#i hate roman polanski

[mountain-in-springtime]

i hope roman polanski has the worst day imaginable today ✌🏼

[escapingpurgatory]

awww, beautiful angel! (ignore the faggot)

Sharon Tate and Roman Polanski on their wedding day, 1968.

[darlingpoppet]

One of these days Liminal Spaces!Zag is gonna hear this song come up in the shuffle and he’s gonna get mad that there IS a vaporwave version of Thriller and if only he were quizzed on this song, he would’ve seemed really smart… but if he had, he wouldn’t have had the opportunity to fuq Achilles stupid, so, it;s impossible to say if its bad (dril voice)

[bioaccumulation]

They way we will never be truly free of boomers because old people will always just be like that

[jacquelinemerritt]

Horror Media Review: Rosemary’s Baby (1968)

Originally posted September 2nd, 2016

The corruption of domestic American life.

This review is part of a biweekly series of pieces on classic horror films. See them all here!

Rosemary’s Baby, Roman Polanski1 and Mia Farrow’s breakout film is a masterpiece of tense and subtle storytelling. Today, watching the film feels like going back to the source of inspiration for the “Satanic Panic,” and indeed, in 1968, when the film was released, four other films about Satanists and black magic were released, arguably helping to plant the cultural seed for the very real moral panic over Satanic Ritual Abuse in the 1980s.

Due to its status as a cultural landmark, the basics of the plot are well-known: Rosemary (Mia Farrow) and her husband Guy (John Cassavetes) move into a new apartment and become friends with an old couple that lived next door, Roman and Minnie Castavet (Sidney Blackmer and Ruth Gordon, respectively), who conspire with Guy to impregnate Rosemary with the son of Satan himself, leading to a painful pregnancy and the birth of a demonic child.

The reveal that Roman and Minnie are Satanists has not lost its potency, despite the ubiquity of this story, because it reveals a truth that speaks both to the culture of the time and the culture of today. The Castavets are not the only members of this Satanic cult; every tenant in the apartment besides Rosemary has joined in the worship of Satan, and the depravity of these members of the “Greatest Generation” is meant to reveal the depravity that is necessary for having a successful domestic life in America.

This full depravity is not arrived at all at once; the film is very deliberate in showing that this level of corruption is arrived at by making a series of individual moral compromises, and we see this in Guy’s character arc. A struggling actor, Guy is immediately turned onto the Castavet’s cult when Roman promises off-screen to ensure that Guy gets a significant part in a play, “the kind of role that people notice,” as Guy puts it.

When he gets the role, Guy starts to exert pressure on his wife in small ways, leading her to eat a drugged dessert that will ensure Rosemary is asleep while Satan impregnates her,2 discouraging her from throwing a party with only friends her age, and throwing away the last gift Rosemary received from a mutual friend, all because it led her to (rightfully) believe that the Castavets were practicing witchcraft.

Guy’s pressure on her is only the backdrop to Rosemary’s struggles, however; she is the true center of this story. The compromises Rosemary seems to make are much more obvious, but despite being pressured to limit her agency and be compliant to Guy and the Castavets’ desires, Rosemary takes every opportunity she can to act on her own beliefs, engaging in little acts of rebellion and expertly hiding those acts from those around her.

This is the part of the review where the obligatory rave over Mia Farrow’s performance has to occur, but it’s honestly impossible not to rave at just how brilliant she is in the role. She puts on an air of innocence that serves to hide an incredible strength, all of which is devoted to trying to be the best mother she can for her child. She projects the sense of someone who desires the fulfillment that can come with domestic life and motherhood as well as the knowledge and insight of someone who knows that the trappings of domesticity are ultimately very dangerous. Her knowledge of that danger is what eventually leads her to flee home and bring a knife into the Castavet’s apartment, angrily trying to confront the people she believes have stolen her child away for use in a magic ritual.

The staging of this final scene is particularly important to the message of the film. Rosemary sneaks into the Castavet’s home through closet that connects her apartment with theirs, and she finds all of her neighbors sitting and chatting together around a black cradle adorned with an upturned cross. She wields a kitchen knife against them, but ultimately none of them are scared of her but one woman, who reacts with a scream that finally draws the group’s attention to her.

At this point, Rosemary is damaged, and this is her attempt to lash out at the people surrounding her for the harm they have caused, but even now she cannot break their façade of peaceful domesticity. Her presence does lead Roman Castavet to preach about the son of Satan and lead the crowd in a brief chant hailing their dark lord, but they immediately return to the peaceful conversations they were having as if “Hail Satan” was an absolutely normal cry for people to make at a party.

Then the baby starts to cry. No one can calm him down, because no one in this group has the proper temperament to be a mother.

Except Rosemary.

So she makes her way over to the cradle, trying to talk the woman rocking the demonic child into rocking him more gently, as that might calm him down. The woman doesn’t listen to Rosemary, but Roman does, and he shoos the woman away, beckoning Rosemary to come and take care of “her son.”

And the child, this son of Satan with yellow demonic eyes who caused her immeasurable pain, the child is still her son.

So she rocks him. And he calms.

Because what kind of mother would sit there and do nothing while her son cries for attention?

Rating: 4.5/5

1Discussing the work of Roman Polanski without mentioning that he confessed to the statutory rape of a thirteen-year-old girl is immoral and reprehensible. That does not mean that Polanski’s history of rape must be the interpretive lens through which the film is viewed, and it certainly doesn’t degrade the value of Rosemary’s Baby as a piece of art. There is, of course, nothing wrong with choosing to avoid supporting the work of sexual predators on principle, and it would be remiss to criticize anyone who avoids seeing any of Polanski’s films on those grounds.

2There is a significant cultural difference that must be noted here, however. While it is made very clear that Satan rapes Rosemary in her sleep, both through the imagery used and Rosemary’s description of her “dream,” when Rosemary wakes up and finds scratches on her side, Guy explains them away by saying that he “didn’t want to miss baby night,” implying that he slept with her while she was unconscious. Rosemary is somewhat disturbed by this revelation, but she adjusts to it fairly quickly, allowing the rest of the film to somehow gloss over the fact that her husband admits to raping her as a defense for why her actual rapist left scratches on her. It is a very uncomfortable moment, but it unfortunately can be explained away by the sexual politics of the time, as marital rape was completely legal in the state of New York (where the film is set) until 1984.

Rosemary’s Baby can be streamed via Amazon Prime and Hulu Plus.

Critical Eye Criticism is the work of Jacqueline Merritt, a trans woman, filmmaker, and critic. You can support her continued film criticism addiction on Patreon.

[yezzyyae]

I know they say “wisdom comes with age” but come on there needs to be an age limit on jobs such as senators, judges, teachers, lawyers, social workers, or anything where other humans are in control of other human beings’ lives.

Watching this documentary called “Roman Polanski:Wanted & Desired” and the judge was 73 years old stuck in his way & was extremely inappropriate during that case. It is horrible how some older people refuses to step down & retire as the younger generation is coming of age. Judges age limit needs to be 70 yrs old. Once a person hit 70 years old they need to be forced to retired if they are not performing on a performance test. And judges should never let their personal belief come into the court room because the law is based on facts not emotions. That’s how the law has been turned upside down smh no emotions should be in the courtroom because the law is about facts. In the documentary they mentioned the prosecutor was a Mormon & I was like “why does that matter WHAT THE F*CK?”

No religion, no status, no emotions, no money, no other influences should be in the courtroom only facts. Hearing a sob story from the plaintiff or the defendant means nothing to be when I am hearing cases because I need to see facts. Not the “opinion of a psychologist or psychiatrist” because their so called “expert diagnosis” be just their opinion. But it needs to be an age limit I will die on this hill.

THERE NEED TO BE AN AGE LIMIT FOR ANY JOBS THAT WILL AFFECTED ANOTHER HUMAN BEING’S LIFE! 70 YEARS OLD & OLDER NEEDS TO BE EVALUATED AND TOLD THAT THEIR SERVICES WILL ALWAYS BE APPRECIATED BUT IT IS TIME TO RETIRE. SEEING JOE BIDEN & NANCY PELOSKI STILL IN GOVERNMENT JOBS MADE MY HEAD & STOMACH HURT I WAS NOT PROUD I WAS & I AM STILL HEAVILY DISGUSTED. SMH TO BE IN PUBLIC SERVICE FOR OVER 50 YEARS IS SELFISH & NARCISSISTIC. NANCY PELOSKI WAS THERE DOING WHAT FOR 50 YEARS SMH I DON’T UNDERSTAND GO RETIRE & MOVE.

THE WORLD IS LITERALLY FULL OF HUMANS UNDER THE AGE OF 45. BUT THE PEOPLE WHO ARE IN CONTROL OF THESE HUMANS ARE 80+. SOMETHING NOT ADDING UP SMH AND I HATE IT!

[yourscarofyesterday]

A lot of celebrities use art as an excuse for their depraved fantasies. That's why no one can say anything because apparently they did it for the sake of art

[hrrtshape]

hi Emma!! can you make a list of people to script out? lol

a comprehensive list of people to script out because they are objectively rancid:

(this is MY OPINION, and these people are HORRIBLE. i do not care for discourse. i am the jury, the judge, and the executioner of my own script. begone.)

johnny depp (we are not bringing 2013 tumblr back. pack it up.)

elon musk (i am scripting a reality where he does not exist and never has.)

j*ff bezos (ew)

andrew tate (i want my dr to have zero men who speak in soundbites from a joe rogan podcast.)

kanye west (no. next.)

chris brown (should’ve been wiped from public consciousness a decade ago.)

trump (not even a background character in my worldbuilding. gone.)

mark zuckerberg (if i see the metaverse in my dr, i’m burning it down.)

tucker carlson (i am scripting a dr where he never learned to read.)

any tiktok finance bro (no crypto, no ‘sigma male grindset,’ no pyramid schemes disguised as 'hustles.')

any man who starts a podcast with a brick wall background (automatic deletion.)

gal gadot (war criminal)

anyone who refers to women as ‘females’ (blocked, banned, removed from the simulation.)

any mediocre nepo baby trying to make ‘fetch’ happen (i am eliminating their acting careers at the source.)

whoever keeps giving sean penn a platform (who even asks for him anymore??)

whoever invented surge pricing on uber (i will find you.)

landlords. just, landlords.

jake paul and his ugly older brother (no.)

p*rnhub’s entire executive team (you know what you did.)

whoever decided to put ads on streaming services that already cost €15 a month (jail.)

jared leto (grown man. cult leader. dm’d underage girls like it was a hobby. gone.)

ezra miller (an international menace. every timeline is safer without them.)

armie hammer (cannibal allegations aside, why was he even famous? no.)

kevin spacey (never should have been a household name. goodbye.)

roman polanski (he's still alive? not in my dr.)

woody allen (should have been locked in a vault in 1979 and never let out.)

sean penn (why is he always involved in international conflicts? for what?)

mel gibson (we do not let blatant, recorded antisemitism slide. gone.)

chris pratt (not even the best chris. zero charisma. no.)

mark wahlberg (hate crime past. bad acting present. get out.)

miles teller (he just looks like a guy who ruins the vibe.)

vin diesel (refuses to let fast & furious die. enough.)

shia labeouf (unforgivable. no sympathy. let my girl mia out of your ugliness. gone.)

drake bell (convicted and still trying to make music? jail.)

dan schneider (he should have been removed from nickelodeon in the 90s.)

george clooney (irrelevant. flop. mocked on south park)

dream & co (i am eliminating every minecraft manchild from my dr. full reset.)

shane dawson (why did this man have a platform for 15+ years?)

again but andrew tate & his weird bald brother (expunged.)

keemstar (harbinger of all things nasty on the internet.)

jefree star (ugly. racist. something else)

p. diddy (whatever’s going on there is dark-sided. allegations on allegations. exile.)

nick cannon (he is building a small country with his offspring. make it stop.)

taylor swift’s entire ‘team’ (they keep letting her cook, and she should NOT be cooking this much.)

tyga (groomer. weirdo. we are not looking past it.)

pedro pascal (this is a test. if you reacted emotionally, you’re too far gone. no i'm joking. I'M JOKING)

christian horner (red bull f1 guy) (currently under investigation for weirdness. gone.)

cristiano ronaldo (his whole vibe is off. also, the case. you know the one.)

andrew tate (he gets listed thrice, for good measure.)

king charles (you waited how long to be king? pathetic.)

vladimir putin (the list is too long. gone.)

whoever keeps inviting logan paul back into mainstream relevance (why?)

every tech ceo who looks like they drink nutrient sludge instead of eating food (you are not evolved, you are sick.)

anyone who got famous just by reacting to tiktoks (do something else.)

guys who made a 'how to pick up girls' course (straight to hell.)

prince andrew (…do i even need to explain?)

ellen degeneres (mean, fake, expired.)

whoever keeps casting james corden in things (why do they exist?)

the entirety of the british monarchy (what are you even for?)

every influencer who scams their audience with fake ‘mentorships’ (shameful.)

james corden (listed again, because he keeps coming back.)

anyone who calls themselves a ‘high-value man’ unironically (tragic.)

whoever designed apple’s autocorrect system (i will find you.)

whoever keeps rebooting franchises instead of making original movies (enough.)

the facebook fact-checkers who flag satire posts as misinformation (get a job.)

people who still defend chris brown (you're in the trenches for a man who would leave you there.)

whoever greenlit ‘velma’ on hbo max (you have destroyed a generation.)

prince andrew (listed again for emphasis. we are not forgetting.)

if you shift and see even one of these people, run it back. that is not your dr. we do not tolerate pollution.

[whitegownsandflowercrowns]

I’m reading the lawsuit now. I’m not sure. How can I tell if it’s legit vs lies?

Genuine thanks for this question and not just immediately assuming that she's lying.

Look, at the end of the day, none of us were there. The only people that know what truly went down are the people that were on that set (which is true of any lawsuit), but here's what's really convincing me.

First things first, Baldoni hired Melissa Nathan back in August to run his public relations (and this article even mentions the allegations that he made Lively uncomfortable). Nathan worked for Johnny Depp during his defamation trial against Amber Heard, and it has been found that a technique called "astroturfing" was used against Heard on social media during this trial. Astroturfing is defined as "the deceptive practice of presenting an orchestrated marketing or public relations campaign in the guise of unsolicited comments from members of the public." Basically, artificially creating hate or hype for a public figure but making it seem organic. If you remember the Depp/Heard trial, you remember how much social media seemed to turn against her. If you remember this summer, you remember how much social media seemed to turn against Blake Lively. The fact that the same public relations team was on the other side of both alleged smear campaigns is a red flag.

Second, the text messages that have been released between Baldoni and the PR team are, in my opinion, incredibly damning. One member of the team, Jennifer Abel, texted Nathan "I think you guys need to be tough and show the strength of what you guys can do in these scenarios. He wants to feel like she can be buried." Nathan responded "Of course - but you know when we send over documents we can't send over the work we will or could do because that could get us in a lot of trouble. We can't write we will destroy her. Imagine if a document saying all the things that he wants ends up in the wrong hands. You know we can bury anyone." Right below are some screenshots from the New York Times article:

Later texts also involve praise for this article

Now, is it possible that all of these texts have been faked? Of course. But they are also lengthy (I did not include all of them here) and considering what I mentioned above, unlikely.

Thirdly, I'm just considering who has more to gain from this. I will admit my own bias here - I've never bought the idea that women by and large make allegations to become rich or famous or to gain sympathy. Amber Heard is probably still one of the most hated women on the planet. Name five of Bill Cosby's accusers off of the top of your head.

But what does each party have to gain? If Baldoni loses this case and is found in the public eye to have sexually harassed the women on the set of It Ends With Us, that's probably the end of his career. As far as I know, he doesn't have the industry goodwill that Roman Polanski or Woody Allen or even Johnny Depp do, and he will most likely start losing acting and directing roles. If he wins, and the public decides that Lively is lying, his career won't be destroyed. It will almost certainly have been set back, and there will always be people who'll look at him differently, but overall he should be fine. He may even gain a new fanbase.

If Lively loses this case and is found to have been lying, her career is tarnished forever. She will undoubtedly be known as the "next Amber Heard," and she will lose out on acting roles. The taint may even carry over to her husband. If she wins, and the public decides that Baldoni did in fact sexually harass women on set, she will probably be fine. Like Baldoni, there will always be people who'll believe that she was lying, but she'll be overall fine. However, it's important to note that she had a third option: to not pursue this at all. If she chooses not to pursue legal action against Baldoni, both of their careers remain unimpacted. While there would still have been a negative public perception of her, it probably would have blown over eventually. A lawsuit and possible trial is much more permanent in people's memories. So to me, the fact that she's choosing to pursue this knowing what the outcome of her losing would be speaks volumes.

Finally, the fact that her lawsuit states that other women on set were harassed and felt uncomfortable. Again, could be a lie, but that is a lie that is very easy to disprove. And if the women who worked on this set testify that they never felt uncomfortable, that will permanently damage her case. It just feels like too much of a risk to play with if you're lying.

Of course, don't just take my word for it - do your own research, seek out differing opinions, etc. but those are my views. I hope they helped in some way!

[alpaca-clouds]

How I became obsessed with Vampires

I wanna talk a bit about horror and horror related stuff this week. Because I adore horror, and generally I would argue that horror -especially paranormal horror - is easily my favorite genre. While in other genres there is some stuff I like more than any horror, horror is generally the genre where I like a whole lot of stuff. More than in any other.

And I kinda just want to talk about how it all started.

See, when I was a kid, I was literally afraid of my own fucking shadow. Like, I was so afraid of ghosts, aliens, cryptids and everything else. With one exception: vampires.

When I was still in kindergarten, I watched this late 80s German kids show: "The little Vampire". It is about this boy Anton, who befriends a vampire kid named Rüdiger (if you read my CV Styria stuff, yes, that is where Rüdiger got his name). And frankly, no, I cannot explain why I could look at pretty much everything else at the time and hide under my blanket, but I saw vampries and was like: "AWESOME!"

But yeah, back in the day I absolutely adored this show - and then basically went on to get my hands on as much vampire media as I was capable.

Most notable back then was probably the Musical Tanz der Vampire (Dance of the Vampires, based on Roman Polanski's "The Fearless Vampire Hunters" movie). Mind you, when that musical got started on German stages me and some of my friends were always raging, because we were basically shipping Alfred/Herbert and Sarah/von Krolock. Though back then I did not yet know fanfics were a thing you could write.

And of course, when I was like 5th grade (and very much too young for those books) one of the Anne Rice novels ended up in my hands. In the following months I learned a whole lot more about gayness than my very Catholic mother would have liked. *coughs*

At this time I also really got into anime/manga, which obviously involved quite a lot of other vampire media. Hellsing was a thing back then, but also my beloved Vampire Princess Miyu. Gods, I still love that manga to bits.

When I was around 13 or 14, the Urban Fantasy media came over to Germany as well - including a whole lot of vampires, of course.

And yes, when Twilight originally came out, I actually really enjoyed it. I mean, I have even today probably a more complicated opinion on Twilight than most (because I actually think there is some stuff in there that really, really works well).

And I adored Buffy, when it came out. (Less so today.)

Ironically, the only thing that I never got into - maybe because it came a bit too late for me - was Vampire Diaries.

But yeah. Vampires to me are very interesting. Because even while they were creatures associated with horror, to me they never really read as "horror". Mostly, because a lot of the vampire I enjoyed very much centered the viewpoint of the vampires in some regard. And vampires in those pieces of media were so often the "misunderstood souls" in some regards.

Now mind you, as a kid I really hated on Louis in Anne Rice's stuff, because I was like: "Dude, I wanna be a vampire, and all you do is whine about it?" But my view of Louis shifted a lot when I grew up and started to understand how miserable the life of a vampire would actually be.

A part of me is somewhat sad that there is not a whole lot of media out there, that really goes into vampires as actual monsters. Which is also something I am definitely gonna talk about later this week. While kid me would have probably been afraid of "vampires as monsters" as well - but they are so rare and have been rare for a long while.

But yes. Somehow, when I was a kid, I saw this one kid's show about a boy and his vampire bff, and it basically changed my brain chemistry forever xD

[adam-scott]

i just don’t understand my brain sometimes. i literally hate roman polanski and adrien brody is ugh and yesterday at 11pm i was like “what if i watched the pianist?” and i fucking did.

make it make sense

[wonderfulworldofmichaelford]

Is It Really That Bad?

The Island of Doctor Moreau by H. G. Wells is a story I’ve loved ever since I was a teenager. Let me put it this way: When I was reading the second volume of League of Extraordinary Gentlemen and he showed up to help put an end to the Martian invasion, I almost cheered because I was so happy to see him. It’s just a really good and unsettling story about a man playing God and the evils of British imperialism while also serving as the prototype of bio punk fiction and genetic engineering sci-fi horror despite releasing six decades before anyone even knew what DNA was.

Of course a story like that is going to be adapted many, many times, and before the one we’re talking about here there were six other film adaptations (one of which is a lost film). But none of those have even half of the infamy as the 1996 film, a movie that has one of the single most insane productions ever seen, one that inspired an entire documentary. If you thought the production woes of The Flash were something, well, you’re in for a ride here.

As production was about to begin, director Richard Stanley discovered New Line had zero faith in him directing a big-budget blockbuster and was replacing him with, of all people, Roman Polanski. Stanley, undeterred, did what any person in his situation would do: Consulted a British warlock to perform a blood magic ritual so that he could keep his job and make Marlon Brando vouch for him (and Brando already liked his vision, so this was really overkill here). The dark magic worked, and Stanley got his job back… but as history would show, the warlock seemed to have been using a monkey’s paw for this one.

Stanley stayed on a boat of exotic animals to ensure their safety when they got cauht in a hurricane, and ended up getting pissed on; the warlock was apparently irradiated and when in the hospital was discovered to be afflicted with flesh-eating bacteria; Stanley’s mother’s house was struck by lightning; a venomous spider bit an assistant; Bruce Willis dropped out because his divorce from Demi Moore prevented him from travelling, leading to Val Kilmer stepping in and acting like a prima donna douchebag and butting heads with Stanley and Brando to the point where all of his scenes from the first few days had to be thrown out and leading to him being recast in a smaller role; Rob Morrow replaced him, but the sheer hostility led to him leaving and being replaced by David Thewlis; and on top of it all, Brando didn’t even show up for the first few days due to being in an understandly deep depression due to his daughter Cheyenne’s suicide, which left Stanley high and dry and caught between pressure from Kilmer and New Line Cinema.

On the third day of filming, Stanley was fired. He destroyed all his notes and storyboards and fled to a jungle farm where he’d stay for two months; meanwhile, his sacking pissed off Fairuza Balk and she tried to walk, but she was convinced to stay on since leaving would mean she’d have her career ruined (because staying in a film like this is surely a good career move). Eventually, Stanley did make it back on set, being smuggled in by loyalists and put in a costume to hide his presence. Scenes with him as an extra are still in the film.

But who replaced Stanley, you may be wondering? Why, John Frankenheimer of course! The guy who made The Manchurian Candidate could pull something great off, surely! Taking advantage of New Line’s desperation to ask for a massive paycheck, he set out to work putting that arrogant prick Kilmer in his place; by all accounts, he hated the one-time Batman’s guts. Unfortunately, he was also apparently fairly harsh to the rest of the cast and crew, which on top of the script getting rewritten daily didn’t make things better. There is, of course, one notable exception to Frankenheimer’s ire: Marlon Brando. Whether it was out of respect or fear, Frankenheimer let the star walk all over him, caving in to almost every ludicrous demand the guy made, most infamously giving more screen time to Nelson de la Rosa AKA “The world’s smallest man,” whom Brando had befriended.

All the delays made things pretty frustrating for the extras playing the beast men, so they did what any reasonable person would do in such a situation: They drank, did drugs, fucked, and descended into all-around debauchery. Frankenheimer decided to replace these hedonistic party animals with random hippies, a group well known for not indulging in drugs or sex. The grueling six months spent shooting it were some of the most miserable of those involved’s lives, to the point Thewlis skipped the premier and has never bothered to see the film and Kilmer and Brando both had very few nice things to say about it. But I mean, there’s a happy ending here, right?

Look, I know you can read if you’re this far in. You saw the title of the review. This thing fucking bombed, and hard. Stanley’s career was obliterated, doing only documentaries for 25 years until he returned with an adaptation of Lovecraft’s Color Out of Space… a comeback which lasted for just that one single movie since he was accused of domestic violence (what else can you expect from a South African). Brando’s career wasn’t doing well at the time to begin with, but between this flopping and him being an egotistical bastard, he was relegated to supporting roles for the rest of his life. Kilmer, after somehow becoming an A-lister based on his wooden performance in Batman Forever, got dealt quite a blow due to the same reasons as Brando; being an unpleasant prick is bad enough when you’re talented, but when you suck like Kilmer does, it’s really bad. And of course Fairuza Balk’s leading lady days were all but over thanks to this film, ironically enough considering she was told getting out would’ve ruined her. Only Thewlis really got away here, at least out of the main cast; Ron Perlman and Temuera Morrison are minor characters here but they’re more supporting actors to begin with, so their careers have stayed about as good as ever in spite of this.

All of this is only the cliff notes version. By all accounts, the production was an insane nightmare that left nothing but misery and suffering in its wake. But, like, come on. Who judges the quality of a film by its production? Is this movie so inexorably cursed that there is nothing of value to praise even with the rocky production woes that birthed it? Is the movie really as bad as the behind-the-scenes drama implies, or is this a hidden gem unfairly overlooked by critics?

THE GOOD

Given the circumstances, it’s genuinely amazing we got the performances we did out of most of the actors. Thewlis in particular is approaching his role with the utmost seriousness, all the more impressive with how ashamed he was of the finished product that he actively avoided it. Him and Balk, acting out a clunky romance that the script doesn’t go far enough to sell, manage to make some gold out of the lesser material they’re given and salvage their scenes by performing as if they’re in something five times better than what was made.

And then there’s the supporting roles. Temuera Morrison is a lot of fun as a gnarly dog man, and while he’s not the most subtsantial of characters it is nice seeing him. But the best supporting role is Ron Perlman, who beneath the fantastic beast man makeup is giving the sort of performance you’d want in a literary adaptation like this.

And then, of course, we have Brando. Now he’s clearly half-assing it a lot of the time, but half of Brando’s ass is still fifty percent of the butt of one of the greatest actors of all time. He manages to lend a sort of weird, detached madness to the titular Moreau that mostly works, with his bizarre antics and character quirks easily chalked up to the not-so-good doctor’s descent into madness. Plus he plays piano while his dwarf buddy plays a smaller piano on top, which is such a bizarre image that it ends up being ridiculously charming.

And then you have Stan Winston’s beast man make-up. Did you think the guy who did effects and make-up for The Terminator, The Wiz, The Thing, Aliens, Predator, Pumpkinhead, Jurassic Park, Edward Scissorhands, and Batman Returns was going to fuck around here? If nothing else nice can be said about this movie, it’s that Baker knocked it out of the park convincingly crafting the horrifying hybrids for the silver screen.

THE BAD

So, uh… That troubled production really colors one’s perception of this film. Every scene, especially ones that contain Brando and Kilmer, have this looming knowledge that they made sure everyone involved suffered to the max with their antics. It’s even worse when Brando’s little friend is around, because he was apparently a dick too! It’s hard watching him interact with Thewlis knowing he punched the poor guy in the balls.

And normally behind-the-scenes drama is just that, stuff in the background that doesn’t seep into the film. But this movie is basically only known for its drama; I only discovered it because of said drama, not because of its nature as an adaptation of a story I love. I heard of Brando’s dickery before anything else, and then the nightmares just kept pouring in from there. And all the production woes truly seep in to every single scene even if unintentionally. I can’t not think about it while watching it, especially because the sloppy script isn’t doing much to distract from the nagging reminders that everyone on this movie went through Hell only to deliver first draft lines.

Oh, and all else aside, fuck Val Kilmer. I fucking hate that asshole, he sucks.

IS IT REALLY THAT BAD?

This movie is not bad. But at the same time, I hesitate to call it “good” either.

It genuinely is hard to watch this knowing everything that happened during creating it and not feeling some sort of palpable darkness looming over the film. But at the same time, while this does leave a sort of uneasiness, it also makes the film endlessly fascinating in ways the filmmakers definitely did not intend. I don’t really think it’s “so bad it’s good,” because there really is a lot that genuinely works here. But on the other hand, I don’t know if I could say it’s a film that’s “not good but it’s good” because even the things about the film that do work aren’t free from the stench of the bad. Like, the good performances are technically good, but there’s still something off about them. Brando is Brando, but you can’t watch him without thinking about what a nightmare he was. It’s such a baffling movie.

What I will say is this is an interesting movie. In fact, it might be one of the most fascinating films ever made. The weird, off-putting air the trouble production lends it manages to make it so much more interesting than it would be otherwise, adding a metatextual intrigue to the proceedings. Would the weird shriveled dwarf be as interesting without the background that Brando forced him into having a big role? Would Thewlis and Balk’s half-baked romance arc be nearly as watchable if we didn’t know the horror they had to go through to get it on the screen? Would the great performances of actors like Perlman, Thewlis, and Balk actually be as great if this movie was good, or are they good because they are valiantly scooping buckets of water out of a rapidly sinking ship?

I think there are way worse things you could be watching than this. I will say you should only check this out if you’re into the subject matter or just like watching fascinating cinematic misfires, because this is not a film I’d be keen on recommending otherwise. It is a strange, messy movie but it’s also a piece of film history. If nothing else, it gave Trey Parker and Matt Stone something to make fun of in the early days of South Park. That’s gotta be worth something.

[fallenangelontheceiling]

I hate Roman Polanski

[marta-bee]

I've been fixating a bit on Good Omens, specifically on Neil Gaiman being accused of sexual assault and the petition to get Amazon to fire Neil as writer of Good Omens S3.

What I've read about Neil Gaiman assaulting those women seems credible to me. I mean, I try to believe women who say they're assaulted generally and give wide berth for the sometimes odd ways trauma can keep them from coming forward as soon as I'd like, or giving clean accounts of their assault. But I was busy, I hadn't read the reporting, and I also liked Gaiman's writing and felt like I knew him (of a sort) because of years of following his Tumblr feed. Now I've done the reading, and at least based on the evidence available... I believe them.

Which raises a very uncomfortable question. I like the Good Omens novel, and the show, and I do want to see what happens. I enjoy the fanworks even more, but the originals also has a special place in my heart.

A lot of discussion around the petition starts with the (strange to me) idea that no one owns art once it's shared publicly. I do think we all own our experience of the story, and if the creator meant us to experience it a certain way, it's their responsibility to lead us down that road. Probably it's impossible to create that experience in the same way for all readers or viewers, because humans are messy and we bring all sorts of glasses, rose-tinted or otherwise, to everything we read. (I'm thinking of that line from the Lord of the Rings introduction: "It is perhaps not possible in a long tale to please everybody at all points, nor to displease everybody at the same points; for I find from the letters that I have received that the passages or chapters that are to some a blemish are all by others specially approved.") So yes, people are going to experience fiction from their own vantage-point, and our own experience of a story is our own. I'm really not very interested in interviews or other secondary statements about what an author meant. I mean, if JKR wanted Dumbledore to be gay she should have written him that way, etc., etc.

Even so! The story as it is (not as it's experienced, which can be quite different) really is the work of the people doing the telling. We all have the right to our own perception, the story that lives rent-free in our head.

But to say the person who fashioned the story doesn't in some sense own it -- legally or ethically -- just feels odd to me. I suppose Amazon would be within their rights to fire Gaiman. Maybe they'd even legally be allowed to not film the third season. But to say he's just one writer among many, and that we're entitled to the show without the brain that (co-)birthed it? That doesn't feel accurate and I don't think I can get on board with it. It actually seems extremely presumptuous and entitled to me. I'm imagining if someone objected to something they found out about me and decided to just rewrite one of my fanfics. That would feel invasive af, and I can't imagine anything I could do that would give them that right.

What are the other options? Well, the obvious one is the JK Rowlings approach: she created the story, it's hers, and it's precisely because she's so hateful now we shouldn't engage with it. Applying this to Gaiman, maybe we say we can't watch or reread it, maybe we push Amazon not to release it or other companies not to develop his stories into shows. Morally that makes more sense, though it feels like a shame because Good Omens pokes fun at religion's foibles in a way I know a lot of people found very helpful. It also seems like good queer representation, and it's also just plain fun. I'd hate for us all to lose that.

Personally, I've gotten quite good over the years at enjoying good stories told by bad people. I still watch my DVD's of Oliver Twist and The Pianist, even knowing what Roman Polanski did. The Cosby Show still makes me laugh. Etc. It helps those are things I already own so I'm not giving those people I object to more money. Not sure what I'd do about Good Omens S3; probably I'd pirate it or wait for DVD's I could get through my library, because there's not another season we need to get greenlit and I'd rather avoid giving him more money if I can help it. But I don't feel some moral imperative to shun meaningful, enjoyable art because someone involved with it did something wrong. Certainly not the other art people have made around it, including fanworks.

I can respect people who come down on the other side and say, nope, Good Omens = Neil Gaiman so I'm no longer going to touch it. This idea that we can somehow cut Gaiman out of this story and somehow enjoy it without worry just doesn't sit right with me.

(I can 100% understand people who can't read the book or watch the show without thinking of him, to the point it's no longer enjoyable. I tend to get engrossed in what I watch to the point I'm not thinking of the RL people behind it, so that's less of a problem for me personally; but that's my personal quirk. And thank goodness for that- I studied philosophy, and there are lots of "interesting" biographies going on there...)

[lovemishjen]

Hi, I'm not a troll or a hater trying to get a reaction from you. I just want to know your opinion on Misha hate and if there's any truth to what the anti's are saying and that is Misha a bad person. Cuz my whole for you on Tumblr and Twitter is just filled with hate towards him and some have some okay points. You seem to be the only person in this Fandom who gives actual answers instead of just what fits your ship or highlights your fav.

I believe that anyone who says Celebrity X is so amazing and perfect, and God's gift to mankind, OR Celebrity Y is so evil, disgusting and horrible are both delusional. Why? Because we see a very carefully curated image of celebs, especially actors, through conventions and social media.

Now if I say i hate a well-known person, say Harvey Weinstein or Roman Polanski, who have been convicted of rape or such crimes, it is understandable. Or if I hate a colleague/neighbor for personal reasons, like they were rude to me or flirted with my partner or spread lies against me, again it is understandable.

The people who are anti-Misha, or anti-Jensen or any other actor, imagine having an entire blog on being malicious about someone you dislike.. that's such bad vibes, and they are spreading it around themselves.

Now take J2M for instance, I follow Misha and Jensen a lot more than Jared, (though I haven't been really active since the show ended) and the reason is I find Misha witty and Jensen charming. Does that mean they're perfect... absolutely not. I am sure their partners, kids, parents see the other side - when they are angry, when they're depressed, when they are irritable. Same way, just because I don't relate as much to Jared (I find him a tad immature, and I don't see much of depth in his answers at cons) doesn't mean he has no redeeming qualities. I am sure his friends and family adore him.

I am not that involved in the fandom that i should convince you that Misha is great or amazing. If you find the antis convincing, that's your choice. I generally block such blogs, so I am not sure what they're telling about him.

Misha used to be a lot more sarcastic and spontaneous in the early years, but he has mellowed down, and has become very cautious because he got attacked by antis several times. That tells me he is a sensitive person. Also, he has a very good equation with his kids, his mom, brother, and seems to be well-liked by Jensen, Jared, Danneel, Gen, Rob, Richard, Ruth, Mark and most of cast and crew, unlike say Pellegrino, who doesn't seem that popular among the cast. When Misha was asked to leave in end of season 6, the entire cast, especially Jensen seemed very upset with Sera Gamble at that Comic Con. But this is my observation as an outsider.

And I genuinely feel that anti-blogs say less about the celeb and more about the person running it. It's projection, big time. I mean if you are happy with yourself and your life, would you spend all that time and energy bad-mouthing a stranger?

Edited to add - You should also understand 'winc*st' was the only major spn ship from 2005 to 2008. When Misha joined the cast, and the sudden popularity of destiel skyrocketed, there was a lot of resistance from the og shippers, which translated to Misha hate.

[daenystheedreamer]

Bjork swan dress vs the homophobia kimono?

swan dress 100% it NEEDS defenders like the kimono racism thing is like actually something to discuss but the 2000s media hated two things. Fat people and bjork. and as a fatty i HAVE to defend my sister. they were calling her a freak over the SWAN DRESS like it wasnt even a real taxidermied swan. bitching about a funny dress at the oscars meanwhile next year that pedophile pos roman polanski is winning best picture and also 9/11 is about the happen like maybe go check up on those flight schools instead of pissing and crying about bjork @ Joan Rivers. Bitch.