#i'm saying this in the Scorcese way

[ravenovni]

Hot take: battle shounen is literally marvel for weebs

[im-getting-help]

The way people reacted to Saltburn reminded me of a tiktok trend or "challenge" in which you had to watch the opening scene of Nocturnal Animals (2016).

(I'm not going to spoil the movie, go watch it is beautiful.)

It reminded me because the movie is so interesting and enthralling but it was played for jokes. No one was watching the movie, they felt "disgusted and uncomfortable" even though they didn't even tried to watch it.

The commentary of Saltburn was so similar, it really upset me. It was like people were saying "yeah, we watched it this time, it's still too gross".

Nocturnal Animals explores the tense relationship between the protagonists in a very gruesome and violent way. Those choices are not made for shock value, they tell a story. The same way Saltburn showed desire and obsession and in my opinion the perfect representation of unchecked limerence with the bathtub and cemetery scenes.

I have no doubt that in a few years they will be a new tiktok (or new platform) challenge that dares you to record your reaction of the cemetary scene with no context. And it makes me so sad.

It makes me sad not only because of the unappreciation of such amazing movies, but because I feel we are teaching teenagers to not have media literacy. I honestly feel like we're allowing people to just watch movies like they're cocomelon. And I think is dangerous for cinema.

Martin Scorcese shared in a few interviews how he feel that the popular movies are not really cinema, that they fail to convey real emotion and they don't take risks. I think he's right, he makes a direct reference to the MCU but to me he's describing at least 70% of the movies that comes out in a year.

Everything is simple, easy to understand, overly explained. A cast full of well known actors and a beautiful score, or a passable one, and you have a movie. You don't need a new story to tell, not really, you can just reuse an old one. Make a retelling, a remake, a live-action adaptation, a secuel or a prequel with lots of CGI. You got a movie, congrats.

To me the new movies are always disappointing, they're a way to kill time but never a moment to appreciate art.

And this is why the criticism of Saltburn frustrates and saddens me so much. Cause is not a perfect movie (well, to me it is), but is so SO much more than what we're served on a daily basis. It's rich and complex and beautiful to watch. The score is fun and playful and at times heartbreaking and breathtaking. The actors are just incredibly talented and well directed. The clothing and makeup is just a wonder to watch, going from the cringe of 2006 teenage fashion to the opulent gowns and suits. So much of this movie is a pleasure to observe, to discover.

It breaks my heart to think that the future of cinema is... white noise, filler, the equivalent to eating a sandwich instead of cooking a meal cause you're too tired to do more. So much so that when you're presented with a home cooked meal you're unable to enjoy the taste, too accustomed to simplicity.

[iwanthermidnightz]

Ahhh did you see the new rolling stone gaylor article ?? I'm so impressed.

When Taylor Swift released the long-awaited rerecording of her genre-leaping album 1989, fans eagerly pored over vault tracks, theories of double albums, and limited edition vinyl releases that could predict Swift’s next re-record. But for Gaylors, a dedicated Swift fanbase that’s existed for over a decade, Swift’s prologue and a mention of her feelings surrounding speculation about her love life have dampened what should have been an exciting release.

Thinking about the 24-year-old she was when 1989 was released, Swift writes, “I swore off dating and decided to only focus on myself, my music, my growth, and my female friendships. If I only hung out with my female friends, people couldn’t sensationalize or sexualize that — right? I would learn later on that people could and people would.” Many users online interpreted that line as a subtle callout to Gaylors, supporters of the niche theory that Swift is queer or leaves queer messaging in her songs. But several members of the Gaylor community tell Rolling Stone they’re actually not convinced the callout is about them — and are receiving targeted and homophobic harassment in the process.

For those not extremely online, Gaylor is an unproven theory that Swift is queer and leaves messages alluding to past relationships in her work, a fan theory that originated on the blogging site Tumblr in the mid-2010s. It is also the fan name for groups of people who believe there are queer interpretations of Swift’s songs. (While Swift has been a vocal ally and advocate for LGBTQ+ rights and representation, she has never publicly commented on Gaylor and has only been in public relationships with men.) Gabriela, a 27-year-old Gaylor, tells Rolling Stone she doesn’t believe Swift’s prologue is about the Gaylor fandom specifically, but she’s frustrated at the use of the word ‘sexualize,” which she says has long been co-opted by fans who think Gaylor is harmful or inherently rude.

“I think it’s a call-out yes, but more to the media at large, rather than just about the Gaylor subset of her fandom, which is only a small piece of her complaint. [Swift] doesn’t want to be assumed to be in a sexual, romantic relationship with anyone she is seen next to,” Gabriela says. “Hetlors [those who object to the Gaylor discourse] are cherry-picking to make it about her ‘shutting down gay rumors.��”

As an internationally beloved artist — one capable of selling more movie tickets than Martin Scorcese and convincing an entire fandom to rebuy her music her way — Swift professes an unusually close relationship with her followers. The lyricist often hides clues in her work and visuals, encouraging fans to decipher what coded messages and hints she’s leaving behind. But Swift has also verbalized how upset slut-shaming and assumptions about her love life make her. Anna, a 23-year-old Gaylor who uses they/them pronouns, agrees that the prologue wasn’t about Gaylor specifically but says they do think all Swift fans online could operate with more boundaries.

“Of course, I’m a little annoyed that people are pulling one or two lines of the prologue out of context and using it as a justification to be homophobic and send death threats to my friends, but I don’t think Taylor is at fault for people misconstruing her words and I think she has every right to call out things that make her uncomfortable,” Anna tells Rolling Stone. “’Shipping’ culture across the fandom seems to have gotten really ugly recently on all accounts. I’ve seen people speculate on her sex life, openly and graphically, track her location, insinuate that she wants/has children and just overall cross a lot of boundaries. It may be unpopular for me to say it, but I do think members on all sides needed to be put in their place a little bit.”

All of the Gaylor fans who spoke to Rolling Stone expressed that beyond the prologue, much of the reaction to them as a group has stemmed from a lack of understanding about why the fandom exists and has lasted for almost a decade. Liv, 26, says that the Gaylor community has been a large part of her life — it’s even how she met her current boyfriend. And she tells Rolling Stone the identity has allowed her to have a deeper understanding of Swift’s lyrics.

“It’s always fun for me to think about what inspired a song. So even if it’s not what happened in Taylor’s life, it’s interesting for me to think about a song through a queer lens, because I feel like it adds a lot of layers that a song about a guy might not have,” Liv says. “And I don’t really know any straight people who are that deeply obsessed with Emily Dickinson.”

The X account @gaylornews has over 12,000 followers. The admin behind the account declined to include her name but tells Rolling Stone Gaylor isn’t just a fun internet conspiracy theory, but means a lot to the community.

“Analyzing her lyrics through a queer perspective is more about defying heteronormative narratives and finding representation and not about invading Taylor’s privacy or sensationalizing her personal life,” the account owner says. “Gaylor is about queer people finding a safe space which straight people not only find but already have everywhere, is about all the things you never learned about yourself, is about feeling seen and genuinely understood.”

Regardless of what people think the prologue is about, Gaylors are worried about one thing: targeted harassment from more mainstream fans of Swift. In an April 2023 report from social media tracking firm Graphika, researchers found that Gaylors made up nine percent of active Swift fans on social media, but are often exiled and isolated from neutral fan spaces. The study also found that anti-Gaylor accounts, also referred to as Hetlors, “play a key role” in how the theory is presented to mainstream audiences and often misrepresent commonly held Gaylor beliefs, which can lead to the harassment and doxxing of neutral Gaylor accounts. Each of the Gaylors who spoke to Rolling Stone detailed targeted harassment, hate speech, and homophobia they’ve received online, something they all believe Swift would stand against.

“I think that people who are against Gaylors think we’re way more serious about it than we are. A lot of the things we say are jokes or ideas or possible theories,” Liv says. “And at the end of the day, none of us know what the truth is about her personal relationships. And we shouldn’t want to because [Taylor Swift] is entitled to her privacy.”

(link)

[canmom]

hi cuba i'm dad

I watched I Am Cuba, whose not-so-recent restoration was playing at the GFT. insanely well shot film, like the level of choreography to pull off those long takes and supercomplicated crane shots with no steadicams or anything is just mind bending. absolutely wild that the soviets didn't say "wow we have a banger on our hands here comrades" and play it everywhere - as a propaganda film, it did its job! definitely leaves you fired up to fight the Cuban revolution.

it is certainly a very didactic film, with the lesson of each vignette being pretty clear. but it is able to lend enough depth to the archetypal characters - the struggling sex worker from a slum who has to hide her relationship serving american visitors at a jazz club, the salt of the earth sugarcane farmer whose land is sold out from under him, the student revolutionary who hesitates to pull the trigger, the other farmer who only wants peace - to get you really engaged, though definitely the revolutionary characters (probably closest to the experience of the filmmakers) feel like they're the most fleshed out.

the third act, in which a revolutionary student plans to assassinate a regime cop (unnamed) but hestitates when he sees the man with his family, only to see that same cop murder first his friend and them himself, is maybe the most spectacular, with huge scenes of rioters getting blasted with water cannons, or the incredible funeral shot...

but it's not just these flashy huge shots; it's a gorgeously lit greyscale film (absolutely crazy detailed looking with the 4k scan, so cheers for that one Scorcese), ingeniously augmented by infrared photography in places to make it extra stark. more than that and so many shots have really elaborate blocking and camerawork, with the camera drifting from actor to actor, effortlessly sliding between closeup and longshot like it's in the hands of Ichirō Itano, which is wild for live action.

one relatively simple scene towards the end I noticed had a revolutionary arriving at a farmer's house and sitting down for the meal; the men argue, and the farmer goes to stand at the door, allowing the camera to perfectly frame the two of them and almost nothing else in the shot.

it is otherwise very happy to linger on a musical sequence, such as the intense club scenes at the beginning, in a way that feels way more modern than you'd think for the 60s.

the architecture of revolution-era Cuba is just as striking - some buildings, like the rooftop where Enrique tries to line up his shot, look like they could easily be modern buildings. compared to the romantic picture of something like Chico and Rita, of course, this is a film determined to remind you how bad things are, not just show you the touristy bits of Cuba. much of the film revolves around the question of violence - certainly from an agitprop angle, like act 3 is sorta should you hesitate (no), and act 4 is like will you be OK if you keep your head down (no); many of the revolutionary songs are in major part about how it's good and righteous die for the country.

when first shown, it was criticised in Havana for stereotypical depictions of Cubans - which doesn't entirely seem unfair, they are kind of stock characters for the most part, although portrayed with a lot of humanity. in the Soviet Union, meanwhile, it got criticised for not being propaganda-y enough, which is wild because to my mind it works better at getting its emotional message across than most oldschool propaganda films I've seen. that said, I definitely need to watch more critical Cuban films from the same period like Memories of Underdevelopment, or recent ones like Strawberry and Chocolate, for some contrast.

all in all cool film, big shoutout to @hamiltonianflow for suggesting we watch it together <3

[goshen-applecrumbledore]

Hey, I'm a big fan of your writing, I was wondering what your favorite books are/which authors inspire you?

I love getting this question LET'S GOOOOOO

PATRICK ROTHFUSS

I'm hugely inspired by his writing (name of the wind, the wise man's fear) in terms of it being super engaging worldbuilding, but I imagine you're specifically asking about writing STYLE, and he also holds up for that. to quote brandon sanderson's praise on the back of wise man's fear:

"Masterful prose, a sense of cohesion to the storytelling, a wonderful sense of pacing... There is a beauty to Pat's writing that defies description."

my goal with my writing is to keep it tight, keep it moving, but also to get at some deep crunchy emotions, and rothfuss is a real north star for that. gorgeous prose and everything is exactly where and when it needs to be. when I'm reading one of his books I have to constantly stop to jot something down for my own work because it jogs so many thoughts

AMERICAN PSYCHO, BRET EASTON ELLIS

This is the only book of his I've read so far, so I'm calling it out specifically. what a FUCKING masterclass in knowing the rules so you can break them. the fucking dialogue and characterization is bar none, I was HOWLING laughing (it's much funnier than the movie). his prose flows so strangely and perfectly around, it's super dialogue heavy how I like, and people talk like people while also being insanely absurd and funny. it's unparalleled in those micro-level interactions I love to write

URSULA LE GUIN

The fuckin woman herself!!! there's nothing to say about her work that most people don't already know, but the thing that is so powerful to me is that she has a way of describing the most mundane details that makes me just pause and be so grateful to be alive. aside from the content of her work, which is world class storytelling and also some truly gutting stuff, there's just this evocative nature to it. just like.. wow I am literally sitting on a sunny hillside in the long grass, tired and dirty from work but very alive. drinking some cold water and eating some crusty bread.... it's incredible.

BONUS: MOVIES

I am so inspired by movies!! movies are essentially novel length and I get a lot of storytelling inspiration from movies. here are some that I love for narrative reasons

After Hours (Scorcese)

One of my favourite "guy has the worst night of his life" movies. an excellent example of how much good shit you can stuff into a single evening in a character's life, with threads connecting it all.

Daddy Longlegs (Safdie bros)

An all timer. A perfect example of writing a protagonist who's a dirtbag, and of making your audience SO fucking uncomfortable. Any narrative that gets at that level of discomfort is fucking incredible, it's such a specific thing

Thunder Road (Jim Cummings)

Just an incredible characterization of a protag. Immediately gets you into his head. Incredible portrayal of anger issues and addiction, and a stellar example of combining humour and deep crushing sadness, failure, patheticness etc in a way I find massively inspiring

THANKS FOR ASKING, THIS WAS FUN

[friendofthecrows]

Had the most terrifying but in hindsight hilarious dream. So we were in Naples, filming the Goncharov remake, and somehow someone must have managed to arrange a meeting with Martin Scorsese because he shows up with a couple other people in tow.

And keep in mind in this dream we're like. on location. in Naples. and I had no prior warning whatsoever bc I guess someone else arranged it without talking to me. So either he traveled pretty far or he just happened to be in the area but like this is THEE guy and I am NOT prepared but I have to act like I am, and he's talking to me like I'm a professional filmmaker who Knows What I'm Doing when in actuality I'm just like a business and project management person who's been researching film stuff as I go and Char, our film director, is actively out with most of the crew filming a Katya and Sofia scene (I think it was boathouse?) so at this point, I'm already trying to suppress fight and flight.

Scorsese says he has some questions to ask, obviously trying to gauge whether this project is something worth getting involved in/supporting or if we're completely wasting his time. I offer to show him around while we talk, which he says sounds great. So we're walking around the grounds of the place we rented to be Mario's mansion, which also doubles as where everyone is staying so we don't have to separately pay for hotel rooms or equivalent, and while most of the crew is out along with the actresses playing Katya and Sofia, the other actors are here, which is important, because the actor for Goncharov insists on only sleeping outside, and just as Scorsese asks "Why do you think you're the right person to lead this production," we round a corner and I see Goncharov asleep like face down in the grass, still in the overcoat and everything. And I know he just sleeps like that, but Scorsese doesn't, and I'm worried (irrational dream logic) that Scorsese thinks he passed out while filming or something and that we're running a horrible sloppy production and overworking everyone and not paying attention to the actors' and crew's needs or that we didn't arrange space and are making actors sleep outside or worse that Gonch is DEAD, but Scorcese just steps over Gonch like it's no big deal and is like "well?" waiting for my reply. And I remember the question and am internally like "fuck, I DON'T think there's any particular reason(s) I'm the best person for this, I have no idea what to say." So I kind of bullshit an answer and definitely ramble a bit too long on it trying to justify, which is objectively not the best way to handle a question you don't know how to answer. Scorsese asks some more really difficult questions and I answer the best I can and he seems to receive the answers in a sort of lukewarm way like he's not particularly impressed.

Then it's dinner, and we've gotten Subway (i know) and the people who left to film earlier are back and eating with us, etc. Scorsese pulls out several small decks of cards, and hands one to each person at our table (about 7 of us). He explains that in his free time, he made a little card game based on Goncharov. The cards have a character card and then some others that cover have effects, items, and things like that. He's explaining to the others how to play, but all the stuff he's saying clearly does not line up with what's on my cards. I ask, and he goes "oh that's Magic The Gathering." This raises two issues. 1. I don't know how to play Magic The Gathering, never mind on my own like solitaire or with people who are playing an entirely different game. 2. These are clearly not Magic The Gathering cards. I admit that I don't know how to play Magic The Gathering. He seems kind of disappointed and then says that he's very busy and should head home as soon as dinner is over. I interpret this as me completely blowing it due to not knowing how to play Magic The Gathering, but I don't say anything about it, I just thank him for his time. BUT THEN he says he's available to meet again on Thursday at 2pm.

The dream immediately transitions to Thursday at 2pm and I'm in his office, presumably in America, which in hindsight I have no idea how I got from Italy to there but in the dream, this was Completely Normal. It's quiet and he has another set of the game from last time sort of discarded on a table, and while I'm trying to anticipate what he's going to ask and what to say I'm mostly staring at it thinking "what the fuck was I supposed to do with that." And all the sudden Scorsese breaks the silence by saying, "I have some advice for you. Have you ever studied martial arts?"

And then I woke up.

[zombieeparty]

Me again.

Just curious.

What would you say the main inspirations are behind your OCs?

I can’t recall if I told you about mine (Leon Vartanian. Star Wars OC. Bisexual autistic ballet dancing space lion and ex-fugitive). The main inspirations I had for him stemmed from a need for Star Wars to have more non human protagonists, hence why I made him.

I don't think you did! That sounds like a pretty neat oc XD

As for the main question, you've just opened the Pandora's box of asking me about my fictional guys...

For my ocs, I think the main thing that inspires them, both in terms of look, tone and story, are just all of the things I love. Movies (especially the works of Martin Scorcese!), traditionally animated films, fashion and music of the 1960s-80s, and anthropomorphic animals.

That's probably (definitely) the reason I love drawing them so much, they're literally just a mishmash of all my favorite-est things :p

My main ocs' setting and story take a lot of inspiration from movies I've seen, but especially two films in particular- Goodfellas and Casino. I consider them both to be perfect movies (in my opinion at least!) I could go on forever about how much I adore the works of Martin Scorcese. Personally I would give anything to see a dramatic crime story such as those two films told through anthropomorphic animals in flashy clothes. Hence, my ocs...

I also really love putting my favorite tropes and characters into my ocs! For example, Klaus (the bespectacled coyote who is begrudgingly Nick's confidant :p) is pretty directly inspired by Clarence Boddicker from Robocop. Even down to the name, fashion sense, and seeming at first glance to be an odd fit for a crime boss. What can I say, I love the idea of a deranged sadistic criminal hiding under the thin veneer of looking like a college-professor.

Clarence my beloved <3

Nick himself is an oc I've had for years and years now, definitely for more than 6 years. His old name used to be Snickerdoodle

I've always been drawn to characters who look scary and dangerous but are actually just tortured souls. That explains him pretty well, I think, but I'm not sure how much of that I've been able to communicate through the stuff I've posted here. A lot of their story lives in my brain, and I've yet to find a concise way to format it all yet!

I think the biggest inspirations for Nick's personality have been characters like Winslow Leach (Phantom of the Paradise), Henry Hill (Goodfellas), Ace Rothstein (Casino), Sonny (Dog Day Afternoon), and more I'm probably forgetting.

Visually speaking, more recently Nick has been looking more and more similar to Scar from the Lion King. That's most likely subconscious- I just like characters with scars on their faces. My style has also drawn a lot of inspiration from the works of Tracy Butler, which might be a bit more than obvious in some of my fanarts.

Anyways, I think I've gone on for long enough xD if you can't tell I really love my ocs and I love talking about them (and tysm for asking me hehe)

[destinyc1020]

I have to disagree with that anon about defending the critics. I get their overall point that of course applies to most journalists, but quite a few with TCR were downright nasty. Calling it an 'overlong sob story' absolutely implies a total lack of empathy in the writer. As someone who deals with mental illness, a disorder that is not DID but that is similarly trauma based, the reviews slamming it (which, again, were not the majority - I think out of the ones I read there were about 5 that were unfortunately snarky instead of thoughtful) were borderline ableist to me in the way they approached their critiques. I could tell that those critics not only did not have experience with mental illness, but that they lacked empathy as well. It is just a huge, huge bummer to see modern film and tv criticism turn into a battle over who can create the most scathing headline, it disrespects the hard work done by people who come together to make art.

I'm so glad Akiva did that interview. For my part, it made me feel a lot less alone. The whole show did. It was well made and well acted, the production design was on point, I think the writing was compelling too. Even with the flaws, I don't think it remotely deserved those handful of critics trying so hard to tear it apart. I'm so glad that it seems to have found success in audiences - and I honestly worry about RT scores not just for this project, but for all. I don't think RT is a great method to determine if something is watchable or not. I loved Martin Scorcese's take on RottenTomatoes and other aggregate sites. He went in pretty hard and called them a disgusting spectacle, and lol while I wouldn't be that hyperbolic, I think he has a point! Scores and numbers should not dictate the value of a show or film. I kind of wish we could get rid of the scoring system and just rely on actually reading critic articles instead - I think that would encourage people to think more critically and also to think more for themselves.

Also just want to say I love your blog Destiny! You always have such a great and balanced view of things and it's just appreciated in this fandom

First of all Anon, I'm so sorry that you went through whatever trauma that you've endured, and I hope you are getting any help that you need for any mental/emotional struggles that you go through. 🥰❤️

As you know, that's something that touches me deeply, so I do hope that my followers are doing well, and taking good care of themselves, physically, mentally, emotionally, spiritually, etc. 😊

Anyway, I can see how someone who has the background that you have could view the reviews for TCR as a bit harsh and unsympathetic...maybe downright apathetic even.

I agree that sometimes SOME critics may forget that real people deal with these issues that are being depicted in these films that they watch. Honestly? I think when you watch as many films/TV shows that they have to watch and critique, I think it can sometimes make you a bit calloused and it just becomes a bit of a "job". Unless something really grabs you and your attention from jump, it might become a bit redundant watching film after film, project after project. Don't forget too that some of the critics were more so taking out their anger and frustration at Akiva and the "rules" that were set forth w/regards to not mentioning DID at all in their reviews. To their defense, it IS a bit hard to write a review for TCR WITHOUT mentioning the fact that Danny is suffering from DID. Nearly MOST of the series is Danny talking to his therapist, and trying to pretend that the series isn't about helping a person with DID come to the realization of his past and his condition is kind of challenging, ngl. It still doesn't make the reviews any less hurtful though, so I get it.

At this point, I just think that as long as you (the viewer) enjoyed the series, that's all that really matters at the end of the day. 🤷🏾‍♀️

Also just want to say I love your blog Destiny! You always have such a great and balanced view of things and it's just appreciated in this fandom

Aww...thanks sis. ❤️

[365days365movies]

31 (Films) to Life: End of Year Round-Up II

Before I wrap up last year and begin anew, here's the rest of the round up of the crime films I saw in 2022! Here's the first part of this post if you want a catch-up. These post is gonna cover these films:

Once Upon a Time in America (1984); directed by Martin Scorcese

Thelma and Louise (1991); directed by Ridley Scott

Reservoir Dogs (1992); directed by Quentin Tarantino

Casino (1995); directed by Martin Scorcese

Heat (1995); directed by Michael Mann

The Usual Suspects (1995); directed by Bryan Singer

L.A. Confidential (1997); directed by Curtis Hanson

American Psycho (2000); directed by Mary Harron

Catch Me if You Can (2002); directed by Stephen Spielberg

Monster (2003); directed by Patty Jenkins

The Departed (2006); directed by Martin Scorcese

Zodiac (2007); directed by David Fincher

OK, let's jump back into this recap!

Goncharov (1973); dir. Martin Scorsese - 82%

Look, I realize that this, as a recently recovered film, this has gotten a sort of cult-following, as it were. But after finally getting ahold of a copy of it and watching it, I dunno...seems somewhat overrated to me? Sure, Scorsese's choice to focus on Italy during the end of the Cold War is an interesting premise, and the cast is genuinely excellent, but...again, I thought it was only OK compared to some of the other movies on this list. Although, I will say, John Cazale was a stand-out character for me, in sort of a spiritual successor to his role in Dog Day Afternoon, playing the unhinged assassin with a very complex backstory. I read somewhere that there was a planned spin-off for Ice Pick Joe at some point, and I would love to know more about that. Plus, Scorsese's choice to follow up on Midnight Cowboy and Dog Day Afternoon by injecting homoerotic tones, especially in a film from this time period, was...

...Yeah, I'm WAY too late to hop on this meme. I'll stop now. It's a very funny meme, though. Love the fact that Scorsese himself admitted to making it; that's shit's hilarious. Anyway, on to the actual list.

Once Upon a Time in America (1984); dir. Martin Scorsese - 94%

This is a complicated movie to describe and to recap, and I actually never posted the last part of my review for this one, but...man. This is an excellent movie. Granted, exactly what you'd expect when I say it's a Martin Scorsese-directed period piece set in NYC and starring Robert de Niro...but, it still manages to surprise here and there. A couple of these surprises are, in my opinion, a tiny piece contrived, and it also manages to make its main character thoroughly unlikable in many ways, but it's still a great story with a lot of character packed in a...3 hour and 50 minute runtime, JESUS CHRIST. OK, yeah, this is a really long movie, but it's also hard to see a good place to trim it without harming the story and character work as a whole.

In terms of my normal breakdown, acting is nearly perfect all around; plot is convoluted and takes place in multiple time periods, but is still very good; directing and cinematography is beautiful; production and art design is perfectly immersive throughout all time periods represented; and if I hear pan-pipe music one more time I'M GONNA FUCKING LOSE IT. But the editing is still solid, despite an insane runtime. Look, if you're the kind of person who doesn't like uncomfortable moments in film or unlikely characters, or if you'd rather not strap in for a lot of atmosphere and silent character moments over the course of a nearly four-hour movie...maybe skip this. But otherwise, this movie is entirely worth it, and a genuine masterpiece. A must-watch for crime movie and Scorsese fans.

Thelma and Louise (1991); dir. Ridley Scott - 84%

A good Ridley Scott movie (and one that I only published half of my review for, whoops)! So, Thelma and Louise has a pretty good plot and acting, and does everything else pretty well. Plus, its titular relationship is compelling for a lot of reasons, whether or not you take it as romantic (which there are arguments for and against). As well as being a good source for an essay on justice within a patriarchal culture that has issues with female self-autonomy and sexual consent (yes, really, I'm not even reading into that super hard), it's an interesting movie. But if I'm gonna be honest, while I thought this was a good movie...it's not necessarily one I'd go out of my way to watch again, and I may turn away from it when it comes on TV. Y'know what I mean? Like, I'd tell people it's a good movie, but I wouldn't recommend it, necessarily. It's a good movie to watch at least once, though.

Reservoir Dogs (1992); dir. Quentin Tarantino - 89%

Reservoir Dogs, on the other hand, is a movie that I absolutely recommend. Now, is this a movie that, like Scarface, every college fuckboi in the world has seen, recommended, and quoted. I mean, yeah, absolutely. Is it gratuitously gory and violent? Again, yeah, absolutely it is. But it has a banger of a cast (Harvey Keitel, Steve Buscemi, Tim Roth, Michael Madsen, to name a few), fantastic plot and good writing, good direction and cinematography, good production and art design (simple as it is), great editing, and memorable music (for what little there is in this movie). There's a lot packed into this one, and there are narrative twists and turns you wouldn't necessarily expect, leading to one of the tensest endings I saw in a movie last year. And as much I would love to go into more details about this crime thriller...I won't. Go watch this one, trust me.

Casino (1995); dir. Martin Scorsese - 94%

So, this year, I made a huge mistake. I was in a hotel room for a conference, alone (much less sad than it sounds, believe me), and I decided to watch a movie that night. So, I sit down, look at my list of films, and realize the next one is the Scorsese classic film Casino. Now, I have a copy of this movie at home on DVD, but I find it on streaming, so I figure I may as well go for it. Here's the problem: it was on AMC. Now, at first blush, this doesn't seem like a problem. But it actually is a massive problem for Casino, more than any other movie I've ever seen, because the censoring for TV really distracts from the movie itself. Like...really badly, too. It was an issue.

Now, is this a good movie? Very much so. As Scorsese loves to do, it follows a gangster played by De Niro, during the time period where the Mafia was at its strongest influence in Las Vegas. His enforcer and best friend, played by Joe Pesci, joins him in the business. What follows is a multi-year story of death, lies, betrayal, talk shows, domestic abuse, and a LOT of crazy shit that you follow the entire time with baited breath. This is a 3 hour plus movie, and I remember more of it that I rightfully should. And yes, there are a LOT of F-bombs, all of which were covered by Joe Pesci's less-than-stellar dubbing over his own lines. When "fuck" comprises 40% of a character's dialogue, censoring tends to really hamper with immersion, just saying. But yes, this film has stellar acting from the leads and support, an interesting and engaging plot with curse-heavy writing, great direction and cinematography throughout, fantastic production design, and a good score with great editing. Definitely watch this one...uncensored. Trust me on that one.

Heat (1995); dir. Michael Mann - 90%

Well, shit, Al Pacino and Robert De Niro in a crime movie? And Pacino's playing a cop? Hell yes. It's also Pacino's last movie before he goes into overacting hell, and even then, he has a lot of scenery in his teeth and he is loving it. But even despite that, solid performances from our two leads, one of whom is playing to type, and the other against it, but both very well. It manages to mix multiple compelling stories, while maintaining the tension of a cat-and-mouse game, during which you're somehow always rooting for both sides to win. Direction is great, production design is simple but good, and the music is...fine. I actually don't remember it much, to tell the truth. But either way, a must-watch for any crime film fan. It's fantastic.

The Usual Suspects (1995); dir. Bryan Singer - 92%

As some of you may know by now, I'm a firm believer in divorcing the art from the artist. So, yes, even though this is a Kevin Spacey vehicle directed by Bryan Singer, I still really wanted to watch this one. And it's great. Absolutely fantastic, don't get me wrong...but I was kinda fucked from the start here. Without going into any details, this movie is about cops investigating a crime committed by the mysterious Keyser Soze, and uncovering who the culprits are. And that's it. That's all you're getting. Because there's a famous twist in this film, and I knew it from the jump, unfortunately for me. Definitely didn't ruin the movie, but not knowing the twist would've made it OH so much sweeter. So, that my word that it's a good movie, do not attempt to look it up anywhere for more info, and go check this one out.

L.A. Confidential (1997) - dir. Curtis Hanson - 90%

Another Spacey vehicle! And hot damn, is it a great one. I like the previous movie more for the plot, but L.A. Confidential is certainly no slouch when it comes to twists. Not the least predictable twist in the world, but still a notable twist. Again, excellent cast here (Crow, Pearce, Spacey, Basinger, DeVito, Cameron, etc.), great plot and writing as well, great direction and good cinematography, excellent production design, and great music, and this is another must-watch action movie, on par with Chinatown in tone, and Heat in quality. Also, a seminal buddy-cop movie...kinda.

American Psycho (2000); dir. Mary Harron - 82%

Fun fact about me: I'm a serial killer true crime junkie. Which, yes, makes me either a typical millennial or a middle-aged white mom with nothing to do all day, but sue me, I think it's an interesting topic. Anyway, because of that, I've always been interested in watching this movie, which not only pictures a very '80s sense of psychopathy that's still identifiable today ("sigma males", anyone), but actually inspired a real-life serial killer duo, Paul Bernardo and Karla Homolka, AKA Canada's most notorious murderers. Their favorite book was the original American Psycho, which was later adapted into this film. But that said, outside of the true-crime connection, I also liked this film as a character dissection of a man quickly going insane, as well as the exploration of a business shark capitalist drive and misogynist culture surrounding it as major causes and drivers of that mindset. And I'd say that was reading too much into it, but...it really isn't.

But that said, this movie is interesting to watch, but definitely not perfect. Acting, with Bale as an exception, is good but not great throughout. Plot and writing are good, if ham-fisted at times, and with an unexpected ending (and not in a great way). Direction is great, cinematography is pretty good, too. Production and art design is extremely solid, and maybe the strongest part of the movie. Music gives that a run for its money, though, since it's also a narrative device to better understand our lead. This is a good movie, and weirdly relevant with certain elements of our internet culture, so check this one out if you have the time. And if you're in the mood for a film whose bread and butter is toxic masculinity, but was also directed and written by women. Which is hilarious.

Catch Me if You Can (2002); dir. S. Spielberg - 88%

The concept of an auteur in terms of film directing is varied and storied, but is usually used to refer to an individual whose artistic vision is clear on the screen, making their films quite distinctive to the discerning viewer. And Jesus Christ, is this film an example of that for Stephen Spielberg, because I don't know if a crime film could Spielberg harder than this! What I mean by that is that Spielberg's style, while not often applied to the crime genre, is very apparent in his films. You usually know one when you see one, is what I'm saying.

That's to say nothing about quality, which is very good in the base of this film. The only real weak spot, for me, was the music of the film, which wasn't very distinctive outside of the opening credits theme. Everything else, though, is pretty great. DiCaprio and Hanks kill it, even though Hanks was admittedly still definitely Tom Hanks through the film. Plot and writing was a Spielberg plot, but a really good set of character dissections and interactions. Direction and cinematography are fantastic, Production and Art Design are TOP fucking notch, until we sort of fall off towards the end of the movie. And editing is great, even if music wasn't my favorite. Great movie, very much recommended if you want to see Spielberg do a crime film. And you should want that, ideally!

Monster (2003); dir. Patty Jenkins - 86%

Remember that thing I said earlier about being a fan of serial killers? Well, Monster and its focus on real-life murderer Aileen Wuornos was high on my list of must-sees at the very beginning of this project. Charlize Theron's performance as the character is pretty legendary, and for good reason, because she does an AMAZING job as Aileen. And Ricci's no slouch as her girlfriend Selby, either. Was it the most accurate movie in the world? No, but it was unexpectedly accurate in some ways as well. Wuornos is one of those figures who's kind of controversial, as some of her murders could have been self-defense, and the film's writer and director, Patty Jenkins (yes, that one) does realize that. And I started to be worried in the beginning of the film, but she turned me completely around by the end. It's great!

Direction, though, is...fine? It's not particularly distinctive, but it isn't bad. Same goes for the Cinematography. Production design is excellent, mostly because Charlize Theron BECOMES Aileen Wuornos, partially due to acting, but also absolutely due to appearance and wardrobe. It's genuinely very impressive the whole movie. And finally, music was there, and kinda weirdly clashing with tone in some instances, but it's not too bad. Check this one out if you're into serial killer stuff, too.

The Departed (2006); dir. Martin Scorsese - 94%

Another fun fact about me: I grew up in New England, as well as currently living there. And I live in an area of the region where Boston is a major feature, as is the culture that revolves around the city. And yes, this film is well-known for being a somewhat stereotyped view of Boston...but JESUS FUCKING CHRIST, is it wicked accurate, kid! It also helps that, as a Scorsese film, it's very well-made and absolutely star-studded. Some of those stars, namely Damon and Wahlberg, are actually from the area, and they flex some intense Boston accents throughout this movie. DiCaprio and Nicholson are also fantastic in this film, as are Sheen, Baldwin, Farmiga, Winstone, and Anderson, even though some of them don't quite pull off the accent as smoothly as others. Baldwin, in particular, is still Alec Baldwin, no matter how you try and change that voice.

Directing and cinematography is stellar, unsurprisingly, while production and art design is definitely very iconically mid-2000s Boston. The score of this film literally changed the musical tastes OF BOSTONIANS, according to my fiancée who's more from the area than I, and the editing is also top-goddamn notch. And the plot and writing? Holy SHIT, the plot and writing! Look, you need to now two things. One, this is a cop-mafia drama in a vein similar to Heat, and it is VERY good at that job. A little bloated, story-wise, but it doesn't show too much. And two, watch this movie, do not look up the plot or film beforehand. Suffice to say, this is an in-depth morality play all over the spectrum of morality, and the twists are EVERYWHERE. Please check this one out, it's fantastic. Go Sox.

Zodiac (2007); dir. David Fincher - 90%

And last but not least, another serial killer film with an unclear ending, and one that focuses on the investigation and the figures involved instead. Zodiac is a fantastic movie, based on a book about the case by Robert Graysmith, who's played in the movie by Jake Gyllenhaal. Graysmith is, in fact, arguably the main character of the film, with Robert Downey Jr. and Mark Ruffalo playing other key figures in the investigation from both a press and police side, respectively. You watch how this unnerving case affects these people's lives, while knowing that the case won't ever actually be solved. They present a case for the killer, but no actual answers. And in playing with that, Fincher is able to build some real goddamn tension in some moments.

Again, though, not perfect, but it's pretty damn close. Acting is stellar all over, even though some people don't quite disappear into the role. Ruffalo and Gyllenhaal are amazing on that particular front, but it's hard to see RDJ as anyone but RDJ, as an example. Plot and writing is great, directing and cinematography is great, production design is pretty good (I dunno, I wasn't as sold on that one, but that might be a me thing), and the music is great as well! Editing makes the film a little overlong in my opinion, but I don't think it affects the movie much. Check this one out, again, if you're in a serial killer movie mood.

And that's it!

Next film I was set to watch was Captain Phillips, and I'll try and check that out this year regardless, but I only got that fair this year. That said, though, the next movie I'm set to watch in 2023 is technically a crime film, from what I understand. But I'm leaving the life of crime behind for a while otherwise. I've done my time, so it's time to say farewell to the old life for now. But that said...I do have plans. Oh, I always have plans.

In 2023, I'll be going off of a list of challenges, as curated by the book Everyone's a Critic: 52 Week Movie Challenge. These challenges each require I watch films of specific categories, like award-winners, animal films, etc. And the first one in the 52 Films challenge is Best Picture winner. And for the first of those...I gotta watch this movie. And I've been wanting to watch it since 2020. So, what better time like the present? Plus...been a while since I've watched a foreign language film, honestly. So, strap in for the next one! It's gonna be a ride in 2023.

Next: ...We'll see.

[hussyknee]

I posted 5,051 times in 2022

That's 1,004 more posts than 2021!

201 posts created (4%)

4,850 posts reblogged (96%)

Blogs I reblogged the most:

@bookwyrm42

@vampyrekat

@tenarcansteponme

@yharnamsnewslug

@souplover13

I tagged 1,604 of my posts in 2022

#knee of huss - 329 posts

#goncharov 1973 - 144 posts

#unreality - 95 posts

#sri lanka protests - 82 posts

#sri lanka economic crisis - 53 posts

#asks - 49 posts

#ableism - 46 posts

#sri lanka - 41 posts

#අරගලයට ජය! - 41 posts

#tumblr classic - 40 posts

Longest Tag: 138 characters

#idk i feel like my genius will always be overshadowed either by other ppl getting there before me or saying the same shit more famously 😂

My Top Posts in 2022:

#5

Sri Lankan protestors are built different. 😂😂😂

[Video description: Facebook video showing a scene of complete chaos and screaming, suffused in clouds of tear gas. A young protestor in shorts with a backpack picks a smoking tear gas cannister off the ground and strides with it along a wall of iron bars, holding out the billowing stream of gas at the cops assembled on the other side. Someone behind the camera eggs him on in Sinhala. The kid places the emptied cannister under a hedge behind a cop in riot gear and runs. The camera pans back to see the canninister thrown high into the air, sailing into a clump of trees in the park beyond./VD]

(PSA: do NOT pick up tear gas cannisters, they are searing hot!)

1,069 notes - Posted July 14, 2022

#4

See the full post

1,253 notes - Posted July 9, 2022

#3

When the fuck did the social model of disability go from "the way society is structured makes disabled people's lives harder than they have to be" to "the only thing wrong with you is capitalism"?????

2,836 notes - Posted February 23, 2022

#2

Hey, just in case people who already have been having a bad time with this meme are retriggered by Francesca Scorcese's TikTok – Goncharov is fake. It doesn't exist. [Edited for further clarity] That is really Martin Scorsese's daughter, that's her real TikTok account, and presumably that is really her father in the chat screenshot she posted. Francesca saw the piece in the NY Times talking about how Tumblr made up a fake movie, sent her Dad the link and asked "Did you see this?" Martin joked back "yes I made that movie years ago." That's all it was, Martin Scorsese himself playing along with our silliness.

PLEASE reblog this and DO NOT TAG IT UNREALITY. "Unreality" is for posts that are keeping up the bit, but info posts, reality-affirming posts and ones talking about the meme as a meme are solidly real. We really haven't been doing a good enough job tagging this properly and protecting neurodivergent people from being gaslit and traumatized. I've seen way too many people saying they nearly had a breakdown because of being lied to. We never meant to hurt you, and I'm so sorry people were jackasses when you wanted to know the truth.

Edit: I love everybody reblogging this, but a handful of idiots have been clowning on this post so here's an explainer about how site-wide disinformation can trigger psychosis. Please go in the replies and notes, they have a lot of interesting insights, by everyone from non-psychotic autistic people with gaslighting trauma to DID systems. You can go through the notes on this post as well.

There's absolutely no reason to be ashamed of loving and enjoying this meme, or to feel bad about not tagging things properly when you didn't know how. And PLEASE don't harass, dogpile or shame people for failing to tag properly or choosing not to. You're just giving people anxiety and policing them. Do what you can how you can, be kind, and don't tell other people their business. That is more than enough.❤️

12,154 notes - Posted November 26, 2022

My #1 post of 2022

i'm so confused rn, can you explain the goncharov thing?? i get off tumblr for five minutes

(Edits closed as of 28 Nov.)

Lmaoooo

Nah I getchu. So this post has been circulating for like two years:

Link to post.

But yesterday, it had inspired someone to do this:

See the full post

59,271 notes - Posted November 20, 2022

Get your Tumblr 2022 Year in Review →

[motownfiction]

on the stage

Sam claps louder than anybody at the end of Charlie’s first piano concert in college. He even claps louder than their mother. At the end of the show, when the Doyles, Carrie, and Daniel decide to have dinner at a Denny’s nearby, Sam wraps his arm around Charlie and says nobody else gets to take him in their car.

“Made a promise to this kid that I’d drive him anywhere, any time,” Sam says loudly. “I’m gonna hold to it tonight.”

They’re on their way to the Denny’s now. Sam’s blaring “Don’t Stop Me Now,” playing the dashboard like a piano at the red light. He looks over at Charlie, who’s pretending not to enjoy it.

“Only thing that would have made that concert better would have been this,” he says to Charlie. “Then again, you sure did make a supersonic man out of ‘Strange Meadow Lark.’ You know, if I ever had a daughter, that’s what I would name her? Strange Meadow Lark Doyle.”

“I wouldn’t mind,” Charlie says, “especially not if you were naming her after my performance.”

“And I would be. You were great tonight, kid. You really were.”

Charlie half smiles. They’re both pretending they don’t know what’s going on. It’s been a year already, but Sam can’t stop overcompensating. Queen ends, and the DJ plays “Tiny Dancer.” Sam immediately turns the dial to another station. He’s never told Charlie what that song means to him now, but he figures he doesn’t have to. The lyrics speak for themselves.

“Thanks,” Charlie says. “I was freaking out.”

“Couldn’t tell. You were great. I think the other jazz band guys might’ve been jealous.”

“Only because I’m tall.”

“That’s reason enough.”

They’re quiet for a little while. When Sam stops at another red light, Charlie asks him a question he’s surprised he’s never asked before.

“Do you ever wish you’d have done it?”

Sam snorts.

“Charlie, I’ve ‘done it’ a lot,” he says. “Since before you were even in high school. You remember Steph.”

“No, not … do you ever wish you’d have learned how to play something? Instead of just knowing all about the other music stuff? Like … don’t you ever wish it was you on the stage?”

Sam’s blood runs a little cold. He’s thought of that before. Himself, a rockstar with all the knowledge of an ethnomusicologist. He’d be like the Scorcese of rock ‘n’ roll, which is funny, because Scorsese is kind of the himself of rock ‘n’ roll, too. He’s thought about what it would be like to play the guitar … to write what he’s feeling instead of just feeling it. But at the end of the day, it’s just not right. At the end of the day, he’s not the guy who wants thousands of screaming fans surrounding him. He’s not the guy who needs it.

But maybe … if that was what would grab a girl like Carrie … maybe he …

No.

So, Sam shakes his head.

“Never,” he lies. “I just like listening to you.”

Charlie nods, and for the first time in probably his whole life, Sam knows that he understands more than meets the eye. For the first time in his whole life, Charlie can see the depth beyond.

Sam wishes he could be proud of that, too.

(part of @nosebleedclub november challenge -- day 7! i know i'm horrifically behind already, but you should see all the dissertation progress i made this week. here's hoping i have it in me to keep it up!)

[forever-and-almost-always]

I know Scarface is a classic but honestly how did so many people make it through this movie when they didn't have the option to skip all of Tony Montana's scenes? The man is so fucking annoying, I'm constantly hoping he's gonna get killed in every scene.

[release-the-sheep]

okay I've been enjoying the goncharov resurgence very much but I just saw something that caused some Thoughts. somebody posted a post-canon Katya/Sofia fic where they run away from it all and basically live happily ever after (very on board so far) but they tagged it with "idk could be canon-compliant, katya lives change my mind" and I. hm. Katya lives, yes, agreed. but the other thing. hold the phone.

SETTING ASIDE for a moment (we will return) the fact that for this fic writer it's probably Not That Deep, let me be pedantic for just a sec.

It always irks me a little bit when people tag something as "canon-compliant" that has no regard for canon's themes, or its aesthetics, or both, or etc. For me, "canon-compliant" is a little more than "doesn't completely change or break the timeline and setting of canon", it has to be (or at least make a visible effort toward being) in the spirit of canon. Disclaimer: this is entirely my problem. but again it got me thinking and I wanted to share.

Anything made about this movie where anyone (other than Sofia, for obvious reasons, but even her) gets out alive and unharmed and can start fresh somewhere safe and far away is not only against the spirit of the film, it is ANTITHETICAL to what I would argue is the main theme: the sensation of being trapped and the impossibility of change and evolution within the constraints of an artificially static sense of self (a mouthful, but it is JWHJ0715 so what else can we expect). the POINT is that they can't escape! that is what is being said about the dangers of being in the Family! you have to be one unchanging person to survive in that world, whether you want to or not! that's WHY Joe dies (and why it's so sad that he does, he was so close!). that's WHY it hits so hard when Katya shoots Goncharov and misses. THAT'S WHY ANDREY AND GONCHAROV ULTIMATELY KILL EACH OTHER HOLY SHIT like you can't ignore it! the tragedy of the thing, the greek myth levels of unalterable fate and destiny, the axis everything turns on, is the fact! that! no! one! gets! out! it can't be canon-compliant if that goes away, I'm sorry!

but sheep, you say, let people have fun. yes. I know. that's why I'm here too. I usually avoid the "canon-compliant" stuff in this fandom precisely because everything is so doomed and dour - as it should be - and when I'm engaging with fic I'm looking for the escape, too. I'm gay and want Katya and Sofia to have their fairytale ending. I just think this writer got a little caught up when they tagged "idk could be canon-compliant". it also made me think more thoughts, namely about this tag not being That Deep. it's really a testament to how masterful JWHJ0715 and Scorcese are as storytellers. one of the marks of a really good tragedy imo is getting the viewer so into the story that they forget it's a tragedy (despite how many times you tell them, ahem Father Gianni as a character, ahem clock symbolism) and begin to imagine a happy ending. when people use this kind of tag it is typically a melancholic wish that canon weren't Like That™ so it could instead be Like This and if you squint and do a bit of interpretive gymnastics it can be read Like This, and everything can be okay. and I just wanted to highlight a) how good this film is for pulling that off and getting that reaction and b) how much I love what people create from that reaction. it's just not in any way ever even a little bit "canon-compliant" lmao.

[fairykukla]

I wish I could find the interview with JF Lawton from a few years ago. (I thought it was a Special Features in the anniversary edition BluRay of Pretty Woman?)

It's about the original script for Pretty Woman (originally called "The 3000"), and how he was influenced by Scorcese's Goncharov while writing it.

He wanted to try to tell the story from the women's perspective, while exploring darker themes of prostitution and drug abuse.

Then Gary Marshall came along to direct it and took it in a different direction. He transformed it into a rom-com and when Lawton tried to explain his intentions, Marshall said "Yeah, yeah, I've seen Goncharov. We've all seen Goncharov. That's a picture nobody could make again." (I'm paraphrasing, but I think that's the right quote.)

Anyway Lawton looks right into the camera and says, "When somebody, especially somebody in the industry, says 'We've all seen it', it means he hasn't seen it." And quirked his eyebrow in this hilarious way.

[hamliet]

Who are your favourite film makers/directors? Do you have any recs for live action films specifically? Lately I’ve decided to plow through the imdb top 250 just to see the hype and some of these movies are so dated but at the same time I can see that they’re revolutionary and good in their own way?? (I swear I’m not a filmbro...)

I don't actually love film as a medium, so I don't have one! I probably see only a handful of movies a year and only with other people. It's just not my favorite thing, and I'm also frequently distracted. When I do watch movies I'm usually drawn by the plot or a recommendation, not a name.

I will say that the only strongish opinion I actually have is on filmmakers/directors is that I have strongly disliked just about every Christopher Nolan film (the filmbros are on their way, I'm sure!). But this is a personal opinion, not a "he's actually bad" statement; he's clearly not. He's really great with ideas and themes and concepts, but his movies have little to no exploration of humanity and his characters have no depth.

In contrast, I guess I do actually like Rian Johnson's human exploration in his movies, even if there are some weaknesses otherwise. del Toro is also really psychological and into exploring humanity, so I do consistently like his stuff. Mel Brooks is a classic for comedy even if some of it wouldn't fly today and kinda shouldn't but worked for their time. John Hughes' 80s movies are great. And uh, I don't know.

I'm sorry. Other films I really like I definitely haven't liked other films by the same director. Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings I love; The Hobbit not so much. James Cameron's Titanic is great; Avatar is dull. George Lucas, same. Spielberg has some great and some dull ones, I'm generally not interested in Tarantino or Scorcese or even Tim Burton films even if I don't have actual criticisms for them--because it's just usually not my taste (Nolan I do think my point is a valid criticism of something he can and should improve). I also don't touch Roman Polanski or Woody Allen movies with ten foot poles because fuck those guys, but I get why people do resonate with those films and don't judge people for enjoying the art.

[lapeaudelamemoire]

Something you used to hate -

Hated me posing for pictures. Said, you didn't like my singing because it sounded like I was putting on a voice.

But I'm thinking about Martin Scorcese's Hugo (2011). About theatre sets, when I used to be in the drama club in primary school. About a friend I used to have's photographs. About photography, and film, and all the things I used to do in a studio when I used to work at a magazine company, that turned into shoots. I'm thinking of sets built, the costumes, every little thing that needs to get sourced for something to look right. How one little inaccurate thing in a historical film takes you out of it, out of the place, out of the moment.

I'm thinking about what it means to create something; what Méliès in Hugo says about where dreams are made. I'm thinking about the work that goes into the making of a beautiful thing. Thinking about the setting up; all the things that make something look effortless; all the effort of making something glide, like a plane through the air.

I'm thinking about every minute thing. Watching the boy produce a track on his laptop in my living room. I'm thinking about the way I'm thinking about hair, a wig, what pins to put in it to make it look the way I want.

I'm thinking of all the things we don't see when we watch a bit of film; the people running around behind the scenes, moving things, making it look magic.

I'm thinking of how, maybe - you don't get it. That this work, this 'role', this putting on of a dress, outfit, fitted parts of a clockwork mechanical whole - that that's the machine that runs, looks like it's easy; like - almost - nothing at all.

That this - this is the real [thing]. And all we see is really the surface, finished, polished end.