40-year-old art gallery worker who begins a surprising romance with younger boy band singer Hayes Campbell (Nicholas Galitzine) after a chance encounter. The film explores their age-gap relationship, societal pressures, and personal growth, culminating in a bittersweet reflection on love and self-discovery.

The Idea of You Movie Review:

Plot: The Idea of You stars Anne Hathaway as Solène, a 40-year-old art gallery worker who unexpectedly falls for 24-year-old pop star Hayes Campbell (Nicholas Galitzine) after a mix-up at a meet-and-greet. Their romance faces challenges due to their age difference, public scrutiny, and Solène’s responsibilities as a mother.

Criticism: The film is praised for Hathaway’s performance and its nuanced take on age-gap romance but is critiqued for a somewhat predictable plot and a conventional ending.

Overall: With mixed to positive reviews, The Idea of You offers a heartfelt exploration of modern love and societal judgments, bolstered by strong lead performances.

Explore the best comedy movies on Amazon Prime Video, ranging from sharp satires and romantic comedies to family adventures and tender dramedies. Whether you're looking for light-hearted fun or thought-provoking films with deeper messages, there’s something for everyone on the platform.

[the-rewatch-rewind]

New episode! Script below the break

Hello and welcome back to the Rewatch Rewind, the podcast where I count down my top 40 most rewatched movies. My name is Jane, and today I will be talking about #35 on my list: Miramax, Producer’s Circle, and Storyline Entertainment’s 2002 crime musical Chicago, directed by Rob Marshall, written by Bill Condon – from the stage musical book by Bob Fosse and Fred Ebb, which was based on a play by Maurine Dallas Watkins – and starring Renée Zellweger, Catherine Zeta-Jones, and Richard Gere.

Set in the Roaring 1920s, Chicago tells the story of wannabe star Roxie Hart (Renée Zellweger), who shoots and kills her lover Fred Casely (Dominic West) when she finds out he has lied to her about his show business connections. In jail, Roxie encounters the famous Velma Kelly (Catherine Zeta-Jones), who “allegedly” murdered her husband and sister when she found them having an affair. Both plan to be represented by lawyer Billy Flynn (Richard Gere), whose strategy involves turning criminals into celebrities so they’ll be acquitted, which leads Roxie and Velma to compete for the spotlight.

I think this was either the first or second PG-13 movie I ever saw. My mom took me to see it in a theater in early 2003, a couple of months before I turned 13, which was kind of surprising because my parents were pretty strict about what I was allowed to see. I don’t actually remember why she agreed to take me to see it. What I do recall is that one of my best friends at the time was obsessed with this movie, so I’d already listened to the soundtrack multiple times at her house, although we mostly just listened to Cell Block Tango on repeat, so I thought the movie was going to be about those 6 murderers, and was surprised to learn that five of them are barely in the rest of it. I remember really liking the song, and also feeling slightly rebellious listening to it because it had the word “ass” in it (although we usually quickly turned the volume on the CD player way down at that part – we weren’t that rebellious). The movie was a lot more raunchy than I was used to, which made me a bit uncomfortable, but overall I liked it. There were several things about it that fascinated me, so I kept returning to it. I ended up seeing it twice in 2003, twice in 2004, three times in 2005, once in 2006, twice in 2009, once in 2011, once in 2014, once in 2018, once in 2021, and once in 2022. If I recall correctly, we had it on VHS, but then our VCR broke with the tape inside, so we didn’t have it for a while, and then we bought a DVD copy later, so I think that explains the gap between 2006 and 2009, but I could be mis-remembering.

I’ve never seen the stage musical, but I absolutely love the way the movie handles the songs. Apart from a few actual performances, the musical numbers mainly exist in Roxie’s imagination. She wants to be on the stage so badly that she turns everything that happens to her into a production. The editing between drab reality and glamorous fiction is so well done and makes for a fascinating watch. I’m sure the stage version is great – I mean, the revival has been on Broadway since 1996, making it the second longest-running Broadway show of all time – but I know that practically, a stage show could not switch back and forth that quickly. Often when plays are adapted to the screen, the movie still feels a lot like a stage show, just with closeups and maybe a few extra locations. Not that there’s anything wrong with that, but I love it when the screen adaptation adds things that couldn’t be done live, and Chicago is one of my favorite examples of that. The way the Cell Block Tango keeps switching between jail life and intense dancing; the way the press conference turns into a marionette show and back again in We Both Reached for the Gun; the way Billy’s dance moves in All I Care About Is Love flawlessly transition into his actual actions as he proves the song completely wrong – all of these and more are amazing and could only be done on screen. So if I had to point to one single reason why I keep rewatching this movie, it’s definitely the editing of the musical numbers.

A close second is the performances. Big movie musicals have a strange tendency to feature famous movie stars who can’t actually sing very well. Back in the day, they got around this by dubbing the singing…and then often not giving the actual singers credit, although the truth usually came out eventually – I see you Marni Nixon! More recently, they just, kind of…let the actors sing badly. But in the early 2000s there was a brief period when Hollywood made musicals featuring stars who weren’t necessarily particularly known for singing but still could actually sing, and thank goodness that happened here. The singing is excellent, the dancing is awesome, and the acting is phenomenal. Four of the actors: Renée Zellweger, Catherine Zeta-Jones, Queen Latifah – who plays “Mama” Morton, the matron of the jail – and John C. Reilly – who plays Roxie’s simple, devoted husband, Amos – were nominated for Oscars. Only Zeta-Jones won, and I mean, I think they all did a fabulous job, but if only one could win, it would have been wrong if it wasn’t her. She perfectly conveys Velma’s strength and confidence with just the right hints of vulnerability to truly make the character work. But that’s not to say that other performances weren’t deserving of recognition as well. Renée Zellweger does an awesome job of differentiating between the real Roxie fumbling around trying to figure out how to handle reality and the confident performer she is in her imagination. And while I normally don’t like movies about people who hate each other, Zeta-Jones and Zellweger make Velma and Roxie’s fighting fun to watch. Similarly, Billy Flynn is a fairly despicable character, but Richard Gere is also very fun to watch. Queen Latifah nails Mama Morton’s corruption while still keeping her likeable. John C. Reilly’s Amos is exactly as pitiful as he should be. And the rest of the supporting cast is incredible as well – shout out to Taye Diggs as the Bandleader, all the ridiculously talented dancers, and of course the always fabulous Christine Baranski, who is an absolute delight as Mary Sunshine the reporter. Truly an excellent cast, and, appropriately for a movie about murder, they all killed it.

Chicago was nominated for a total of 13 Oscars, winning six. In addition to Catherine Zeta-Jones’s supporting actress win, it also won Best Picture, Editing, Art Direction, Costume Design, and Sound. I’m especially glad the editing was recognized, and the art direction, costume design, and sound work together with the editing to create that reality vs imagination effect, so I also think those were award-worthy. And my 2011 viewing of this movie was part of my watch-through of all the Best Picture winners. Around that time I recall stumbling upon a list that someone had made of the most undeserving Best Picture wins, and I can’t even remember if it was from some sort of official film critic publication or if it was just some random person on the internet, but it put Chicago at #1, which irritated me so much that I’m still annoyed about it 12 years later. I mean, it is probably true that, like many Miramax films from that era, Chicago won more Oscars than it would have without the campaigning of executive producer and now convicted criminal Harvey Weinstein, which is upsetting. But there are some Best Picture Winners that I found to be barely watchable, and I cannot believe that they deserved the Oscar more than this engrossing, well-told story. So to whoever made that list: you’re wrong.

If you’ve listened to my previous episodes, you may have noticed that when I talk about being aroace, I tend to focus more on the aromantic side of that than the asexual side. That’s mostly because romantic content – at least, straight romantic content – is considered appropriate for all audiences while sexual content is not, so romance is a lot harder to avoid. In general, if you stick to movies made during the Hays Code era from the mid-1930s through the mid-1960s, and movies made after that which are rated G or PG, there might be some innuendo or implied sexual behavior taking place offscreen, but there’s not going to be any actual sexual content, whereas there probably will be romantic content. And since sex and romance are often related, movies that have sexual content are almost certain to also have romantic content. Chicago is rather unusual in that it has sex but very little romance. Roxie uses sex to get what she wants – or at least, she tries to, it doesn’t really work out most of the time – but we never really see her, or any other character, falling in love. Most of the musical numbers feature rather provocative dances in revealing costumes, which isn’t exactly explicit sexual content, but I think could be described as “sexy.” One of the ways I figured out I was asexual was by realizing that I don’t quite understand what words like “provocative” or “sexy” really mean. Like, I kind of get what fits those descriptions, but do people actually see someone of a gender they’re attracted to scantily clad and dancing in a certain way and actually want to sleep with them because of it? Is that a thing? Before I understood that I was asexual, I kind of thought everyone was just going along with the idea of what made someone “hot” or “attractive,” and I still find it hard to wrap my head around the concept of actually feeling that attraction. So I guess the dances in Chicago are meant to turn people on, but ultimately they’re just performers doing their routine. And the main sex scene in the movie, when Roxie hooks up with Fred for the first time, is intercut with Velma’s performance of And All That Jazz right after she killed her husband and sister. Roxie is only sleeping with Fred because she thinks he can help her get into show business, which he lied about to get her into bed, so they’re both putting on an act, just like Velma is – both onstage and in her real life by pretending she hasn’t just committed a double homicide. The whole movie is about obscuring the truth with facades and performances, and the sex is very much a part of that. So as an asexual person, I find Chicago to be one of the least confusing movies that contain sexual content, because the sex and sexiness is intentionally contrived. Since I don’t experience it myself, to a certain extent, sexual attraction has always seemed fake to me. In this movie, it’s supposed to seem fake. In short, a probably unintended side effect of the themes of this movie is that Chicago portrays sex as performative in a way that is consistent with my asexual brain’s inability to comprehend sexual attraction, so that might explain why I enjoy it more than most movies that contain sexual content.

One last aspect of this movie I want to highlight is that it points out some of the glaring flaws in the US legal system. I know it’s specifically about 1920s Chicago, which was notoriously corrupt, but anyone who thinks that justice is blind anywhere in 2020s America must be living under a rock. Chicago straight up says, “It doesn’t matter if you’re guilty or innocent, it matters how much money you have, what you look like, and how the public perceives you.” Admittedly it doesn’t really address the problem of racism, but the only prisoner who seems to be innocent is a Hungarian immigrant who speaks very little English, and she’s the only one we know of who gets executed. It’s both a compelling argument for abolishing the death penalty – far too many innocent people are killed by the state – and a demonstration of why it’s not being abolished – the wrongfully executed tend to be people our society deems “less than.” This message kind of gets buried by the main story, and I feel like it’s easier to miss than it should be, but I appreciate that it’s there. And while it’s painful and upsetting to see that very little has changed in 100 years, in a way this movie can now serve as a reminder that at least occasionally, powerful and famous people who commit heinous crimes do get convicted and sent to prison.

Well, this episode got a little spicy. Thank you so much for listening. Subscribe or follow for more analysis of my most re-watched movies, and leave a rating or review to let me know how you’ve been enjoying it so far. The next episode will be about the final and longest movie I watched 15 times in 20 years, which is another Best Picture Winning musical. By the way, if you like musicals and learning about them, I highly recommend supporting Ashley Clements’s Patreon at the $15 level for episodes of her Patreon-exclusive show Broadway: Before & Beyond. This is not a sponsorship or anything, just a genuine recommendation. Every month, she posts an episode focusing on a specific era or year or particularly impactful show, and I’ve been learning so much about the history of musical theater. There’s also a monthly watch party related to that month’s episode, and my 2022 viewing of Chicago was one of those, so Ashley is partly to thank for this movie making it into my top 40. Anyway, my next episode will feature The Rewatch Rewind’s first ever guest appearance, and the guest is not Ashley Clements, but the guest is a fellow Ashley Clements patron. So stay tuned for that next week, and as always I will leave you with a quote from the next movie: “The poor didn’t want this one.”