#i do not give two shits about kevin spacey | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

thattimdrakeguy · 1 year ago

Note

Frankly, I don’t even give a damn about that whole thing with Gunn and his involvement with that certain company

If anything, this will be a cinematic universe equivalent of the time Bryan Singer directed a 2006 film for WB after the success of the first two X Men films. I bet it’ll maybe flop so badly just in the first try before it even has a chance because of the bad behavior and baggage surrounding it

Not something I give a damn enough to pay attention too. I’m only paying attention to when Godzilla Minus One and Godzilla x Kong are coming to theaters but that’s it

First of all, Superman Returns is an underrated classic. So how dare you. It has beautiful set design, music, movie moments, performances, and cinematography (Well, sometimes the movie looks oddly gross, but mostly). It's main flaw is not realizing the importance of trimming a plot down so you can keep things exciting and not lose people just long enough for them to not care.

Also, you don't have to agree with that. I don't actually care that much. It was directed by a pedophile for fucks sake. But y'know, sometimes terrible people make great work.

Even when those terrible people should be put in prison and shunned by society.

'Cause I'm not defending that asshole. Fuck him. I just liked a movie.

Fuck Kevin Spacey too. The way people talk about him, I'm led to believe he might be responsible for murders. But I ayy, that's just a theory. Just...just a theory. Let that meme that probably came to some people's mind die, because no one laughs at it anymore, it's getting sad.

But as far as Superman Legacy goes? Will probably be the best DC movie since The Suicide Squad.

James Gunn is capable of making awesome movies. And his sudden decision to make the Guardians care about killing at the weirdest time they could, will at least work for a Superman story that will presumably not have a bad guy who has killed billions upon billions and billions of people.

So, that's good, I guess.

It's so far everything else I am worried about. Not the quality of Creature Commandos, or the Green Lantern show, or the Booster Gold show. I feel like it'll be fine.

My gripe is absolutely ridiculous decisions with the greater DC Universe he's attempting to create.

For example of his most recent stupid statement, of saying stuff will carry over, but Superman Legacy is the first canon film.

Like what does that mean? If you're going to be carrying stuff over, presumably that means it is also canon. Or are you going to be retconning stuff as it goes along to serve your own desires, while mostly using stuff from past things on some occasions? Because that's confusing as hell.

It's like a kid doodling or day dreaming. They can follow and not follow what they want. They're a kid and their enjoyment is to be theirs's and usually theirs's alone.

Not so much when you're making an expanded cinematic universe, that people will want to comprehend so they can follow and enjoy themselves as it's further expanded.

Then his first slate is this:

Superman Legacy, which again I think will likely be great, if overcrowded.

The Authority (Who I heard will also be in Superman Legacy. So why is that coming up so soon? Seems self-serving and unnecessary, but I'm not judging it that badly. I'm only a little confused, and shrugging there. Not absolutely baffled or anything. They could easily do something to warrant it that makes sense.)

The Brave and the Bold:

Which is a movie directed by the dude that did the Flash, a movie that makes no sense logically, even in its own plot, and has so many bad moments and effects that it's difficult to sit through. That is also (Meaning Brave and The Bold here) ignoring most of the gold given to them from the source material. So they can have a Batman with a full family, that's likely to be too crowded for anyone to give a shit that isn't a pea brain who only needs to see something vaguely representing something they kind of know. When they have a much fresher Superman. Which creates a very similar problem the DCEU id to begin with. And is also bastardizing and missing the whole fucking point of the story it is trying to adapt. And on top of that, even if they adapting it in a way that makes more sense, would still be a TERRIBLE STORY TO ADAPT FOR THE FIRST BATMAN FILM IN THIS UNIVERSE.

Then there's: Supergirl: Woman of Tomorrow.

Which makes me questioned why the fuck Batman, and later on Swamp Thing are going to be in it, when whatever plot it could possibly have seems to be mostly Superman related.

'Cause if we're having a movie where we have Superman, the entirety of the Authority Team, and the whole Bat-Family, as well as Supergirl, and Swamp Thing...THEN IT'S GONNA BE A MESS. This isn't the damn MCU where we had 10 years of time to make sure things worked.

And if this is not building up to anything that's only them, why waste a chapter (what they're calling phases) on that then? If you're going to take more time, shouldn't the chapters be bigger so people can get a clue what's going on in your messy messy mind? 'Cause that'll also waste people's time.

Also, also, and, and, why Swamp Thing?

That has James Mangold directing, so I trust that to be quite a good movie potentially. Maybe even the best of the whole chapter.

But who the fuck starts off the CINEMATIC UNIVERSE's first phase, with a character that largely only interacts with stuff in a very specific subsection, that I highly doubt will be able to be used in a way that makes that specific movie happening so fast worth it.

If I have to eat my words so be it. Because I don't want to expect things to be bad, nor do I want them to be bad. So eating my words would be a tasty dessert. I just can't imagine what bullshit he's planning, unless he's going about something in an extremely messy way.

Then we got the TV Shows, but whatever. I don't need them to be all connected, and I doubt they will be more heavily connected, since it'd be a bitch decision to expect people to watch the shows to care about the movies. When Marvel has been going on for nearly 15 years, and can't get people to bother with their shows that will explain very imperative stuff that needs to be understood and enjoyed fully.

BUT WAIT, OH NO

Lanterns IS supposed to tie in to the greater DCU story.

So he is expecting people to care that much for a universe, that is built on major cracks, and tarp that was put up to cover the collapsing walls of the place.

And I did see someone else also say that James Gunn is making a universe for himself (While I think also making many bullshit statements which made no one care about that part), and the main liked response is "Isn't that most movies?"

No, no it isn't.

Most people that make movies, make movies expected to make sense, and be enjoyed by a larger audience.

So no. And that's very stupid to say. But it sounded like a nice defense, so whatever I guess.

And regardless, that doesn't mean he's making good decisions, and while you can say "Yeah, but making stuff for himself by default isn't bad", I would be telling you in my brain since I'm not that rude in actual conversation to shut the fuck up, because the obvious implication is that he doesn't give a shit in a way that matters for it all to work out and be good in a way that feels properly fulfilling like we may have tapped the potential finally that DC has to offer.

So we're left, instead of that, a cinematic universe that at best is going to have a Batman movie that's going to be okay enough maybe at best, despite the many heinously asinine decisions behind the making of it. And a story that is either going to be super forced, or told in a very unsatisfying manner, or at least a confusing matter.

Should I wait to see? I do not care. I don't want to watch a universe that skipped straight to Damian. Because beyond the fact I don't think he's been a good character since the Dick Grayson led Batman and Robin--and that's ONLY during the time Grant Morrison wrote it. Wasting what might be dozens of good pieces of source material to create an emotionally effective, dazzling, well-woven movie trilogy (possibly behind) for the sake of making a movie, basically because some guy who has no experience actually crafting a cinematic universe (And seems to have issues with the one he did work on when it comes to how his specifically created stuff was intertwined. Maybe not big cry baby ones. But still), wanted to make an adaptation of a story that was only good for a small fragment of time, for specific reasons, and was surrounded by massive piles of dog shit directly because of the decisions that let that series be made in the first place, while also NOT adapting the parts of it that worked--is (One massive sentence later) MOR-ON-IC.

People that write the comics CAN'T EVEN WRITE THE BAT-FAMILY, most of the Bat-Family fandom (As in the vocal parts that are obsessed with the fandom) DOESN'T EVEN KNOW WHAT THEY'RE LIKE.

Am I supposed to trust this movie, given all of that, to get the characters right to begin with? I don't feel like I should. It would seem to be too much to naturally assume they'll get it right given preceding evidence.

Anyways, I think Superman Legacy will be a success. James Gunn carries a lot of weight.

But I don't think Authority will do well. Hardly anyone knows who they are, and they don't have a cool hook like Guardians of the Galaxy.

People act like it's a surprise Guardians of the Galaxy was successful 'cause no one knew the comic.

I think that's also silly. Not dumb, but silly.

A lot of movies have been adapted from things people don't know. It doesn't effect anything one way or another. It just has to seem interesting enough to watch on it's own terms.

At the same time, though, I'm not sure I think people want an ultra cynical super hero team right now. Nor one that is very much of the time it came from.

Unless they're going to have Superman teach them the lesson of optimism. In which case, why the fuck are you doing an Authority movie, where they don't act like what people liked about them to begin with.

Seems lose lose.

I can't help but feel like they're either going to lose the box office, or the soul of the property.

If the Flash, a well-known character can't do it. And Shazam 2, a movie that is a sequel to a successful movie people loved didn't do it. Or Black Adam, a movie starring one of the highest grossing movie stars of the current day couldn't do it.

Then I'm not sure I can see how The Authority is going to do it.

And with competition from a sequel spawning from a critically acclaimed Batman movie, I don't think Brave and the Bold will do extraordinarily well, especially when they got the people working on The Flash behind it. 'Cause unless James Gunn magically knows they actually know how Batman works and for some reason didn't show that before, it's not going to be a great movie, or a movie the greater fan base will like. It's going to be a movie that fandom people like--maaaaybe. The fans that aren't really as vast as people think, but are simply loud, and only cares about the brand names in the end. As shown by how little true successes DC has lately. Their 'successes' are mostly based on the standards of how low they fallen. Which is de-press-ing.

Supergirl likely won't do well, since we just had Superman, and most people don't care about Supergirl that aren't comic people to begin with. Even the television series struggled a bit, and people who watched did like it--I think. Well, sometimes. It has a fandom obsessed with it, but no shit. That's what a fandom is. I can't take anything out of that, general view wise.

Swamp Thing I imagine will be great, but it's so niche I don't think it will make big money. But if they're smart they'll use just enough money to make it look good and leave it at that. So it could make money if they're smart. People like horror flicks, and monster movies. There's natural potential there.

It's a TV series' world out there, with people enjoying serialized storytelling more than ever. So I think the series' will do okay.

If I'm proven wrong, I won't be totally shocked. But I would be surprised.

When James Gunn was announced as head of the DCU, I was happy, quite happy. The Suicide Squad is my favorite DCEU movie by a large margin. I love the Guardians of the Galaxy movies. All of them. Even if I have issues with the 3rd one hardly anyone seems to talk about. Like that movie really wasted Adam Warlock. He might as well have never been built up if he was going to do so little that could easily be switched out with someone or something else.

It so happens, that I am not a man of bias though. As that may sometimes seem. The last time my blog had relevance, and wasn't used as the dark void I scream into, I was actively shitting on one of my favorite comic book writers series' that was starring my favorite DC character.

I've learned over the years of being in a fandom that acts like a cult sometimes, that just accepting what you're brain tells you is closer to reality than the nonsense mental gymnastics you came up with to convince yourself otherwise.

So I'm not letting my love of other James Gunn movies make me ignore all these weird decisions, that are weird, and to an extent awful at least in enough of a way to mean something no matter how you swing it.

Also best of luck with Zilla shenanigans. I have no upcoming movies I'm eagerly awaiting for that's coming out anytime soon. I'm abiding my time 'til Deadpool. A movie that is directed and written by people who make continuously great movies that don't make me scratch my head. Because thankfully they just have to work on one hero's story, not look over all of them, where they'd probably also mess up.

You can't have a guy who treats creative properties like toys run your cinematic universe. He has a great mind for some things, but I don't think he has the sense for this.

#Long Post

4 notes · View notes

the-rotting-christ · 9 months ago

Text

Live Blog Time

Great camera work so far, editing and music are also a slam dunk.

I'm glad I don't remember as much as I thought I did cause like fuck I didn't remember morgan freeman's character retiring.

"Fucking Dante. God damn poetry writing faggot son of a bitch" is a really fucking funny line.

Bad tie mills. Probably from his wife.

Bitch just called his wife a Dingleberry. An insane thing to do.

I love detectives having to go to the others house for dinner cause the Wife TM wants to meet him.

"Loser" "idiot" ok these two are cute.

They have kids- oh dogs. Dogs. Ok good.

Ok man maybe trains are different other places but like ive been to places next to a subway and live next to a subway and it has NEVER fuckin shook like that in my life.

Music is gooood.

Love them calling detectives dicks.

Good design on the props.

Bitch he's alive????

Fucking???

God damn. A year? Juesus Christ.

Oh mills. He's so. He's so, emotional. He's so girly pop girl failure. He's a hot head he's aggressive he's soft speaking most of the time and just wants to like be good at his job.

Yep. She's pregnant.

Dude I feel for Williams. Like imagine getting called up but your partners wife and she just wants to vent about not liking the city you've moved too and also that she's pregnant. And you aren't that close to your partner.

Is this based off a book? I'd like to read that. It is not in fact based off a book.

I enjoy Mills as a character. Like, he's so Young, he --- oh shit they got shot at! Spooked me.

But he's so young, he wants to prove himself, he wants to solve cases, he wants to do good but he's too rash he's too intense he's too impulsive. He doesn't think except when he isn't supposed to.

Mills is so bloodied. His shirt is now pink it was white. Soaking wet.

Something about the fact that despite the fact that Mills is younger than William, Mills is the one out of the two to have ever killed someone. Something about even despite that, Mills is still considerably less experienced with the world and with the horrors of the world. He is still even with everything considerably naive. Innocent almost.

Jesus fucking Christ knife dick. Jesus Christ fuck Jesus. Fun in mouth? I don't even know what this is holy shit.

Thinking about what I know about the ending of this movie and wondering if Mills goes through a form of enlightenment. That him and John Doe are two sides of the same coin. Through great suffering, through great pain, through great loss we find a form of meaning. As sort of a post hauc justification for what we're feeling.

Williams starting to get the impression that-

Oh the bitch bald bitch. Who the fuck is this bitch? Kevin spacey! I thought it was him. He looks funky. So like, twig.

Bro! Fucking! Toby! From the west wing! Dude! I love him. He's so baby faced kissing him.

One last laugh. For old times sake. Tee hee.

Curious about the emasculation. The birth of the man Mills is about to be. That he's going to become the Man as opposed to the boy he's been the naive innocent boy he's been, he's going to become a Man because of John Doe. Everything that he's about to be made up of is not of his choice it's of Does. Doe lets him live, Doe kills the man he was and births the man he will become.

John Doe not killing the dog is to me the discussion of if Herbert killed the cat in Reanimator. In both cases I do think the homicidal manic is telling the truth.

:)::):):)/))/)/):):):):)

That was fun. Give more thoughts about it as a whole later.

#current movie watch: se7en #movie analysis #movie: se7en #live blogging #live blog #live blog: se7en

0 notes

tommiematthews · 2 years ago

Text

Port Phillip Prison

5/12/22

Today, I went to prison and I don’t mean some metaphorical place, nor do I mean the place you go when convicted of a crime… well unless your Kevin Spacey. I’ll give some context, my company is cleaning the gutters on all the buildings, two of us go in, one spotting and the other (me), doing all the fucking work. The weirdest part is, getting up to the gutters, while in the space between barred windows and razor wired fences in front of giant concrete walls is a free man and a convicted one. The parallels are extremely similar, I have feelings of doing things illegal, be them of assault, of fraud or of any way to make money fast. The difference is... I want to say upbringing, I want to say circumstance and I want to say I didn’t need to. The truth is, I think those things, although important, don’t separate me from a convicted person. The difference is, I know I have had options, options in the sense of, if I just wait one more day, I can figure something out. I think convicted people don’t think that they have any options left and that’s the only difference. They can’t say no and walk away from their friends, they can’t stand to watch their mother bruised and needing money to pay bills or they have no other option than to go against parents that have given them everything in this world except for a real hug and conversation. Who knows, I’m probably butchering the fuck out of this diary entry and it’s going to bite me in the ass. But today really shook me, watching those men walk back and forth, 15m walk straight, pivot 180-degree 15m walk straight, 180-degree pivot, 15m walk straight. It was just like the movies, nothing to do, but try and pass time, kids younger than me, in maximum for murder. Sent into the jungle, 18 years of age, join a gang or get ready for what’s coming. I read a report that a 17-year-old kid at the jail we were cleaning watched his cellmate burn alive in his first few months. I could talk about a lot of things about prison, about the people I saw in their today, the ones who just wanted a conversation or to know what was going on. But I feel I need to think more about it, think about what I believe and how my opinion could be better. The only two things I know are this, criminals are only made criminals by the governance of that country and when those country are denied the basics in life, along with respect, council and a fair go; that’s where the problem lies, in services as kids growing up, not the criminal reality of when they get older. The second thing I know is this, I have acted criminally, I have done illegal shit, I have lost my temper and just this weekend, in the wrong hands and some bad luck, I could be going to jail for a period of time. So, I want you to all think, about all the people in jail, trying to do what they thought was best, even if it wasn’t right, that person felt trapped and forced to do something, with no other options, because of a lack of support from the systems that keep the civilised in the ivory towers and the criminals in the outer suburbs, far away from effecting their life.

ciao

0 notes

medusas-stylist · 3 years ago

Text

No Nuance November, the sequel:

because there is no way in hell i am getting this out before midnight so let’s pretend i live in cali

Athena is racist, stop giving her poc children

So much sex happens at camp. Stop acting like it doesn’t.

On top of that, camp isn’t band camp. It’s a 24/7 training facility for teenagers. People have literally died in the practice arena.

Percy can’t make friends to save his life. He isn’t friends with people at CHB he’s just their leader.

Annabeth does not struggle in school, she struggles to stay in school

Percy and Jason were at odds with each other more than they were friends with each other

Percy became praetor at CJ without having made more than two friends there. Once again, he can’t make friends he’s just their leader

Centaurs can get drunk off of root beer. How.

Chiron raped girls back in the day why does he care about teenagers doing the dirty.

In ancient Greece, (around) 12 was the age of sexual maturity (go see the Hymn to Demeter, Persephone is like 12 there). In ancient Greece, satyrs were symbols of sexual promiscuity (and rape; trust me, go look up the term ‘ithyphallic’). To the ancient Greeks (you know, the people whose stories Rick based his entire work around) demigods “finding out” they’re demigods (you know, maturing) at age 12 and being found by a satyr (bringing them to a centaur just to make it all worse)… well hopefully you can do the math.

Also, by the way, the ancient Greeks weren’t gay. They also weren’t straight. They also weren’t bi. Please don’t headcanon rapey gods as LGBTQ heroes please and thank you. If you want to do that go use Kevin Spacey.

Okay, back to PJO. Piper is a canonical “I’m not like other girls” girl from 2010. She’s a pick me girl.

Leo hides his pain behind toxic masculinity and incel-ism.

Frank is

Hazel is

Just kidding you can’t say anything bad about Hazel and Frank

Frank shouldn’t have become buff. It’s a poorly adapted mythological trope. It’s also fat shaming.

Hazel is black and it doesn’t matter what tone her skin is. Also her hair is black. Her eyes are brown. No more of this fucking gold shit.

Should I keep going?

Fuck it yeah.

Jason is Madison Cawthorn (I got kicked out of a discord server for saying this but we all know it’s true)

Why was Reyna so love-focused. Why.

Annabeth is very social. She’s been at camp since she was 7 the girl has connections

Everyone forgets that as much as Percy would die for Annabeth, she’s proven she’d die for him too.

If Demigods were designed by the gods to be perfect soldiers they shouldn’t have PTSD.

So why is Nico the only character with PTSD.

Why is everyone worshipping a relationship of two 13 year olds with like two lines of dialogue.

Did I fail to mention that NICO IS THIRTEEN AT THE END OF HOO??? THIRTEEN???

I’m calling the FBI on y’all.

Like actually please stop fetishizing a thirteen year old gay boy. It’s kinda gross. Also on that same note Hazel is 13 too. 16/17 yo Percy and Annabeth is enough of an issue.

Poseidon and Percy barely interact. Percy isn’t going on a fucking vacation to Atlantis.

On top of that, the gods don’t care about their children unless something really terrible is happening to them. None of them are good parents stop trying to force them into being that.

New Rome is dumb. Cut New Rome out of your own canons. #nonewrome and I will not explain myself.

Percy and Annabeth are not going to the same school.

Also what is it with slow burn senior year fanfictions where they get together right before they go across the country to separate schools? Just make it happen in Junior year.

Frank is the himbo, not Percy

A ‘swimmer’s body’ doesn’t mean what you all think it means.

All the demigods are like superhuman athletes but that doesn’t mean they have to be shredded. Abs ≠ performance.

Wow I’m on 49? Okay a few more and I stop.

Percy should not trust Paul until after TLO.

Percy doesn’t want to be a hero. He’s like Spiderman. He just wants to live a normal life. dark!Percy is hot and all but it ain’t who Percy wants to be

Luke should have waited in his reveal. He could have groomed Percy into joining him.

The demigods on Kronos’ side are literally terrified of Percy to the point of nightmares.

Percy killed demigods in the Battle of Manhattan.

My final hot take: Annabeth didn’t not join Kronos because Kronos was evil. She wanted to achieve the vision she had with the Sirens, but she knew that she’d have no control over creating that vision with Kronos. For clarity: If Kronos had convinced Annabeth she could create the Sirens’ vision, she would have joined him. He and Luke just failed to make their case.

#pjo #no nuance november #but late #percy jackson #annabeth chase #frank zhang #hazel levesque #piper mclean #jason grace #leo valdez #nico di angelo #will solace #hot takes #hoo #dark!percy

311 notes · View notes

florrickandassociates · 3 years ago

Text

TGF Thoughts-- 5x07: And the fight had a detente...

This episode is a wild ride, so if you haven’t seen it yet and you aren’t spoiled, don’t read this. Just go watch it.

Ave Maria plays over a photo montage of cancelled men, including Kevin Spacey, Louie CK, and Scott Rudin. (Scott Rudin, if you don’t know the name, is a Broadway/Hollywood producer who treated his assistants like absolute shit. He’s the inspiration for the possessed producer episode of Evil—I think it’s the third episode of the series—and Robert King does not like him one bit.)

And then the episode opens with Wackner, Del, and Cord discussing the Armie Hammer cannibalism ordeal. Whew, this is not what I wanted to be thinking about first thing on a Thursday morning. I do not think I can put into words how boring I find debating whether or not someone should have been “cancelled.” Cancellation is usually about rich people facing consequences for shitty actions, and those consequences have never involved anyone’s rights being infringed upon, so why should I care about someone being cancelled? And, while I know that society/people on Twitter don’t always understand nuance, I’d like to think that when it comes to the most notable examples of cancellation... no one is losing their livelihood over false or minor allegations.

There are so, so, so many issues in the world. Cancellation affects a handful of high profile, usually white, straight, male, celebrities. Why should I give a shit about, like, Louie CK not being able to make as much money as he used to? I just do not and cannot find it interesting.

I’m not surprised David Cord and Del Cooper find this topic interesting—Del likely hates worrying that all of his comedians could get cancelled and put him in a financially tricky spot; Cord probably says things like “Woke Mob” unironically. And as for Wackner, he almost certainly has a skewed understanding of what actually happens when someone’s cancelled and sees a place where he can step in and add some order. Blah. It’s just so boring.

"People are getting canceled without a trial, no evidence presented against them,” Wackner says. This is not it, Wackner! This is such a strawman argument. We don’t need the legal system to adjudicate people being assholes to each other, and in cases where a crime is committed or a particular individual can sue for damages, that is what happens. If you act shitty and then your sponsors realize you’re toxic and drop you, like, it is what it is. You can feel free to respond via a Notes App screenshot where half of your apology is actually just whining about cancel culture and then you say “I’m sorry if anyone took offense at what I did” instead of saying “I’m sorry I said/did hurtful things” and when people don’t take that seriously, maybe it’s because you didn’t take it seriously, either.

“There are a lot of reasons these accusations never go to trial. The victims finally get to accuse the victimizer face to face,” Wackner explains. Were the victims asking for this?

Marissa shares my question, noting that if the victims don’t want to speak up, then the victimizer would have the court to himself. This raises a new question: who is even bringing these cases? Are Wackner, Cord, and Del just deciding they want to do things as cases and then getting everyone else on board? This sounds bad!

Apparently, according to Wackner, “if #MeToo relies on mob rule, it’ll exhaust itself.” What... evidence is there for this? I get why people panic about the POSSIBILITY of this happening, even though I don’t share their panic, but is there any actual evidence that #MeToo is losing steam because of false allegations because cancellation isn’t a formal process? I don’t believe there is.

The test case we have the pleasure of seeing this week is about “Louie CK two,” whom I shall refer to as LCK2 instead of learning his name.

Now, suddenly, Marissa is asking one of LCK2’s victims to testify. She doesn’t want to participate because it’s just another way for LCK2 to get his career back. Marissa decides to be idealistic and say this is a real opportunity to confront LCK2 with his crime. I suppose she isn’t wrong, and that is what happens next, but, again, meh.

Apparently David Cord is going to defend LCK2. You know what would get cancelled in five seconds? A David Cord funded show that has David Cord actually on it, railing against cancel culture! Can you IMAGINE the thinkpieces?

God, when is this episode going to move on from this extremely irritating premise?

Marissa decides she wants to be the prosecutor. Wackner says if she prosecutes LCK2, she has to prosecute the academic who used a word that sounds like the n-word and lost her job for it. Marissa thinks the academic shouldn’t have been fired, but Wackner insists she has to take both cases.

“Let’s go into court,” Wackner says, and, thank goodness, we do go into court: REAL court, where we are talking about REAL issues.

In court, Liz and Diane are suing the police over the death of a black girl who was tased by the police. Her friend is on the stand and it’s quite emotional. Also, Diane tries to pass Liz a note and Liz ignores it. Why would you have two name partners on this case if they aren’t even going to try to work together?

You can tell things are tense between two TGF characters when they talk at the same time in court but are on the same side.

Hiiiiii Abernathy! ILY!

The victim had a heart condition, which the police lawyer argues is the actual cause of death. Police lawyer also argues that since this witness posted some ACAB lyrics on Instagram, she must be biased. Eyeroll.

Liz calls the other lawyer racist; the other lawyer tries to make Liz look like she is only on her client’s side because she’s black and that Liz is being absurd.

Cancel culture court happens. We’re dealing with the academic case first. I don’t feel like talking about the cancel culture shit too much, so here is my take on this case as a whole: (1) I don’t think the actual word in question, which isn’t actually the n-word, is enough on its own to get someone fired (2) I also don’t think anyone can use that word, regardless of its meaning or history, without understanding how it will come across. (3) The teacher did not get fired for simply using this word once (4) This teacher believes that anyone who is from a group that’s been marginalized in history should have to confront that marginalization with as little sympathy and respect as possible because it will help them be more resilient. So basically, if you are from the dominant group then you don’t get challenged. She believes it is her job to do this. She is an egotistical asshole who has no business teaching.

Cord wants everyone to have to say the full word in question. He says this pretentiously (though I don’t think saying “Said word” is that pretentious, tbh) and Wackner rules against him and also makes him wear a powdered wig for using “obtuse language.”

Marissa is not trying at all with this case at first, since she doesn’t believe in it. That’s shitty, Marissa. If you want to be a lawyer at a firm like RL you’re going to have to fight for all of your clients.

Marissa makes a Latin joke and ends up in a powdered wig, too.

The prof says, in one sentence, that she didn’t know what she was doing using the word and also that the black student who took offense thinks college is supposed to be warm, cuddly, and unchallenging. So it was a challenge, then, prof?

I like this student. And I love that she calls Marissa out for obviously not trying.

“The optics matter. Racially,” Diane says to Liz, who agrees. Diane, strategically, makes it about gender first (the cop is male, some jurors may react to a woman questioning a man), then makes it about how she should be the one questioning the cop since Liz is black. It would make the jury more “comfortable” (hey, there’s that word again!) Diane says. She says she is being pragmatic.

Diane says that she could be “more dispassionate”. Be or come across as, Diane? Either way, Liz, who knows full well what the optics look like given that this isn’t her first time in court, doesn’t agree with Diane that they need to come across as dispassionate.

Then Diane just changes the subject to the firm drama. “Liz, you’re shoving me out of my name partner position because of my race.” Like that’s the issue!

“I am doing nothing. You are the one who got our racist clients to whine to STR Laurie about us,” Liz counters. “Those clients bring in a great deal of money, and they are not racists,” Diane insists. Yes. Sure. Diane just happened to choose white male clients who were “comfortable” with her to talk to. I have no doubt they’d have reacted poorly to any change in representation, but Diane was counting on those particular clients having some discomfort with their new lawyers.

Liz calls her out and Diane’s still trying to play it like she just had to inform her long-term clients and it just had to be done this way. But, when Liz asks if Diane thinks the clients would’ve had the same reaction if their new representation were to be white, Diane says that maybe her clients are worried about racial grudges. So, what you’re saying is you knew exactly what you were doing, huh, Diane?

I get why Diane doesn’t like being pushed out, because who would, but Diane, this isn’t about you. And if you didn’t want to make it about race, perhaps you shouldn’t have appeared on a panel about how great it is that your firm is majority black? You can’t have it both ways.

Liz notes that Diane felt “entitled” to her name partnership. This is accurate, though based on revenue and stature I don’t think it can be denied that Diane deserves name partner status (generally speaking). Diane went over to RBK, was like, “sure, I’ll be a junior partner, thank you so much for the opportunity, I can’t even pay my capital contribution right now but what if I were name partner in three months?” and that is both entitlement and knowing one’s own worth, but mostly entitlement.

(Liz does not act entitled, but if we want to get into who deserves their partnership more—again generally speaking, not their partnership at a black firm specifically—it is definitely Diane! Liz literally only has this job because her dad was important.)

“I think that Barbara Kolstad was shoved out because you felt entitled to her position,” Liz shouts. OMG, a mention of Barbara?!?!?!??!?!? THANK YOU, WRITERS!!!

(This is a slight bit of revisionist history but I’ll allow it, and I think it’s right in thought even if it’s not right on the details. Barbara wasn’t shoved out—Barbara chose to go to a different firm that offered her a better deal—but I don’t think Barbara would’ve been on that trajectory had it not been for Diane’s presence at the firm. Barbara was in charge of a firm that shared her values when, suddenly, her partner decided that they needed to pursue profit over all else and needed Diane to execute that strategy. Maybe no one made a move directly against her, but Adrian and Diane changed the mission of RBK until it was no longer somewhere Barbara wanted to work.

“We can’t work together if you don’t respect me,” Diane screams at Liz. “No, we can’t work together if you use race cynically,” Liz responds. Diane gets even angrier, swears a bunch, and then says “You want to come after me, you come after me with an honest argument about my lack of competence, my lack of worth.” Diane, you are fighting a completely different battle here! You can be entitled and also correct and also good at your job. This is what you used to accuse Alicia of all the time. The fact you’ve turned this into something about your skill level when it’s about the meaning of having a black firm is only proving Liz’s point.

“Your unworthiness—which you don’t seem to want to acknowledge—is that you can’t be the top dog in a black firm,” Liz says. Exactly. But Diane just storms off.

Now the cop is on the stand. He did not know the victim had a heart condition. Uh, obviously, why would he have known that?

Liz is aggressive in court; Diane thinks this is the wrong strategy. Without knowing who is on the jury, I have no idea which one of them is correct.

The next move is to get the cop’s ex-wife, who he abused, on the stand.

Goodie, it’s cancel culture court. Things go well for Marissa, but Del wants to know why Marissa wasn’t that passionate about the n-word case. Marissa says she feels like it’s not the n-word, like that is a valid reason to not represent your client to the best of your ability. “It is. It always is,” says Del.

Marissa heads back to RL, and as she walks, the camera follows her and moves through the space until we end up in Liz’s office, where she gets a news alert about the cop from the COTW. He’s been killed, seemingly in retaliation for his actions. The news is quick to suggest the trial might’ve encouraged the killing. “Oh, fuck.” Diane says as she watches the news. Aaaand credits (at 20 minutes in!)

From the promos, I thought this was going to be a Very Serious Episode about police brutality. From the opening, I thought it was going to be an insufferable episode about cancel culture. I was wrong! (Though, I suppose, some of the cancel culture stuff is still insufferable.)

Yay for Carrie Preston, who directed this episode. I read an interview with her and she talked about how there’s a “look book” for directing TGF episodes and I have never wanted to see anything as badly as I want to see this look book. (Am I exaggerating? Probably. But I might not be.)

After credits, Marissa finds Carmen and Jay to ask them if “n-word-ly" is offensive. She acknowledges she’s being annoying but they let her continue anyway. Jay finds it offensive. Carmen does not. This seems fitting with their characters, and I love that this scene acknowledges that not every black person is going to have the exact same reaction to everything.

I want Carmen to have more to do! While I’m glad the show isn’t forcing her to have a large role in every plot just because, I feel like she’s gone missing for the middle part of the season. My guess is that their priority with Carmen is setting her up to be an ongoing part of the cast who grows into being someone we want a lot from rather than forcing her plots from the start... but surely we could get a little more of her! I doubt she’s a one-season character like I assume Wackner will be.

The cop’s murder changes the vibe in court. Abernathy calls a moment of silence in his memory. “We’re fucked,” Liz whispers to Diane.

And indeed they are. The cop’s ex no longer wants to talk about how abusive he was—she wants to talk about how great he was. Whose idea was it to still put her on the stand?! Idk about legal procedures but this seems like a really avoidable mistake!

Diane argues that the cop’s death has prejudiced the jury. Abernathy decides to call a “voir dire de novo,” using an obtuse Latin phrase that would not be permitted in Wackner’s court. (Love the little parallels in this episode, like this, the transition between courts earlier, and how much of Marissa being called out on her whiteness feels like a thematic extension of everything going on with Diane.)

Cancel culture court continues. Carmen shows up.

I don’t really get how June, the victim of LCK2, potentially losing a headlining gig for a bad set instead of retaliation from LCK2, scores him a point. One, if she was a rising store, one bad set shouldn’t have damned her career. Two, isn’t it enough to prove that he masturbated in front of women who didn’t want him to do that???????

Having June perform her act with no prep in Wackner’s court so they can judge whether or not she is funny is a wildly bad idea. So now Wackner is an arbiter of humor as well as cancel culture?

This whole system is silly and I reject the whole premise but June should not lose two points for the logic that Wackner + the audience don’t find June funny --> June must’ve had her career derailed because she just isn’t funny (how’d she book the headliner gig, then?) --> LCK2 scores points??? He still masturbated in front of her without her consent!

Using cancel culture to show Wackner’s court is going too far/slipping into bad territory: I’m on board with this. Using Wackner’s court to actually comment on cancel culture: Ugh. The writers seem to be trying to do both.

Lol at Abernathy having Stacey Abrams’ book on his desk.

Marissa argues the n-word case more passionately, because these writers love to make situations that seemed clear cut seem more uncertain. It’s no coincidence they have the sexual harassment case look murkier (though, again, June being bad at comedy does not negate the sexual harassment!) right before they have the n-work case begin to tilt in favor of the professor’s cancellation.

Hahah what bullshit about trying to prepare the students for a world that won’t be kind to them. Do you seriously think your black students need YOU to prepare them?

This lady thinks history classes have to describe rapes in detail to get students to sympathize. No, no they fucking do not.

She also says she’d use the n-word if she were teaching a topic where it might come up. Um, no?

Mr. Elk (this is what I call Ted Willoughby, Idiot Reporter, after he said “things of that elk” in his first appearance) is attacking Diane and Liz on his show. Diane and Liz are, apparently, “Marxist slip-and-fall lawyers” and Mr. Elk plays a clip of Diane saying cops need to be held accountable. Obviously, this was before the cop’s death and meant to be about the legal system, but it looks like Diane’s calling for his murder. I also love how they go out of their way to only pause the clip on unflattering frames of Diane.

Liz wants to use this in court—I forgot that Liz is super sneaky but this tracks; she is always quick to use things to her advantage and we’ve known that about her since her strategy with the DNC in 2x07 (to make outlandish allegations and then drop them before presenting proof). Julius wants to get Liz and Diane security.

That security is, apparently Jay. I think they’ve shown Jay as security before when Lucca went viral. I didn’t understand it then and I don’t understand it now.

I was, briefly, worried for Liz and Diane’s safety, especially after I saw all the angry cops waiting for them in court. Then I thought, oh, well at least they’re in court, they should be safe from being shot there. Then I remembered 5x15. Then I laughed at myself.

Liz’s new strategy works and Abernathy uses more Latin. But, they can’t get any more jurors thrown. (They’re going for a mistrial.)

Oh, Carmen is back again! She did SO MUCH in that court scene where she appeared and then disappeared! She’s chatting with Marissa and spots LCK2 in the RL offices.

Apparently, LCK2 negotiated a contract with Del, with David Lee’s help. (Why would David Lee be doing entertainment law?) Suddenly everything makes sense to Marissa.

She calls Del to the stand. This—and, honestly, everything after this—makes me wonder how much of this would ever make it to air. Why would Del televise this?

What a shock—Del wants LCK2 back on his streaming service (which I don’t think has a name LOL).

Somehow Marissa’s questions become about Wackner and whether or not Wackner is an impartial judge, which doesn’t seem like the core issue. Wackner has made it pretty clear that his stance is that he doesn’t care if others are corrupt around him or try to use him; he’s going to be impartial no matter what. Why not play that up instead of making the entire show look staged and Wackner look complicit, Marissa?

Like, why is Marissa asking Wackner if he’s prejudged the case?! Why isn’t she just trying to like, get him to declare a mistrial because there is a conflict of interest? She can make a version of this argument without accusing Wackner of PREJUDGING, which she knows—I know, so she knows—will set him off. Wackner truly believe he thinks he is impartial. It’s not smart strategy to question that (even if we all know that Wackner is not impartial!)

Wackner blows up at Marissa and shouts at her. He tells her to get the fuck out of court.

This is certainly dramatic, but again, would Del ever choose to air this? I doubt it.

On her way to work, Diane notices hot pink spray paint in the elevator. When she exits the elevator, the whole firm is gathered in the lobby. Someone has painted COP KILLERS across the elevator bank. “Security doesn’t know how they got in,” Jay says. “Of course they don’t,” Diane responds. “They suggest we call the cops,” Jay says. I love this little exchange. I wasn’t exactly wondering how someone got in, but I like the show making it clear how unprotected Diane and Liz are right now and why.

Julius appears and says that Mr. Elk is saying something new. Diane and Liz sit down to watch and the tone of this episode completely shifts.

I had forgotten completely that Liz’s dad’s assault issues are out in public until Mr. Elk called him “a disgraced civil rights leader.” It doesn’t feel like they’re out in public! Also I would believe Mr. Elk calling him disgraced for no reason at all.

Y’all, when Mr. Elk said the name “Duke Roscoe,” my jaw dropped. WHAT A CALLBACK.

This scene, and really, everything in this plot from here on out, is a delight. It just keeps going and going. It is the best kind of fanservice.

1x11 has been, for no real reason, on my mind since 5x04. It popped out to me as an example of this show’s humor so I talked about it in that recap. I nearly mentioned it in my 5x06 recap when Diane laughed at Julius’s suggestion that they start a firm together. I rewatched 1x11, by complete chance, like two weeks ago. How weird that I'm somehow on the show’s wavelength about this!

Also I made a joke about Mr. Elk last week without knowing he’d be back this episode. I would like to think I conjured this.

(1x11 is a really pivotal episode for TGW, even if it isn’t one of the most notable episodes overall. It's composer David Buckley’s first episode and that ending, with Diane laughing, is one of the earliest moments of TGW showing its sense of humor and playing to its strengths.)

Mr. Elk notes that they “rarely see” Kurt, which is apparently evidence that Diane is a lesbian. Hahahahahahah. Mr. Elk also wouldn’t want to note Kurt, despite his recent controversy, because to his viewers, Kurt’s beliefs would make Diane seem more sympathetic.

GUYS, THE WRITERS DECIDED TO MAKE A CALLBACK TO AN ICONIC MOMENT FROM AN EPISODE THAT AIRED OVER A DECADE AGO AND THEN BUILD ON IT. I cannot express how fucking happy this makes me.

Now, Mr. Elk says, Diane and Liz are an item!

What’s better than Diane laughing hysterically at the original allegations? Diane doing it again, eleven years later, JOINED BY LIZ.

This also works super well to cut the tension between Diane and Liz. I assume this isn’t the end of the name partnership drama, but I think it might be the end of Diane and Liz being pissed at each other. Since the name partnership drama was never really about Diane and Liz (Liz seems to want Diane to stay on...), I’m fine with that.

Because this is an episode full of callbacks that delight me, Del asks Liz when he gets to meet her son! HER SON STILL EXISTS!

It sounds like Liz and Del still aren’t fully official, which clarifies why they don’t seem to be a couple in public.

Del brings up the Diane rumor (jokingly) and Liz jokes along. I love that we get to see this playful side of Liz.

Wackner’s watching his outburst with regret. Del calms him down and notes that this is good TV (why... would Del air this... it makes DEL look worse than anyone!). Wackner calls Marissa to apologize; she picks up and accepts his apology.

Abernathy calls Liz and Diane into chambers. He’s worried he was “insensitive”-- he's noticed the tension between Liz and Diane, but now he thinks it was a lover’s spat.

Diane puts on a poker face and leans in towards Liz. She starts nodding attentively and thanks Abernathy. Liz smiles and doubles down: she’s not just going to play along, she’s going to milk it. She gets a juror kicked for homophobia, which means a mistrial. Shameless. I love it.

Diane and Liz playing off each other as Abernathy tries to look like as much of an ally as possible is comedy gold.

Diane even calls Liz darling. Omg.

LCK2 is on the stand, being charismatic and annoying. Of course he is. This is what happens when you give someone who is known for being able to connect with a crowd... a crowd and the benefit of the doubt.

LCK2 is talking about “stupid women” in his new set. Why... is Del giving that a platform at all? See, the fact that Del thinks it is not only interesting but also somehow essential to let LCK2 make jokes about sexual harassment is why I can’t take this episode seriously. Why should I be more outraged about someone who did something shitty not getting a trial for his shitty but legal behavior than I am about powerful people continuing to offer shitty people platforms? Only one of these seems outrageous to me.

Wackner decides that the professor did something “awful but lawful” and that’s it. So you’re saying that if it isn’t illegal, it doesn’t get decided in your court, either? What was the point of this, then?

The professor says she doesn’t want that—she wants the school to know she’s being punished so she can get her job back. The student storms out, rightfully. Wackner’s job isn’t to offer someone who wants punishment some form of penance, like she can exchange community service hours for offensive remarks. It’s to... well, idk what it is to do, since this whole thing doesn’t really make sense and he makes the rules, but I don’t think his verdict has to be about giving anyone what they want. I’m disappointed that Wackner comes up with a punishment and I don’t think it’s going to get her her job back.

LCK2 loses, too, because he hasn’t made amends. Wackner doesn’t want to fine him because he’s too rich for a fine to matter. Cord argues that LCK2 deserves a second chance. I mean, sure, but is he being denied a second chance? He doesn’t deserve an easy path back to his fame just because he wants it.

Wackner mentions prison. At first I was like, oh, that’s a nice throwaway line that he mentioned prison! This ties into what I was saying a few weeks ago about how Wackner likes the institutions that already exist—he just thinks they’re imperfect! It’s fitting that he’s not a prison abolitionist!

And then the episode actually went there: Wackner, thanks to David Cord’s private prison company, actually sentences LCK2 to prison. This is deeply uncomfortable (and of questionable legality). Wackner’s system is just going to recreate prison? Worse, private prison? He’s creating an unchecked, privatized legal system?! This sounds bad! Kudos to the show for taking this to some place so dark—I knew Wackner’s system would start to show cracks, but I didn’t realize they’d go this far.

And I’m not sure what the end game is with this! All I know is I’m not on board with Wackner sending people to prison (except as a plot—I am very on board with this plot) and neither is Marissa.

I do not think viewers of the reality show will like the prison twist or the fact that Cord is financing a court and prison! Can you imagine the scandal!

And what do the contracts look like that allow Wackner to sentence someone to prison? Can LCK2 leave any time he wants? If so, then how does the prison sentence help? If not, is that legal?

Del wants it to be a 2 week sentence, not 3, because this means LCK2 will have to miss his taping in two weeks. I have many questions. (1) Is Wackner’s show airing live? If not, then why do they need to rush the taping of the special? They could push it quite easily. (2) Why can’t they push the taping? This guy is a huge deal and enough potential $$ that Del wants to rehabilitate his career... so why does the taping have to be on this particular day and time?

Is there really an Exxon Mobile case, I wonder?

I like that we spend a good amount of time watching Marissa’s reactions to this latest addition to Wackner’s court. Combined with the score, Marissa’s facial expression serves to underline that private prisons are not good here! This isn’t Wackner getting legitimate methods of enforcement... this is just opening a pandora’s box of highly questionable extrajudicial practices.

I do love that this episode ends up here: it starts out like it’s going to be about cancel culture silliness and ends up being about the escalation of Wackner’s tactics.

Funny how both of the cancelled people end up being found guilty by Wackner, huh! Almost like they actually did something wrong and faced the consequences!

Liz and Diane get called in to talk to Liz’s favorite department: HR. They’re asked to sign “love contracts” to confirm things are consensual. I find it hilarious that HR gives them the paper before even asking if it’s true.

Liz grabs a pen and signs. Diane follows her lead. They look at each other and smile politely at HR.

I am... not sure how to read this last scene! Is it a fuck-you to HR? A way of easing tensions? A way for Liz to get people to stop talking to her about removing Diane as name partner because no one will want to ask if they’re really involved? Something else? Help me understand!

Curious to see where things go next. I can see LCK2 coming back for another episode but it also wouldn’t surprise me to never see him again. Similarly, I could see some glances/discussion of Diane and Liz’s romantic relationship next week, or I could see it never being mentioned again, or I could see it being mentioned next season out of the blue.

#tgf thoughts #the good fight

23 notes · View notes

zumpietoo · 3 years ago

Text

Here’s the thing that Milly/Zelda/Kombucha/Dazey/Lisa/etc and all the socks in their drawers combined don’t understand. It is 20fucking21. If Cole Sprouse was some horrible abuser of women, rather than just the victim of his unfortunate taste in headcases (aka Lili and Bree) – he would be CANCELLED. No army of teenage fans, no amount of popularity in Hollywood, nothing could protect him in this day and age. If Bree had the receipts she and her fans claim she does… where are they? Why hasn’t she come forward properly instead of vague posting about Cole on Tumblr/Twitter/Insta/Twitch/wtfever? Why did all of their mutual friends side with Cole during their breakup? Clearly these people don’t remember when the Bree shit hit the fan. People were ready with RECEIPTS of her fuckery… the head games SHE played, all of her jealous stalking (which she also stalked Lili for a while!!), how she shit all over things that made him happy because they didn’t include her, how she told everyone he emotionally abused her when the reality was she thought they were going to get married and be 2GETHER4EVER (at 19 lmao ok), and then when it turned out he just kind of wanted a girlfriend to have sex with and play video games with (lmao like MOST 19 year old guys), she flipped the fuck out and called it emotional abuse. People had all her crazy documented back then, went after her across multiple platforms, and she ended up deleting everything and claiming it was “his stans” that made it impossible for her to come forward which… no… she just didn’t actually HAVE anything, no proof, nothing. Meanwhile, all of their mutual friends unfollowed her, if not immediately then definitely in the years following. The only reason Bree drops his name anymore is because it’s the only way she stays even close to relevant. It’s not because he actually abused her, mentally, emotionally or otherwise… it’s because she’s a tinkerbell who can’t deal with it when she’s not the most important thing in someone’s universe and when that turned out to be the case with Cole, she threw a bunch of accusations at him, stalked his new girlfriend (Lili at the time) etc. But never EVER in all that did she produce an ounce of proof. No friends that sided with her. No texts. No nothing. Because none of what she claimed ever actually happened.

Fast forward to Lili and we have the same issue. If Lili was the victim of Cole’s horrible emotional abuse… she’d put his ass on blast so fast. Lili has ZERO problem speaking her mind. She shit talks like it’s going out of style, and if she was the golden child of Riverdale, and was loved and adored by the producers and writers and RAS and the rest of the cast, and was the welcome wagon and all of the other stuff that her stans claim, if she went to ANY leadership and said “This is what happened, it was horrible, and I cannot be around my abuser like this” the CW would fire him. Or at least work to accomodate Lili if she was that beloved. Look at how fast they got rid of Ruby Rose on Batwoman when it turned out she was a nightmare behind the scenes? And she was the literal STAR of the show. And isn’t their narrative that the show leadership can’t stand Cole anyway (some of that is true, looking at you RAS and Ted especially, but that’s not because Cole is a nightmare to work with and more because KJ isn’t the fan favorite which, whatever)? Also if Lili DID get the network/show to give him the boot, which if he was abusive to her, she absolutely could, what would Cole do? Sue for breach of contract? When she should have mountains of proof after 3 years? When no doubt the show would’ve seen this behavior happening too? Like, what is their REASONING that Lili suffered and continues to suffer all of this grief that he’s supposedly causing her by flaunting Ari, etc? If she had proof, if anyone had seen all of this happening, they could’ve gotten him bounced in a heartbeat. Look at how fast ALL of Hollywood turned on Armie Hammer? Kevin Spacey’s accuser came forward 30 years after the fact, with almost zero proof and Hollywood cancelled him so fast. This isn’t the early 2000’s or even the early 2010’s anymore. It is 2021 and if Cole was really that horrible, people in the industry would know, and no one would work with him. But instead he’s still booking photography work, he’s still booking movies (two of them, Moonshot and Undercover), he’s inking deals with production companies. His past coworkers are excited to see him when they run into him on the street. Practically everyone who works with him says what a hard working professional he is (or they don’t say anything at all). His podcast that he helped produce and starred in won one of THE awards for podcasts, and is most likely getting a second season. And what has Lili done? Her poetry book was on the NYT Best sellers list for a week and then fell off. Chemical Hearts flopped HARD (to the point where she was recently pimping it MONTHS after it released). Covergirl filmed one commercial with her and did one print photoshoot with her, and then basically cut ties, having Lili put together her own photoshoots. Even if she didn’t buy her way onto PlusMinus or whatever it’s called, she still has 1 movie coming up and nothing else. Nothing even in the works that we know about. She’s the only one promoting Riverdale at all anymore because she has nothing else to fall back on. Honestly, the only reason she has pretty much any engagement anymore is because of her dog, who I actually think might be more popular than she is now. AND on top of all that, her recent whatever with Wallis apparently already has drama while Cole and Ari remain unbothered despite Ken and that other pap being dicks and all of the hate they Cari lobbed at them on a daily basis. Like, sorry Lili stans that she’s on the brink of irrelevancy, but if she had been abused and had her head fucked with like you all claim she has, she’d be lighting Cole up on social media because people would believe her, proof or no proof. Instead, she’s hanging with people who “only validate” her, including a toxic drunk bitch who basically trashed not only Cole but also Dylan at like, 3 in the morning all because Lili had to do a scene with her ex, and her mom who is KNOWN for feeding the fandom BS lies that she later gets caught out in. She’s trickling out a self-staged photoshoot because she hasn’t booked a real one in what? A year? She has 1 movie, and relies on her dog or breadcrumbing with another B-list actress to get her likes. I know its a tough pill to swallow for them and that’s why they’ve doubled down on the crazy so hard lately, but honestly it’s just sad now. There’s zero proof that Cole is anything they say, and if there was proof, Bree and especially Lili would be shouting it from the rooftops, but it doesn’t exist. There IS plenty of proof that Lili has zero work lined up, and a new drama filled relationship, and toxic friends (and that she cheated on Sam to be with Cole… something else they have absolutely NO PROOF of Cole doing). Sucks to be them I guess.

Even their concept of “abuse” consists of “Cole moving on and living his best life/OMG Cheater!!!”

And the latter applies to Lili, not Cole....

8 notes · View notes

masterthespianduchovny · 4 years ago

Note

David is dating a woman 5 years older than his daughter who he refuses to acknowledge in public. He writes about a girl having sex with her stepfather and excuses it. That’s what some of his detractors, and even his fans, don’t like about him and find problematic. Then there's his historic sexist/ misogynistic and homophobic comments and his blatant arrogance (even Gillian called him arrogant). Gillian doesn't pay close attention to most of these things because she's hardly around him. I mean, hell, Judi Dench was friends with Kevin Spacey (they hung out all the time, not just occasionally) and Harvey Weinstein yet she apparently didn't know they were both predators.

Let’s break this down:

How is who David involved with any of our business, especially when we don’t know the specifics of their relationship? Celebs literally don’t need to tell us who they’re dating or fucking or whatever. How is this a mark against him bc he hasn’t acknowledged he’s involved with MP? I can understand being grossed out by his relationships due to the age gap, but him not acknowledging isn’t a mark against him.

There are many celebs in secret relationships and marriages that we don’t know about. Janet Jackson had two SECRET marriage, both of which, were revealed after they separated. Her second marriage was for 10 years. Is that a mark against her or is that different?

From what I’ve read and understand about this book is that it’s partially based on a Hollywood AD character and explaining a plot point isn’t excusing or justifying it. I believe David said authors write about difficult things, why is this a personal flaw when he writes about fictional people and events. Do you hate Stephen king for writing about murder? Hell, I’m writing a book that involves sexual abuse, should I be hated when I publish that? Most people aren’t writing about personal experiences or advocating for the shit they write about.

You may not like the subject matter, but I’m going to need a little more than “he wrote about a girl having sex with her stepfather.” And doesn’t this much involve a cult???

People hated David before this book and MP, these two things are just convenient excuses. And, honestly, I don’t see why anyone would hate him over a book.

Anon, give me recent examples of David being homophobic, misogynistic, and sexist. I’m not saying any of these things aren’t wrong or problematic, however, these things are built into our society. I’m also not saying you can’t take issue with what David said, but has he grown since then? Is he the same or worse?

You can literally find problematic shit about not just ever celeb, but everyone. To hold someone forever accountable for what they said in the past without accounting for growth is ass backwards and says you don’t care about equality, but looking down on people. Admittedly, there are some things that people can’t move beyond, except I don’t think many of his critics truly care about his problematic comments other than to find a reason to shit on him.

Gillian also said she found him charming among other things. Why are you all so selective about what Gillian has said about him? I’ve never shied away from Gillian’s criticisms about David. I don’t just focus on the good, I show both sides of their relationship and that she said herself he wasn’t the only one poorly behaving.

Gillian’s been around him long enough to make a determination on his character. She isn’t unobservant and knows far more than you ever will.

Here’s the thing: you guys can’t have it both ways. You can’t say Gillian hates David because she knows he’s the worst, then argue she hangs around him because she doesn’t know the truth about him. Yalls rationale switches like the wind.

Just admit it: Gillian likes him and they are friends. If y’all weren’t so hellbent on taking on their issues from the 90s and pretending Gillian hated David, y’all wouldn’t have needed to scramble now.

#anon mail

10 notes · View notes

dirtyfilthy · 4 years ago

Text

The Betrayal Of Chelsea Manning By The Coward Adrian Lamo

I have only participated in “cancel culture” once that I can remember. Once, over the broad course of my life, and that was when Adrian Lamo sold Chelsea Manning out to the authorities. Motherfucker has the sheer gall to call himself a hacker, and then rats someone out — not because of his principles, but from a constant desire for pure narcissistic supply -- and all this from a position of trust no less…

I was real angry, and I wanted to put the boot in, any way I could. There was a special circle of hell reserved for people like Adrian Lamo… and as it would turn out, he was already in it.

Amongst petty vendettas like stuffing his wikipedia page with all the well referenced dirt I could dig up, along the way, and kind of by-the-by, I ended up doing a lot of research on the guy, and then, well, the picture of Lamo that emerged…

Jesus.

He’s been a hardcore benzo addict since his twenties. If you know what to look for you can tell in some of his interviews, slurring his words and looking very spacey. He never really had a real job, never broke into the industry he was aways on the fringes of. It’s kinda crazy, if you search for “homeless hacker Adrian Lamo” you can still see what the mass media thought of him before he turned in Chelsea.

He’d kind of weaselled his way into popular consciousness by being a shameless self-promoter, and then managing to get caught in that spectacular “rebellious teenage hacker” vs. “huge faceless corporation” way that tends to capture people’s imagination.

There were whole articles about him in Wired. Multiple in fact. Here’s one of earliest from 2004 (unfortunately now behind a paywall), “New York Times vs The Homeless Hacker”. The first few lines can still give you the gist, however

A self-styled security expert and serial self-promoter, Adrian Lamo made headlines as a grayhat hacker. Then the Gray Lady came down on his head. Not long ago Adrian Lamo was exploring an abandoned gypsum processing plant in West Philadelphia with two friends, when a police cruiser drove slowly by. Lamo’s friends were high on methamphetamines…

https://www.wired.com/2004/04/hacker-5/

Even during this phase of his life, a lot of people in the scene didn’t like him. At least, there were people complaining on hacker boards about him stealing exploits and then burning them for the publicity. In the end he got off with probation and home detention, and that was the end of blatantly hacking into shit. Any more and he would certainly end up in prison. Attitudes were changing, the authorities had stopped seeing hacking as just high-spirited teenage hijinks. and the increasingly severe penalties could land you some serious time.

After this, he just sorted floated around. He never got job in the industry like the rest of us, and I suspect he may have been basically unemployable for one reason or another. The next time he popped up in my news feed was in 2010 with a strange article from ex-hacker turned journalist and friend of Lamo’s,, Kevin Poulsen — “Ex-Hacker Adrian Lamo Institutionalized, Diagnosed with Asperger’s”

The first paragraph or so reads:

Last month Adrian Lamo, a man once hunted by the FBI, did something contrary to his nature. He says he picked up a payphone outside a Northern California supermarket and called the cops.

Someone, Lamo says, had grabbed his backpack containing the prescription anti-depressants he'd been on since 2004, the year he pleaded guilty to hacking The New York Times. He wanted his medication back. But when the police arrived at the Safeway parking lot it was Lamo, not the missing backpack, that interested them. Something about his halting, monotone speech, perhaps slowed by his medication, got the officers' attention

— (https://www.wired.com/2010/05/lamo/)

The article claimed Lamo had been arrested for acting strangely and then institutionalised, basically claiming the police had arrested him because he was autistic. At the time, I didn’t really give this a second thought, “oh well, ho-hum”. As itt turned out, this was a case of the most spectacular kind of “spin” I think I’ve ever seen; the only place the article actually intersected with general consensual reality was in stating Lamo had been arrested and placed on psychiatric hold.

The real story, which is entirely far more pathetic, was that Lamo’s family had become worried about his benzo use (“prescription anti-depressants”) and had cut him off. He totally lost the plot at this point and stormed out of house. Concerned about his mental state, and with fears for his physical safety, it was actually his own family that called the police to try and find him.

When confronted about this fairly massive discrepancy, Lamo claimed he hadn’t exactly “lied” as such, and had simply withheld some facts due to personal privacy concerns.

It was at this point I finally began to see the whole tattered trajectory of Lamo’s entire life — trace the greasy path of his rainbow with my fingertips, and watch as the once bright twine became increasing gray and frayed as each thread began to curve back towards it’s inevitable impact with the earth, when, at which point, everything important would begin to totally unravel around him.

At his core, Adrian Lamo was a narcissist, and so Adrian Lamo absolutely believed in the Adrian Lamo narrative, as only a narcissist can. Near of beginning of his tale, this was easy to do. He was a wandering Daoist sage, a renegade techno-monk character in a Neal Stephenson cyberpunk novella, and anytime he wanted to see his own reflection he could simply look in any of the major newspapers.

After his arrest and release, the rest of the world moved on. His peers all settled down to well-paid industry gigs, and you couldn’t just pop the New York Times through an open proxy any longer — well, at least: not most of time, anyway. His own sword, never the exactly the sharpest in the first place, was beginning to show some signs of a serious structural rust.

Without the constant assurance of people telling his own story back at him, what was he exactly? What did the mirror portray to him now? An unemployed, semi-homeless drug addict, a hacker who couldn’t hack his way out of wet paper back with pick axe, the tired punch line to any number of bad jokes...

Of course, the many similarities to my own life were not exactly lost on me. I was basically a case of being a few near misses and unlucky hits away from sitting in his exact position. I had made the transition to an industry career successfully, but I was still a drug addict with mental heath issues. I had gone through my own narcissistic stage when I was younger, but thankfully grew out of it, the old moons no longer pulled on my tides the way they used to.

The essential Lamo pattern had began to emerge. Still chasing the same bright stars that had long since sunk beneath the horizon line of the ocean; Lamo would begin to feel irrelevant — Lamo would get then his name in the media in some fashion. A momentary peace was then achieved, then came a brief period of post-orgasmic. cosmic serenity.

But of course, the wheel of karma will not stop spinning for anyone, and so, soon enough and all-to-quickly, the entire process of personal renewal, would have to, you know….. begin anew.

A few other case studies were observed. An unreleased, permanently unfinished documentary featuring Lamo was mysteriously leaked on the internet. Of course, Lamo himself had leaked it. And there was always appearing on various morning television shows, Good Morning America, Fox News & the like.

But then the mother of all opportunities just dropped into his lap.

Chelsea Manning needed someone to talk to.

Chelsea knew Lamo was Bi, so he was at least in the LGBT community. Adrian was a hacker too. He’d fought against the system in his day, he was certainly someone who would “get it”, she was very sure of this. And when she did reach out, he was indeed very sympathetic. Honestly, it seemed like he really cared. Just a genuine human being, reaching out across the vast emotional void to provide a sense of empathy to someone who really, really needed it right now..

He was very sympathetic when Chelsea told him all about her struggles with gender identity, and he was very sympathetic when she said she was leaking gigabytes of information to Wikileaks…. But behind his sunglasses, Lamo eyes had already morphed into a marquee LED matrix endlessly scrolling his own name. Think of the news coverage!

This was big. This was very big.

It would, in fact, turn out to be fucking huge. Of course, within in the hacker scene, and to a certain extent, even outside it, everyone just fucking loathed him now. Eventually even the news moved on, nobody wanted any more interviews, and in the end, when everything has already been all said and done: you are ultimately left with only yourself….

… a pathetic drug addict. Of course, I have to keep telling myself that one point of intersection does not an entire venn diagram or an actual equality make. But I can’t shake the feeling that, perhaps, maybe we weren’t really all that different. Maybe my own betrayals have had the simple luck of being a lot less public.

Perhaps my own sins were just as ugly, but far less ambitious.

Adrian Lamo died alone, from a drug overdose, in a private unit in an aged care facility in Wichita, Kansas. He was 37 years old. An autopsy showed his kidneys were already failing.

I guess Sartre got it wrong. Hell isn’t other people, it’s being left totally alone, with nothing else around but the tedious company of your own terrible self, and of course, the fucker won’t stop talking...

So obviously there was nothing more I could do to hurt Adrian Lamo, nothing that Adrian Lamo hadn’t done already. He had long since locked himself away in a prison cell of his own making. I do wonder if maybe one too many silent 3am’s hadn’t come crawling around the clock face when he was there & awake to witness it, lying in bed & staring at the ceiling and trying not to think about things.

Like I’m doing.

Shit, I hope don’t go out that way.

#adrian lamo #chelsea manning #nonfiction #creative nonfiction

1 note · View note

kevinspaceyarchives · 6 years ago

Photo

Kevin Spacey interview for the UK edition of Premiere Magazine | April 2, 1996

KEVIN SPACEY

With roles last year in Outbreak, Se7en and The Usual Suspects, for which he was nominated for an Oscar, he's no longer just a face in the crowd.

Q: In Swimming With Sharks you play an entertainment exec who is completely abusive to his assistant, who later exacts his revenge. How did Hollywood suits react? Did they see themselves?

K: People absolutely saw themselves, and it didn't end in this town. I took the film to Washington DC and did a screening for the White House staff and Congressional aides. The same kind of climbing the corporate ladder, people who whose sincerity is dripping from their fangs, that happens in every business. We did a couple of "assistants only" screenings and we raffled off an assistant for a day: me.

Q: Who won you?

K: This wonderful girl named Nicole at the Agency for the Performing Arts. It brought me right back to when I used to be an assistant for producer Joe Papp in New York. I Xeroxed and filed and answered phones. Quite frankly, the place has gone down hill since I left. I make a fine cup of coffee.

Q: It must be very satisfying to lend your talents to small projects with young directors, like Swimming With Sharks and The Usual Suspects, and have the films find an audience.

K: It's really encouraging because it says that audiences are looking for films that allow them to get lost and confuse the shit out of them. The experience Bryan Singer and I had making The Usual Suspects was talking about how we could do things that would be really fun when you watch the movie a second time.

Q: Could you make sense of the script when you first read it?

K: Yeah. When Bryan and Chris presented the script to me they didn't tell me what role to read, full well knowing that they wanted me to play Verbal.

Q: Why didn't they tell you?

K: Because they know that's my philosophy about reading scripts. That way, if I like a story, I'm responding to it out of innocence, not, "Oh, this is a good part." I try to, rather than be seduced by money, choose stories that don't just ask me to do what I've done before. It's so easy to do that. I think it's the destiny of all artists that people say, "I prefer their early stuff."

Q: I had no idea you were in Se7en until you showed up on the screen.

K: That's exactly what I wanted. The studio wanted me to take star billing and it was a big fight not to. I said, "It makes no sense. If people see my name at the beginning and I don't show up for the first 25 minutes, they're going to figure out who I'm playing."

Q: What convinced them to give you the part in the first place?

K: I actually didn't get the role at first. They were going with another actor and it didn't work out, and I got a phone call on a Friday night saying, "Can you start shooting on Tuesday?"

Q: You've just directed your first feature, Albino Alligator. What's it about?

K: It's about these three bumbling burglars played by Matt Dillon, Gary Sinise and William Fichtner, who are attempting to execute the perfect robbery, which goes ridiculously, stupidly wrong. It's a kind of Dog Day Afternoon scenario. I'm not in the movie. I did all my acting convincing everybody else to be in it.

Q: I talked to an actor recently who just directed a short, and all the tantrums he threw as an actor came back to haunt him when he blocked the first scene and his actor went "No man, my character would never do that."

K: I had the advantage that five of my actors were hostages, so if they felt like moving, they couldn't. "I know you feel like going over there, but you have a gun on you so you can't."

Q: Why do people always seem to get tied up in your movies?

K: I'd like to think it's just a happy circumstance. I don't think producers are going, "Somebody's tied to a chair. Send it to Spacey."

Q: What have you done lately?

K: I played an attorney in A Time To Kill, with Sandra Bullock. We had a great time in Mississippi. I was her husband wherever she went because she's so identifiable now. We went dancing and everyone would sort of gravitate toward her and she'd say, "No, I can't dance with you. My husband will get upset." Then they'd look at me and she'd go, "Did you see Se7en? Don't fuck with him."

Q: What's the worst audition you've ever had?

K: It was for Dustin Hoffman and Arthur Miller for Death Of A Salesman. I was so bad, Dustin walked out. He couldn't stand it.

Q: You should have tied him to a chair.

K: I hadn't gotten to that point in my life yet.

Q: Have you ever been to a psychic?

K: Once, when I was 17. She said, "You will travel to an island, you will be surrounded by music, and then you will leave the music and start your life." I thought, OK, take another Quaalude. It was only interesting years later when someone said, "Wait, that shit happened to you." A year-and-half after I met the psychic, I traveled to the island of Manhattan, went to Juilliard, where the drama department is literally surrounded by the Juilliard School of Music, stayed two years and then left and started my life.

Q: Who woke you up to tell you that you'd been nominated for an Oscar?

K: I was up. I watched it. There was no way not to watch it; the phone started ringing even before the nominations were announced. I was never sorrier that my last name started with an "S", because they do it alphabetically. Then I spent the rest of the day in budget battles for my movie.

Q: Have the tabloids dug up any dirt on you since your Oscar nomination?

K: The LA Daily News did a story on the fact that Mare Winningham and I, who both got our first nominations this year, went to high school together and played the Captain and Maria in our class play, The Sound Of Music.

Q: Are all the big designers dying to dress you on Oscar night?

K: They are all generous enough to do sketches of custom ideas and I'll pick what I think I hopefully look the best in. One of the designers sent a drawing of me in a tuxedo with Verbal's haircut.

Q: Who are you taking?

K: My mother. She's going to wear whatever Emma Thompson doesn't wear.

By Dennis Hensley; Premiere (UK edition), April, 1996

#Kevin Spacey #This Day in Spacey History #Premiere Magazine #UK edition #The Usual Suspects #Seven #Outbreak #interview #article #April 2 #1996

29 notes · View notes

weregonnaneedmorewhiskey · 6 years ago

Text

Social Media:Guilty in the court of public opinion. The problem with cancel culture and its toxic nature and why I have a major problem with it

DISCLAIMER: If you read parts of this and not the whole thing and type a “rebuttal”. Just save your time and don’t do it because you don’t the smoke

Ok before I start, I would like to say this. 1. If you are an ignorant person who cannot accept the opinions and thought of others then don’t read this. 2. If you don’t take the time to look at facts, then don’t read this. I don't have time for you and 3. If you are to crucify people then you can just go. I just gave you some warnings already so why is your ass still here?! Ok I have a love/hate relationship with social media. I think social media can be great in terms of communicating with others and making friends online and of course sharing memes and funny videos because those are fantastic. Social media can be great for displaying people’s interests and talents. I myself have a photography blog alongside this one and some people have made a career from social media. However like all good things, it has its ugly side. In the last year or so, a trend has appeared on social media and that's cancel culture. I myself have never taken part in cancel culture myself as I thought it was toxic, immature and petty in most circumstances. I'm definite that cancel culture will come to an end (hopefully this year) but for now, we have to deal with it on our timelines. Anything that is either taken out of context, blow out of proportion or is a simple mistake will face the court of public opinion. The social justice warriors of the internet, the holier than thou folks will decide your fate.

First and for most, we all need to remember that we are all human. We make mistakes and we learn from it. I am not better than the next person as I have made my fuck ups at the end of the day but we all grow and evolve. I have several problems with cancel culture. If a person makes a mistake or has made a mistake in the past, that does not give you the right to ruin them. By doing so you are no better than the person who’s made a mistake and you are ruining a person’s life. Prime example, Kevin Hart and the Oscars. Kevin Hart was forced to step down as the host for this year's Oscars ceremony due to some homophobic tweets from 2009. Whilst I believe that homophobia is wrong, Kevin has moved on from a tweet that he made almost a decade ago in which that comments probably wouldn’t have taken as seriously. Kevin has grown and evolved but the court of public opinion has forced him to step down from the role due to the mass controversy. If you are searching through old tweets from 2009, you clearly have an agenda to ruin a person’s life because you are blinded by your hatred and do not want to see someone have success. This role was an amazing opportunity for Kevin but because of this toxic era of being overly PC, it was taken away because people wanted to hold his past against him and not acknowledge his evolution.

Now let’s get to how cancel culture is effecting the legal system. We’ve all heard the term “innocent until proven guilty”. In terms of the legal system, this is still true but for social media, this isn't the cause. Cancel culture has pronounced people to be guilty into proven innocent. People are no longer reading the facts, they are immediate to jump to conclusion, therefor inspiring this title “guilty in the court of public opinion” This is extremely dangerous. Social media should have no influence in the judicial system WHATSOEVER unless the person has committed the crime on Instagram Live (a man who raped someone on Instagram Live was recently found not guilty, just letting you know. What a fucked up world we’re living in huh?). When it comes to a case, people need to look at the evidence that has been presented and not from outside influences especially if it turns out shock horror that the person is actually innocent and then they’ve been sentenced to 25 to life.

This leads perfectly leads into my next point. So if you've been on Twitter in the last 24 hours then you would have seen that Chris Brown was detained in Paris for several hours on a rape complaint. Now before I go into this and break this down, if you are expecting me to drag Chris and call him a piece of shit and xyz, you can stop reading this now because I’m happy to let you know that I am a fan of Chris and have been since his debut. Now when this report broke out, I immediately went and read the whole report because we look at facts in this household. As soon as I saw that the “accuser” had done an interview with Closer Magazine France and went to The Shade Room, I immediately raised an eyebrow because why would you go to a tabloid before going to the police? This rang some serious bells and red flags and reminded of another incident involving Chris.

Back in 2016, a woman went to TMZ to say that Chris had held her at gunpoint. Again if you were held at gunpoint, then why are you going to a tabloid? Eventually LAPD found out that this was a false allegation and Chris was released from jail and the charges were dropped. Another thought that popped across my mind is that “I don’t think Chris is that stupid to do something like with the amount of negative press he's had in career over the last decade and I can’t see him doing something like especially since he has a daughter who is his life and who has helped him grow up significantly” . Bear in mind Chris has not made a public appearance since October when he attended Diddy’s Halloween party and his public appearance are few and far between now within the last few years with Royalty in his life. He mainly stay at home or is on the road. Paris fashion week is the first public appearance from him in months.

The accuser then went on to Instagram to say that she was not raped by Chris and he was not even present at the club that it was claimed that they met. Several eyewitnesses also went to social media to confirm that the allegations were false and that Chris never had an encounter with this woman and that he has never been alone at one point during this Paris trip. (PSA can we you know go to the fucking police to give statements to prove someone is innocent or guilty instead of going to social media because you are screwing with someone’s livelihood here!). Of course the court of public opinion came and gave their two cents on the situation and they pretty much proclaimed that Chris was guilty without looking at the facts.

Now if you are about to say “well look at 2009?” Yes Chris made a mistake which I don't agree with but we also need to remind/enlighten ourselves that the Rihanna incident was A FIGHT and both parties were wrong. She should have not hit him and he shouldn’t have retaliated. (side note: can we hold women accountable of when they are abusive towards men because there is a serious gender bias when it comes to abuse in relationships and we need to remind ourselves both genders can be abusive). He has also evolved from that and showed genuine remorse for the situation. The majority of social media were on Chris’ side in regards to this situation and he was eventually released from police custody when the French police found out the accusations was false and issued an apology to Chris and told him that he was free to leave the country. Chris’ lawyer has said that he intends to sue for defamation of character rightly so and Chris has also gone to social media to deny the allegation. Chris’ situation sparks several different issues. The first being in regards to social media. It is extremely dangerous and toxic to contribute to a false narrative without looking at the fact especially with a charge as serious as rape and even more the silence upon it being revealed that accusations were false just shows how DISGUSTING people can be since many people wanted this accusations to be true.

This shows the type of world we live in that people WANT a woman to be raped all the expense of not liking someone. I cannot associate myself with people who think like this when they are actual rapists such as R Kelly who is yet to be charged for his NUMEROUS crimes against underage black girls despite concrete evidence and a tape but yet we can arrest Chris on a false accusation and several eyewitness and hotel footage to show that he didn't commit this crime? Kevin Spacey and Matt Lauer are also rapists who careers have ended but have yet to be charged for the crime despite once again having concrete evidence and eyewitnesses. The president of the United States is also guilty of sexual assault and is on a recording bragging about his crimes like its a badge of honour. Brett Kavanaugh is walking a free man despite also having concrete evidence and eyewitness confirming his crime. Asia Argento, a victim of Harvey Weinstein was discovered to be guilty of sexual abuse after a young man came forward about how he was abused by Asia as a teenager. Harvey Weinstein is awaiting trial for his numerous crimes. Why can't the court of public opinion keep the same energy they had for a man who was innocent for those who are guilty. Secondly in light of the Me too movement, to accuse someone of a crime as serious as rape is extremely dangerous to their career and their character, a person’s life can be destroy at the expense of an opportunist. Additionally to lie about rape is DISGUSTING! This is what stops ACTUAL rape victims from coming forward because we have people who lie about it and the true victims aren't taken as seriously as a result. I would also think in light of the Me Too movement and Surviving R Kelly, people would pay more attention to the facts now before we “cancel” people. Personally I think that if you lie about a offence as serious as rape, you should go to jail and get sued because you are evil and karma will come to you. What if this your brother or your son or uncle or dad etc who was being accused of this crime? How would you feel if everyone thought they were guilty because of a mistake they made a teenager that has nothing to do with what they were currently accused of? Just think about that for a moment.

To end this I think Chris deserves an apology, one of them being from Eve after her comments on The Talk and that he should not only sue the women who lied but should sue media outlets such as TMZ and The Shade Room for defamation of character and let's remember this: innocent until proven guilty and look at the facts (in this day and age we really need to do this)

Update: Malibu Dollface made a video pretty much explaining everything I feel about cancel culture. Please watch and support him because he’s amazing

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ah4ZfxTqT5s

#cancel culture #me too #chris brown #social media #blogger #blogpost

11 notes · View notes

thesydneyfeminists · 6 years ago

Text

The Crimes of JK Rowling

CW: racism, homophobia, mentions of abuse and drugs.

The cool thing about growing up and expanding your world view is that you eventually see your childhood heroes for what they are. Flawed humans (and maybe, just plain assholes). First Joss Whedon and now JK Rowling. Nothing is sacred and no one is safe.

I loved the Harry Potter series (the original seven books, I refuse to accept any of the latest garbage she’s put out/had her name attached to – within the HP universe) and I still count Prisoner of Azkaban as one of my favourite books, but even fondness and nostalgia can’t shield JK Rowling from some of the problems with the world she has created, the way she explains/defends it, and her quarter assed (not even half) and damaging attempts to rectify that now in 2018.

Note: Simply for length reasons, these are all related to the Harry Potter/Fantastic Beasts franchises.

Crime One: Racism

It’s no great secret that there are very few characters of colour in the Harry Potter universe. Apparently, while it’s plausible that there’s a whole (not so) secret world of magic, it’s just too unbelievable for there to be many witches or wizards of colour. Before you come at me with “but Vee, mudbloods and Voldemort only wanting pureblood wizards is a metaphor for racism!” you can stop that right now. Because you know what’s also a great metaphor for racism? Actual racism. How about how people of colour are literally discriminated against every single day. They get passed over for jobs, they’re spat at in the streets, they’re being killed by police. Metaphors for racism? Not good enough.

I’m in the camp that think white writers shouldn’t write their main character as anything other than white, for a whole host of reasons, but if I had to summarize it, I think stories of colour should be told by authors of colour, we should be opening the doors for more authors of colour, we should listen to their voices, their stories, their experiences. I think white authors can’t know the exact nuances of what it’s like to be a person of colour, how the world treats us, the experience of living in diaspora, the disconnect between first gen, second gen and third gen family members, and so much more. It’s something that sure, you can read about it, you can do your research, but you’ll never quite understand it unless you’ve lived it. All of that being said, I do believe that white authors can include characters of colour in a meaningful way, that is, not for decoration, not as a handy plot device to move your story along, and not as a harmful, disgusting stereotype. But let’s stop for a second and count the number of background characters of colour that have been more or less confirmed (note that Hermione could easily be coded black, the only hint we get is in PoA, she’s described as “very brown”, but it’s not until the older Hermione was cast with a black actress in The Cursed Child did JK pop up and say “of course she could be black!”). So, we have Lee Jordan (maybe unfairly assumed, as he’s only described as having dreadlocks but he was cast with a POC), Dean Thomas (who was very good at drawing – also maybe unfairly listed, was cast with a POC), Parvati and Padma Patil (possibly unfairly listed, described as having long black hair, and cast with POC), Cho Chang (quickly, can I point out that a character of Asian descent being sorted into Ravenclaw the “smart house” plays into so many racist stereotypes that I can barely breathe), Kingsley Shacklebolt, Blaise Zambini. And then, well, there’s Nagini.

Tweet reads: “The Naga are snake-like mythical creatures of Indonesian mythology, hence the name ‘Nagini.’ They are sometimes depicted as winged, sometimes as half-human, half-snake. Indonesia comprises a few hundred ethnic groups, including Javanese, Chinese and Betawi. Have a lovely day.”

About a week ago, the trailer for Fantastic Beasts 2: The Crimes of Grindelwald was dropped to mixed reactions. The trailer revealed a snippet that reveals that Voldemort’s pet snake was once a shapeshifting woman, cursed to become trapped in a snake’s body. An Asian shapeshifting woman. Reduced to becoming (a white supremacist but metaphorically) a white man’s pet. Cool. Naturally, there was some backlash about this turn of events, and so JK tried to tweet out the reasoning and explanation (while also saying she’d been keeping this racist secret for 20 years) that obviously Nagini had to be an Asian woman because it was based on a creature from Indonesian mythology, and that Indonesia comprised a “few hundred ethnic groups, including Javanese, Chinese and Betawi”. Cool, JK, but the actress cast is Korean, and you saying all of this kind of reinforces the idea that all Asian ethnicities are interchangeable. Let’s not even get into a white woman explaining Indonesian mythology or ethnicity, or the fact that it’s also an Indian mythology, the Naga. I don’t want to split hairs here, there are other examples of mythology that are similar but have key differences across other cultures (the kitsune/kumiho/huli jing fox spirit, for one). So it’s possible she only read up on the Indonesian myth and took her inspiration from there. But the way she “explained” the debacle sits uneasily with me. She brushes over any concerns that come from people of colour – valid concerns and questions, and instead chooses to ignore the real issue, which is that by playing into the harmful stereotype that Asian women are subservient, and that all of the different Asian ethnicities are interchangeable, she does more harm than good for inclusivity and that she is doing it for show. She doesn’t give a shit if her work includes characters of colour, and if it does, she doesn’t give a shit that they’re shitty stereotypes, 2D characters that are nothing more than the colour of their skin, just there to boost the POC count in her works.

Thinly veiled racism? Guilty.

Crime Two: Poor Handling of LGBT+ Issues/People

Back in 2007, speaking to a crowd of fans at an event at Carnegie Hall, JK Rowling revealed that she “always thought of Dumbledore as gay” to wild applause. Finally, a canon character was more or less confirmed as LGBT+ (sorry to the Dracarry shippers, that still just lives in our hearts). Great, right? Except, why did she wait until the book series was completed to come out with this revelation? Why didn’t she include it in the books? Sure, you might say “well, Vee, it’s a kids book, you’re expecting far too much” except it’s not a “kids book”, it’s always very clearly been in the young adult category (certainly after the third book, at least) and readership has always been split between adults and younger people. The series came out when I was a teenager, finishing when I was 21, and I definitely would have appreciated some LGBT+ representation in a book that meant so much to so many people. I’m not saying she needed to include a sex scene in there (she could’ve faded to black, like Stephenie Meyer did in Breaking Dawn) but to go back and retcon that Dumbledore was gay and that she’d always thought that, for it to ring true, she needed to leave us hints in the original series. She “always thought of Dumbledore as gay” but “didn’t feel the need to spell it out”. Maybe she didn’t see the point of it, maybe she didn’t want to spoil her “big reveal” (note that some fans had always suspected that Dumbledore had been in love with Grindelwald), but by not mentioning it until after the fact? It comes off as lazy, or as wanting to appeal to the LGBT+ community, by trying to earn an ally card by doing very little at all.

Tweet reads: “I was asked whether Lupin’s treatment by others could be seen as a metaphor for (then) stigmatised conditions. I agreed that it could. 2/4” J.K. Rowling (@jk_rowling)

Then there’s the Lupin issue. Supposedly, at some point in 1999, JK was asked whether or not Lupin’s “condition could be seen as a metaphor for (then) stigmatised conditions” and she said it could. Basically, lycanthropy is meant to be a metaphor for HIV/AIDS in the HP universe. In Short Stories From Hogwarts of Heroism, Hardship, and Dangerous Hobbies (released 2016, mind you), JK writes “Lupin’s condition of lycanthropy was a metaphor for those illnesses that carry a stigma, like HIV and AIDS. All kinds of superstitions seem to surround blood-borne conditions, probably due to taboos surrounding blood itself. The wizarding community is as prone to hysteria and prejudice as the Muggle one, and the character of Lupin gave me a chance to examine those attitudes”. Maybe she had the best intentions in mind when she came up with that idea, and true enough, blood and blood purity does matter to an extent in the wizarding world, but something about it feels hollow and gross. I’d like to note here that we only meet three werewolves in the series (Lupin, Greyback and an unnamed man who was bitten) and none of them were female. Take that how you will, but a few fans came to the conclusion that her “metaphor for HIV/AIDS” also includes the harmful stereotype that gay men were going out and maliciously infecting over men with HIV.

Retconning the source material to make herself seem LGBT+ inclusive but handling it terribly? Guilty.

Crime Three: White Feminism

Maybe this crime really explains the others. It explains her support of the decision to cast Johnny Depp in the Fantastic Beasts film series. Yep, Johnny Depp, you know, the guy who physically abused (then-wife) Amber Heard. Sure, he’d been cast before we knew about that. He’d appeared, for five whole minutes in the end of the first Fantastic Beasts film, so he’d already signed on. Surely, he couldn’t be fired when his contract was signed. Except, we’ve seen examples of men accused of abuse being let go from their jobs (not often, but it happens sometimes). Kevin Spacey, for one. So, why couldn’t Grindelwald be recast? Especially after a five minute cameo at the end of a movie? JK Rowling released a statement where she acknowledges that around the time of filming the first movie in the new franchise, stories involving Depp’s abuse of Heard started to appear in the press, and “based on our understanding of the circumstances, the filmmakers and I are not only comfortable sticking with our original casting, but genuinely happy to have Johnny playing a major character in the movies.” Comfortable and genuinely happy to have a known abuser affiliated with your work, based on our understanding of the circumstances, the circumstances being that Depp physically abused Amber Heard, who provided photo and video evidence. Even Daniel Radcliffe has spoken out about the decision to let Depp remain on cast, given the decision to fire a lesser known actor (Jamie Waylett) from HP: Deathly Hallows pt 2 after his arrest for growing 10 marijuana plants (he was later arrested for a more serious crime, but that was well after his firing from Harry Potter). DanRad mentioned how he was, of course, thankful for the opportunities provided to him from being cast as Harry Potter, but that “I suppose the thing I was struck by was, we did have a guy who was reprimanded for weed on the (original Potter) film, essentially, so obviously what Johnny has been accused of is much greater than that.”

Tweet reads: “Just unfollowed a man whom I thought was smart and funny, because he called Theresa May a whore. 1/14” J.K. Rowling (@jk_rowling)

Of course, supporting the casting of an abusive man doesn’t make her a white feminist, nor does tweeting about unfollowing a man for calling Theresa May a whore. What does, in my honest opinion, is her handling of any criticism she receives, and the bullshit way in which she tries to earn her ally card, but only when it suits her. If all of this mattered so much, she would’ve included it the first time around. Retconning her source material in an effort to appear more diverse isn’t true diversity. It’s literally a made up world, she could’ve made it more diverse from the start. She needed to explicitly state things, because marginalised groups need to see representation. Good, strong, representation. Not weak and harmful versions. By being properly inclusive in her material, as a middle class white woman, she could’ve set an example of how things should be. If she’d spoken to any marginalised group, heard their stories, about their lives, gained an insight in how to write about them, her POC, LGBTQIA+, lower class, etc audiences would’ve come away with the message that she cared and wanted them included in her stories. In her world.

The bottom line is, JK Rowling does not care enough to follow through, and well, when you’ve made as much money as she has, why should she? She bangs on about how truly diverse the wizarding world was and gives examples to back it up, but she does so way too late, and without any real proof, just her word. Sure, she created this universe, maybe she did believe Dumbledore was gay, or Hermione could be black, but she needed to say it back then, not ten years later when people are critical of the cis-het white world she’d created. She rants about men immediately calling women names when they disagree with them, prides herself on blocking and unfollowing these men, but when called out about supporting the casting of a known abuser? She suddenly no longer cares about supporting another woman. One who was arguably, treated a little worse than just name calling. Her idea of feminism is clouded by her life experience, which would be fine if she took the time to listen to the people around her, from different backgrounds, and try to understand why they feel what she says and does is offensive, clumsy, and lazy. But when her opinion and her views challenged, she comes out swinging, blocking people, throwing around statements like “Dumbledore is gay!” or “Hermione is black!” as a clumsy attempt to appease the very people she does not give a shit about. The solution is laughably simple, all she would have to do is just listen to marginalised voices. Hear their stories and educate herself. And if she truly wanted to be a true intersectional feminist, she would do it. Understanding her privilege would cost her nothing. In fact, it would garner her more respect, something she’s lost a lot of in the last few years.

Just say you don’t care, JK, it’s more honest. Guilty, guilty, guilty.

By: Vee H

Sources:

Twitter

https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2016/09/08/jk-rowling-reveals-remus-lupins-werewolf-condition-metaphor-for-hiv/

https://www.jkrowling.com/opinions/grindelwald-casting/

https://ew.com/movies/2018/01/12/daniel-radcliffe-johnny-depp-fantastic-beasts/

#jk rowling #Harry Potter #Fantastic beasts #feminist review #feminist #Nagini #racism #white feminism #JK rowling's racism

31 notes · View notes

eldritchsurveys · 6 years ago

Text

230.

Do you like Florence + The Machine? >> Sure.

Did you know that Audrey Hepburn had a pet doe? >> I did not know that.

Would you like to have a pet doe? >> No.

Obama or Romney? >> Well, that’s dated.

Did you watch the presidential debates? >> I don’t watch presidential debates, period.

Did you get along with your past English professors? >> ---

Do you call them professors or teachers? >> I didn’t go to college, so I’ve only had teachers.

Have you ever met a professor that looked like Kevin Spacey? >> No.

Do you believe teachers teach because they can't do? >> I believe that might well be true in some cases, but it’s not universally applicable.

What does your warmest winter coat look like? >> It’s black, quilted, and has that aluminum-looking shit on the inside to retain body heat.

Are you opposed to wearing thick, fluffy coats? >> Very.

Do you ever watch Dr. Phil? >> No.

Does it bother you when people smoke (cigarettes) around you? >> It does now that I don’t smoke and have gotten a lot more sensitive to the smell.

Do you watch Sons of Anarchy? >> No.

Has an older sibling ever patronized you or talked to you like a parent? >> ---

What are/would you like to study at uni/college? >> ---

Did you see the movie Katy Perry: Part of Me? >> Never even heard of it.

Do you keep the 3D glasses after seeing 3D movies? >> No.

What's the most disappointing movie you've seen in theatre lately? >> I was disappointed in Avengers: Infinity War.

Have you seen Silent Hill 2: Revelations? (It's horrid) >> I have, but I hardly remember it. I guess it was just unremarkable to me (whereas I really enjoyed the first one).

Do you think it's silly for older kids (13+) to go trick-or-treating? I mean, isn't that kind of for little kids? >> I don’t think it’s silly. A house can choose not to give candy to older trick-or-treaters if that really matters to them, I guess. But I don’t think teenagers should be barred from going out at all.

Do you use sulfate-free shampoo and conditioner? >> If so, it wasn’t intentional.

Do you know anyone who is depressed? >> Just about everyone I know seems to have chronic depression.

Have you ever been attracted to a guy who sported a beard? >> Yes.

Are you typically unattracted to people outside of your race? >> No.

Have you had a Cantina Bell (bowl?) at Taco Bell? >> No.

Have you ever barrel-raced? >> No.

Have you ever ridden bareback on a horse? >> No.

Have you ever ridden any animal other than a horse? >> I’ve never ridden any animal, including a horse.

Do you pretend like no one's home when Girl Scouts come around? >> They don’t come around.

Were you a Girl Scout? >> Briefly.

Do you like Kashi foods? >> I’ve never had them.

What do you eat on your typical sandwich? >> Peanut butter, honey, ghee, and cinnamon. Which is why I don’t eat them often -- they’re one of the most decadent things I enjoy, lmao.

Have you ever been on birth control? >> I am.

Do you have any relatives behind bars? >> No.

Do you tweeze your eyebrows? >> No.

How many lip glosses/balms/sticks might you own? >> Like, two.

Do you ever feel like a marionette? >> No.

What are your religious views? >> I don’t have any religious views, really.

Have you ever ordered anything from ModCloth? >> No.

Do you like Urban Outfitters? >> Not especially.

Do you like forever21? >> I used to, but now I don’t.

What's the last thing you bought at a Target? >> Wine and Valentine’s Day candy.

Do you brush your hair when it's wet? >> I don’t brush my hair.

#surveys #survey #random survey

2 notes · View notes

therealkn · 6 years ago

Text

David’s Resolution - Day 8

Day 8 (January 8, 2019)

Seven (1995)

“If we catch John Doe and he turns out to be the devil, I mean if he’s Satan himself, that might live up to our expectations, but he’s not the devil. He’s just a man.”

[Yeah, I know, I could have watched this on Day 7. Didn’t realize it until it was too late. Whatever, not really that big a deal.]

David Fincher did not have the most auspicious start to his career as a filmmaker. His feature debut was 1992′s Alien 3, a movie that 20th Century Fox meddled in everywhere they could and as much as he could, and he ultimately disowned the film after they locked him out of the editing room. Alien 3 was like someone deliberately breaking a vase and then asking you to try and piece it all together, but then decide to do it themselves just because they can. The whole ordeal with the film made Fincher feel like he may not want to do another movie. But, thankfully, he was given a really good script, and he made this movie. And then he made The Game, Fight Club, Zodiac, The Social Network, and so on.

Seven (or Se7en if you want to be cool, but I am not cool) was the movie that showed people just what David Fincher could do if you let him do a movie without the studio fucking you over however they can. What you get is a taut police procedural that, no matter how many times you see it, even if you watch this movie for the first time knowing what happens, it still remains as suspenseful as if you were watching this movie blind.

The movie follows two detectives: the older, about-to-retire veteran William Somerset (Morgan Freeman) and the younger, hot-tempered and emotional David Mills (Brad Pitt). Mills has just been assigned to Somerset on what is to be the older detective’s last case, which is investigating the death of an extremely obese man who was apparently force-fed until his stomach burst. Then there’s another murder that first seems unrelated: a lawyer whose office has “GREED” written in blood on the wall. After Somerset does a bit more investigating in the obese man’s death, he finds the word “GLUTTONY” written behind a refrigerator, and he realizes that they’re dealing with a serial killer who’s basing his M.O. on the seven deadly sins. And there’s five more to go.

In previous reviews, like the Death Walks films, I said that it would be hard to talk about the story because I didn’t want to spoil it. Well, fuck that. By now, Seven has fallen into the “it was his sled” category of twists that aren’t twists anymore because of how well-known the twist is. Basically everyone knows that Kevin Spacey’s the killer, and it’s Brad Pitt’s wife’s head in the box, and if you didn’t know it by now, then you would’ve likely found out soon anyway. If you don’t believe me that it’s not a twist anymore, consider this: what’s the most famous scene in the movie? The one thing everyone remembers? It’s Brad Pitt going, “Ohh, what’s in the booox?”

This film is dark. From beginning to end, you know it’s going to be dark and brutal and will not end well. Somerset even lampshades this by saying, “This isn’t going to have a happy ending.” Some people might be turned off from the film because of its darkness, and I can understand that. The film has a bleak, brutal, somewhat depressing tone to it, and ultimately the protagonists are unable to stop the killer’s murders, which can make people wonder what the fucking point of the movie is. If you don’t like this movie because you feel it’s too dark, that’s perfectly fine.

But beyond that, what we have is a well-made thriller. The pacing of the film’s really fucking good, stringing us along at just the right speed so that things don’t feel like they’re being rushed or that the film is dragging its feet. The tone of the movie, while dark and brutal, is not excessively so, and even the more gruesome murders like Greed or Lust are ones we don’t really see much detail of. If this movie had been made a decade later, you can be damn sure we’d had long, detailed shots that don’t spare any of the gruesome details of the death. We’d have seen the mutilated body of the Lust victim, we’d have seen the killer mutilate the Pride victim, we’d definitely have seen the head of Mills’ wife. But by sparing us that, it leaves us to imagine the details in our mind, where they’re sure to be more fucked-up than what they actually would be on-screen. The film has a very disturbing atmosphere, but it doesn’t need to be gory or blood-soaked to be disturbing. It does so with the nature of the murders, the dreary environment, and the sense of discomfort as you enter the scenes of the crimes.

Adding to the atmosphere is the amazing score by Howard Shore, which is tense and nerve-racking and adds perfectly to the sense of unease that you feel watching this movie. Seriously, I’m on my fourth viewing (fun fact: David loves his audio commentary tracks and will listen to every one of them for his movies - in fact, I’m actually listening to one of this movie’s commentaries now) and it’s amazing how Shore’s music meshes with the film. It doesn’t feel like it’s overpowering or beating you over the head with what it’s trying to do.

And then you have the actors. Morgan Freeman and Brad Pitt make for a great team, and at first it seems like your standard “older world-weary veteran teamed with young hot-tempered rookie” thing that we’ve seen countless times. Their professional and personal relationship, however, doesn’t get built over time as it’s forged through fire, but as they understand each other more and more with each new murder that comes up. Gwyneth Paltrow, playing Brad Pitt’s wife, doesn’t get that much to do but does a great job with what she has. R. Lee Ermey plays the police chief, who is surprisingly calm and restrained instead of being... well, R. Lee Ermey. You’re having the guy who is most famous as the drill instructor on Full Metal Jacket playing a character type who’s often yelling, and that doesn’t really happen. It’s weird, but well-written. Also, gotta give props to Leland Orser as the man who was forced to kill the Lust victim and who is believably shocked and freaked out of his mind. That’s because he actually was freaking out: in a bit of method acting that would make Robert de Niro or Christian Bale proud, he stayed up for two nights straight before shooting the scene and, between takes, he would sit in a corner and hyperventilate to make himself as believably scared out of his mind as possible. All that effort for a small but fairly important role. I applaud you, Mr. Orser. Is there another serial killer movie from the 1990s that he’s in? I’d like to know. (Yes, I already know that one, and trust me, I will watch it this year.)

And then we come to the killer, John Doe, played by Kevin Spacey. It’s difficult to talk about Spacey without bringing up the sexual assault scandal surrounding him, so all I will say is that he is very good in this movie, and I appreciate that the promotional material for the film did everything it could to make who the killer was a secret. That’s all I’m saying on the subject.

...Actually, now that I’ve said “serial killer movie”, you know what’s really interesting? This movie isn’t really about the serial killer. It’s basically a police procedural that just happens to have a serial killer with an M.O., and that’s nothing new. Of course, the idea of “serial killer whose M.O. is thematic punishment for their victims” would later form one of the core aspects of Saw, which can provoke the “Seinfeld is unfunny” effect on modern audiences watching this movie for the first time. But that’s not this movie. This isn’t about a psychopath who goes around murdering people as “punishment” for their sins. This is about two detectives who are trying to stop that serial killer. The movie doesn’t cut away to John Doe killing victims or preparing for their crimes or even show their personal life. It keeps its focus on the detectives and their efforts to solve the crime.

When you think about it, a major theme of the movie is apathy. It’s everywhere: in people who don’t care about what weird shit they have in their suitcase when they hire a prostitute, in a detective whose years of service have made him use apathy as a shield to live from day to day, even in the film’s muted and dreary color palette. The two characters who are most against apathy are Mills and John Doe; the former calls out Somerset for his apathy and saying that he doesn’t really believe what he says, while the latter is incapable of being apathetic to the world and that is a driving force behind his murders. Hell, the apathy is high when John Doe walks into the police station to surrender, covered in the blood of his victims, something that would be noticed the moment he walked in if this were real life. It really makes you wonder.

If you’re fine with films that go into darker territory, then yeah, I do recommend this. It’s a first-rate thriller and the true start of David Fincher’s career.

Next time: A mind screw of a movie that Roger Ebert would approve of.

#David's resolution #Seven #Se7en

2 notes · View notes