#its not even the fun kind of hate people GENUINELY hate ford | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

gravitasfalls · 5 years ago

Text

A rant on fandom etiquette, the GF fandom, and what they did 4 years ago (and now)

By now, my “bullshit” tag has refuted most of the ridiculous hot takes, fun policing, and harassment that fans of Stanford Pines have had to face from the wider Gravity Falls fandom. But these rebuttals fall short of naming the real problem with anti-Ford wank: we never should have seen it in the first place.

People might have genuinely forgotten this, but fandom used to have etiquette against character hate. We called it “wank” and “bashing” instead of dignifying it as “discourse”. As late as 2014, fandoms on this very site had “X hate” or “anti-X” tagging systems for blacklisting, as courtesy to people who liked X thing...

...a far cry from GF fans of 2015 demonizing Ford in the most inexplicable ways, making every post a platform for that, siccing their followers on anyone fully positive about him, then pretending that never happened post-finale as they continue the bashing more insidiously to this day.

Like, what even was that? There’s a lot to unpack in those people’s arguments but let’s just throw out the whole suitcase.

(Under the cut: Snapshots of discourse I shouldn’t have had to put up with over the years, and snark-based coping with that. It gets ugly, you’ve been warned.)

Ford is irredeemable/deserves to suffer, why he didn’t even thank Stan!!1

Thanks I hate it! “It” being your apparent decision that, because you can’t make the fictional character suffer, real people who like him are the next best thing.

Ford is egotistical! Have I mentioned on literally every post I think his only trait is “egotistical”?

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. But while that is just, like, your opinion man, you’re entitled to it on your own posts; you’re falsely entitled about it by forcing it on dissenters’ posts and inboxes.

*dumps negativity into inboxes anyway*

Your Hot Takes have disturbed and insulted me. You fools are unworthy of my great knowledge. The era of human enlightenment shall never come to pass.

You really think Ford is some kind of hero?

Only after you told me I wasn’t Allowed to see him as one and I Examined My Desires™ like you demanded! Funny how critical thinking ≠ agreeing with you.

Ford is your favorite? WHY DO YOU HATE MABEL.

Better question, why are you copying “WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA” logic? 9/11 did fan drama I swear

Ford is NOT PURE OF HEEEAAART, so you have to Constantly Explicitly Acknowledge his Sins and interrogate what relating to him says about you.

I got no friends ‘cause they read the papers. It’s funny, actually, projecting onto him got me dangerously close to processing some negative experiences from my past... good thing I have you here to shut those thoughts down <3 Thanks for saving me from myself uwu

If you just want to project onto a comfort character in peace, Stan is right there! His lack of fantasy elements makes him more relatable anyway!

Ford brought Bill’s manipulation on himself!

Damn fandom, back at it again with the GROSS VICTIM BLAMING

FFS why is this take as prominent now as ever??? at least the outlandish criticisms were funny, this one just makes me want to be dead.

Ford is abusive/manipulative because he doesn’t make fun of Dipper/ made a case for his apprenticeship/ called Mabel good/ complimented her personality!

(Yes, people did these mental gymnastics; yes, my soul left my body instantly.)

STOP trying to justify Ford’s actio-ma’am this is an Arby’s. also:

Ford is the Epitome of Toxic Masculinity, if you defend him either he’s your Male Power Fantasy or you’re a ditzy fangirl broad with ovaries for brains!

Ah yes, the two genders. Pack it in, everyone, we’ve reached peak feminism and patriarchy is over.

Someone negativity-tagged my Ford post, WTF?! I’m not “anti-Ford”, I’m “pro Ford-learning-a-lesson”!

And pro his-fans-never-having-a-moment-of-peace, apparently! Sorry I assumed you were a hater by your complete lack of positive things to say about him tho

Ford is a sociopath/deserves death for having no empathy!

"Tumblr is as ableist as any majority-conservative site," I say into the mic. The crowd boos. I begin to walk off in shame, when a voice speaks and commands silence from the room. "You’re right," they say. I look for the owner of the voice. There in the 3rd row stands: tumblr.

*Dozens of 10000+ note posts calling Ford stupid, manipulative, solely at fault for everything that went wrong, other inanities*

(This is the fandom that made me get Xkit. I’m sure hundreds of my 1000+ blocked posts are theirs.)

If you like Ford on any terms but ours then I’m sorry, but Gravity Falls just isn’t for you, k?

I don’t have a flippant response to this one. Just... stop. No one has to agree with you about this character; no, nor with me. No one even has to engage with fandom moralistically; I promise it wouldn’t hurt anyone if I were to watch this show without having to Interrogate its Morality. It wouldn’t even hurt if people voiced character hate within reasonable bounds of tagging, as I’ve said. But instead they spread it like the plague in the name of Purity and insinuated (using ages-old “ur a fake fan!!1″ no less) that we don’t get to have outlets. I’m tired.

Look at my hilarious/satisfying art of Ford saying OOC strawman things, Stan beating him up, the kids turning their backs on him! (Srsly look at it I’ve put it in all the tags)

You’re madness, Gravity Falls fandom. Virulent madness. And everything you touch dies with you.

This is only a fraction of shit we’ve had to wade through, practically every day while the show was running. You couldn’t avoid it if you followed popular blogs. I saw the best meta writers of my fandom dogpiled by BNFs, dragging themselves through the blue hellsite at dawn looking for a fix-it fix. And people now expect me to believe it was “just Discourse” or that anything equivalent happened “in reverse” toward Stan. If I didn’t know better that they don’t know better, I’d call gaslighting.

I don’t expect to change anything. In fact, until this blog’s next go-around I don’t intend on seeking out new content anymore. I can’t keep looking at a fandom where the consensus on a canonically abused character’s victimization is that it was stupid, funny, a moral failing, or deserved, and expect anything to improve.

But to anyone else these people hurt: your anger or upset is valid, and I’m sorry. None of us deserved this. And I’m not letting it follow me into the next decade and make me forget why I liked this show in the first place, even if the only way to do that right now is cut off from the fandom a bit. I’m telling you, it never should have come to that. I don’t know if negativity-tagging can ever catch on here, considering tumblr has no boundaries by design and fandom no boundaries by choice... but for the sake of everyone who comes next, Gravity Falls fandom, make an effort.

#gravity falls #fandom discourse #purity culture #Filthy Ford Apologist Squad #thoughts on The Bullshit #(putting the Drama Tags on this post to practice what I preach... so please no one start any more on this post)

37 notes · View notes

thelostnymphaeum · 4 years ago

Text

I'm with you 'til the end of the line.

Entry: 004

// Cinema //

Marvel Cinematic Universe

MARVEL MANIA

Superhero movies were not my thing. The only superhero movie I have watched as a kid was Spiderman. I am not into sci-fi or superhero movies albeit being a huge fan of cinema. But during this quarantine, I decided to experiment with my taste and try to indulge in a new set of genre – the Marvel Cinematic Universe. These movies were a far cry from films that are to my liking, such as “Brooklyn” and “What’s Eating Gilbert Grape”. I used to find superhero movies corny or cheesy, because they were not based on real people and I fancy movies that tackle the inner spectrum of humanity. Additionally, I used to think that actors who choose to be in these movies are not “real actors” because portraying a superhero does not really seem to me as a role where you have to internalize the character. I was probably the only person in my class who did not cry when someone said “I love you, 3000” after the Endgame came out, and the only one who did not get the “Wakanda forever” reference. That changed because yester night, I finally finished the entire MCU. I came in with a viewing guide from my friends and I came out feeling like I just had a whole cultural experience.

THE AVENGERS

I like all of them. Except maybe the Captains. I don’t like Captain America. I understand that he’s supposed to be the poster boy of “superheroes” where he’s all righteous, courageous, virtuous and kind to everyone – but that does not seem realistic at all. His character just seemed predictable and bland for me. Maybe that’s why I prefer Tony Stark, he is more dimensional. He is someone who is unapologetic, makes mistakes, smart, arrogant; but his heart will always come from a good place. During battles, it’s always Tony Stark who is thinking of ways to end them (like how to diffuse Ultron at Sokovia) so I feel as if it’s him that should be leading them. Captain America only lead them because he was born in 1918 (just kidding, don’t eat me Steve Rogers stans). He also looks way too good. It’s unreal. What a knucklehead (Loki will agree with me on this). Jk. Anyways, he earned plus points from me when he returned the infinity stones successfully. As for Captain Marvel, I don’t think I need to explain why I find her insufferable.

A little piece about Spiderman. I like this reboot of Spiderman, and Tom Holland deserves all the hype he got because he worked so hard for his movies. No one can beat Tobey Maguire of course, but we are all just glad that Tom did not ruin Spiderman for us. The only thing I did not like about his reboot was that he relied too much on Mr. Stark. Tobey’s Spiderman never relied on anyone, he was just his own superhero. But for the sake of integrating him into the MCU, I guess that they have make this fun and fresh Peter Parker juvenile in order to be able to develop his character more. So I think I’ll give it a pass.

I personally like the Thor films the best. Because it was based on Norse mythology. Because of Loki. Because Anthony Hopkins is in it. I dislike the Captain Marvel movie the most.

ENDGAME THOUGHTS. We did not need Captain Marvel. Thor did not deserve to become a drunkard and a greasehead – he’s a freaking Norse God! Why was Pepper Potts at the final battle against Thanos? Thank you, Doctor Strange. Tony was genuinely and undeniably- the heart of the Avengers.

SCORSESE, COPPOLA & PEWDIEPIE

Along with its colossal popularity, the MCU movies have also acquired prominent detractors. Prior to watching the entire MCU, I would have probably agreed with Scorsese, Coppola and Felix (here is his “controversial” video on “I don’t like Marvel movies”).

“Honestly, the closest I can think of them, as well made as they are, with actors doing the best they can under the circumstances, is theme parks. It isn’t the cinema of human beings trying to convey emotional, psychological experiences to another human being.” – Martin Scorsese

"Martin was kind when he said it's not cinema. He didn't say it's despicable, which I just say it is." – Francis Ford Coppola

Parts of it are true, on the basis where the entire plot lines are predictable and it’s not the kind of cinema I learned to love as well. Marvel movies usually follow the same backbone. This is a huge reason why some cinephiles don’t like them, because the mystery is gone and it’s all obvious. After watching all of them in a 3-week streak, I could pretty much sum up the Marvel movie plot line into this:

The protagonist is in a helpless or vulnerable position.

The protagonist meets someone who can help them.

The protagonist works hard to get to his pre-final form and along with it, learns to fight in the name of eradicating the bad guys.

The protagonist finds out that her/his master is not all-good.

Chaos but then they forgive and understand the master.

2-3 battle fights, the last one is usually the peak battle where we see the protagonist in final form.

I like movies that tackle more about realism. I like seeing actors play roles that depict humanity as humans. I’m not a huge fan of special effects or super powers either. When Scorsese said that they are “not cinema”, I understood it because there are no intricacies or space for a different form of expression when you’re doing mega franchise films that are meant to sell to the general public. Which brings me to another point, that MCU is largely a business profit. These movies are made by mega corporations in the film industry, and it might also hinder other smaller filmmakers from showing their films if a titanic franchise is showing on the same week as theirs. Comic book fans are enormous in numbers which is why there is such a huge following for these movies even if they use the same plot lines all throughout. Humans are slaves for nostalgia, and people like to see the characters they have read and admired during their childhood come to life. Because of that, these corporations will try to capitalize on that and make more movies for as long as they can, and in a sense, you can see that they might be doing it only for the sake of money and not of art any longer. This is what the disparagers would say; that there is very little artistic values to these films because they are made to be sold, not appreciated for its artistry.

“Many of our grandfathers thought all gangster movies were the same, often calling them “despicable”. Some of our great grandfathers thought the same of westerns, and believed the films of John Ford, Sam Peckinpah, and Sergio Leone were all exactly the same. I remember a great uncle to whom I was raving about Star Wars. He responded by saying, “I saw that when it was called 2001, and, boy, was it boring!” Superheroes are simply today’s gangsters/cowboys/outer space adventurers. Some superhero films are awful, some are beautiful. Like westerns and gangster movies (and before that, just MOVIES), not everyone will be able to appreciate them, even some geniuses. And that’s okay.” – James Gunn, Guardians of the Galaxy Director

Here’s my two cents on this whole hullabaloo. Art is expressed in different ways. Just because something is popular does not mean that you should hate it or feel as if it lacks creative value. For one, I think that if the Norsemen would see the Thor films, their jaws would drop. Art in these movies is seen through the elaborate special effects and costumes. A lot of people work behind the scenes to make this kind of art form. They are not any less of an artist. The effects are wonderful, amazing and beautiful. Sure, they don’t have meandering plot lines or mysteries that are meant to make you think. But they are able to show art in a way that is along with the times, showing the capabilities of what computer generated imagery could be. It gives us the fantasy that otherwise would not be achievable in real life (for all I care, my favorite scenes are seeing Spiderman glide across the buildings of New York).

These movies are intended for children and teenagers (adults are there for the sake of nostalgia or lighthearted entertainment, I guess?). For kids, it inspires them that they can be anything they want to be. For teenagers, it might be a good footing for their moral compasses. For me, it just inspired me to get fit (hehe). My point is, these movies are made to cater to a particular type of audience, and the others are there just for the spectacle. If all the movies were Scorsese or Coppola, what would the kids watch in the theaters? Kids would not understand “Taxi Driver” nor would be a good foundation for their morals. It was a classic and it deserves the reputation it has, but after only a certain age will you be able to appreciate it, and only if you had a particular knack for appreciating films. MCU movies are made for people who just want to have a good time; you don’t have to like high-brow or art-house movies to understand it, and that’s all there is to it. It’s made for entertainment, what’s so wrong with that?

And the actors – a lot of them played the characters so well which made me realize that taking on a superhero role does not lessen your credibility as an actor. My particular favorites are Tom Hiddleston, Benedict Cumberbatch, Scarlett Johansson, Tom Holland, Mark Ruffalo and Robert Downey Jr. (bonus points for Anthony Hopkins, his range, man, his range). They were able to bring their roles to life in such a distinct way that it would be hard to never associate them as superheroes, which of course, is a double-edged sword. As a starting actor, that could be a bubble that is hard to get out of. For example, Tom Holland as Spiderman; people will always associate him as that, and how many of you has actually seen the movies he has done aside from MCU? It might be hard for him to bridge his career from being a huge franchise film protagonist into doing films to his own preference. MCU movies make the popularity and the money; indie films – not as much.

I don’t think that the existence of MCU is throwing away the spotlight from smaller filmmakers. Because back then, I simply chose not to see MCU movies because I was not interested. People will find ways to support art that they like, and just because MCU existed, it did not hinder me from looking for movies that I like. The cinema is made by individuals who like to create movies. There are different ways to express them. There are different subscribers to different genres. To each their own. But then again, I am not working in the film industry, so I can’t speak for them, I can only say what it’s like for a movie buff like me.

These are the movies that make up people’s childhood. These are characters that gives reason for people to bond together. When Tony died, the entire world felt like they lost a father. If it’s able to touch lives as much as any other film, why should we discriminate against it? Love is love, after all.

8 notes · View notes

chiseler · 5 years ago

Text

The Chiseler Interviews Tim Lucas

Born in 1956, film historian, novelist and screenwriter Tim Lucas is the author of several books, including the award-winning Mario Bava: All the Colors of the Dark, The Book of Renfield: A Gospel of Dracula, and Throat Sprockets. He launched Video Watchdog magazine in 1990, and his screenplay, The Man With Kaleidoscope Eyes, has been optioned by Joe Dante. He lives in Cincinnati with his wife Donna.

The following interview was conducted via email.

THE CHISELER: You're known for your longstanding love affair with horror films. Could you perhaps explain this allure they hold for you?

Tim Lucas: I suppose they’ve meant different things to me at different times of my life. When I was very young (and I started going to movies at my local theater alone, when I was about six), I was attracted to them as something fun but also as a means of overcoming my fears - I would sometimes go to see the same movie again until I could stop hiding my eyes, and I would often find out they showed me a good deal less than I saw behind my hands, so I learned that when I was hiding my eyes my own imagination took over. This encouraged me to look, but also to impose my own imagination on what I was seeing. Similarly, I remember flinching at pictures of various monsters in FAMOUS MONSTERS OF FILMLAND magazine, then realizing that, as I became able to stop flinching, to look more deeply into the pictures, I began to feel compassion for Karloff’s Frankenstein Monster and admiration for Jack Pierce’s makeup. You could say that I learned some valuable life lessons from this: not to make snap judgements, not to hate or fear someone else because they looked different. I should also point out that beauty had the same intense effect on me as ugliness, in those early days at the movies. I was as frightened by the glowing light promising another appearance by the Blue Fairy in PINOCCHIO as I was by Stromboli or Monstro the Whale. I also covered my eyes when things, even colors, became too beautiful to bear.

As I got older, I found out that horror, science fiction, and fantasy films often told the unpleasant truths about our world, our government, our politics, and other people, before such things could be openly confronted in straightforward drama. So I’m not one of those people who are drawn to horror by gore or some other superficial incentive; I have always responded to them because they made me aware of unpopular truths, because they made me a more empathic person, and because they sometimes encompass a very unusual form of beauty that you can’t find in reality or in any other kind of film.

THE CHISELER: I'm fascinated by what you term "a very specific hybrid of beauty that you can’t find in reality or in any other kind of film.” Please develop that point.

Tim Lucas: For example, the aesthetic put forward by the films of David Lynch... or Tim Burton... or Mario Bava... or Roger Corman... or Val Lewton... or James Whale... or F.W. Murnau. It's incredibly varied, really; too varied to be summarized by a single name, but it's dark and baroque with a broader, deeper spectrum of color. I’ll give you an example: there is a Sax Rohmer novel called YELLOW SHADOWS - and only in a horror film can you see truly yellow shadows. Or green shadows. Or a fleck of red light on a vine somewhere out of doors. It’s a painterly version of reality, akin to what people see in film noir but even more psychological. It might be described as a visible confirmation of how the past survives in everything - we can see new artists quoting from a past master, making their essence their own.

THE CHISELER: Your definition of horror, to me, goes straight to the heart of cinema as an almost metaphysical phenomenon. My friend and frequent co-writer, Jennifer Matsui, once wrote: "Celluloid preserves the dead better than any embalming fluid. Like amber preserved holograms, they flit in and out of its parameters, reciting their own epitaphs in pantomime; revenant moths trapped in perpetual motion." Do Italian directors have what I guess you can call special epiphanies to offer? If so, does this help explain your Bava book?

Tim Lucas: The epiphanies of Italian horror all arise from the culture that was inculcated into those filmmakers as young people - the awareness of architecture, painting, writing, myth, legend, music, sculpture that they all grow up with. It's so much richer than any films that can be made by people with no foundation in the other art forms, people who makes movies just because they've seen a few - and maybe cannot even be bothered to watch any in black and white. I imagine many people go into the film business for reasons having to do with sex or power rather than having something deep down they need to express. The most stupid Italian and French directors have infinitely more in their artistic arsenals than directors from the USA, because they are brought up with an awareness of the importance of the Arts. No one gets this in America, where we slash arts and education budgets and many parents just sit their children in front of a television. Without supervision, without a sense of context, they will inevitably be drawn to whatever is loudest or most colorful or whatever has the most edits per minute. And those kids are now making blockbusters. They make money, so why screw with the formula? When I was a kid, it was still possible to find important, nurturing material on TV - fortunately!

Does it explain my Bava book? I don't know, but Bava's films somehow encouraged and sustained the passion that saw me through the researching and writing of that book, which took 32 years. When my book first came out, some people took me to task for its presumed excess - on the grounds that “our great directors” like John Ford and Orson Welles, for all their greatness, had never inspired a book of such size or magnitude. I could only answer that my love for my subject must be greater. But the thing about the Bava book, really, was that - at that time - the playing field was pretty much virgin territory in English, and Bava as a worker in the Italian film industry touched just about everything that industry had encompassed. All of those relationships needed charting. It would have been an insult to merely pigeonhole him as a horror director.

THE CHISELER: I discovered your publication, Video Watchdog, back in 2000 when Kim's Video was something of an underground institution here in NYC. I mean, they openly hawked bootlegs. There was a real sense of finding the unexpected which gave the place a genuine mystique. Now that you've had some time to reflect on its heyday, what are your thoughts, generally, on VW?

Tim Lucas: It's hard to explain to someone who just caught on in 2000, when things were already very different and more incorporated. VIDEO WATCHDOG began in 1990 as a magazine, but before that it was a feature in other magazines of different sorts that began in 1986. At that time, I was reviewing VHS releases for a Chicago-based magazine called VIDEO MOVIES, which then had a title change to VIDEO TIMES. I pointed out to my editor that his writers were reviewing the films and not saying anything about their presentation on video, and urged him to make more of a mandate about discussing aspect ratios, missing scenes (or added scenes) and such. I proposed that I write a column that would start collecting such information and that column was called "The Video Watchdog.”

In 2000, VW's origins in Beta and VHS and LaserDisc had evolved to DVD and Blu-ray was on the point of being introduced, so by then most of the battles we identified and fought had already been won and assimilated into the way movies were being presented on video. But in our early days, my fellow writers and I - were making our readers aware of filmmakers like Bava, Argento, Avati, Franco, Rollin, Ptushko, Zuławski - and the conversation we started led to people seeking out these films through non-official channels, even forming those non-official channels, until the larger companies began to realize there was an exploitable market there. Our coverage was never limited to horror - horror was sort of the hub of our interest, which radiated out into the works of any filmmaker whose work seemed in some way paranormal - everyone from Powell and Pressburger to Ishiro Honda to Krzystof Kiesłowski.

Now that the magazine is behind me, I can see more easily that we were part of a process, perhaps an integral part, of identifying and disseminating some very arcane information and, by sharing our own processes of discovery, raising the general consciousness about innumerable marginal and maverick filmmakers. A lot of our readers went on to become filmmakers (some already were) and many also went on to form home video companies or work in the business.

I'm proud of what we were able to achieve, and that what were written as timely reports have endured as still useful, still relevant criticism. Magazines tend to be snapshots of the present, and our back issues have that aspect, but our readers still tell me that the work is holding up, it’s not getting old.

When I say "we," I mean numerous writers who shared my pretentious ethic and were able to push genre criticism beyond the dismissive critical writing about genre film that was standard in 1990. I mentioned this state of things in my first editorial, that the gore approach wasn’t encouraging anyone to take horror as a genre more seriously, and I do think horror became more respectable over the years we were publishing.

THE CHISELER: My own personal touchstone, Raymond Durgnat, drilled deep into genre — particularly horror films — while pushing back instinctively against the Auteur Theory. No critic will ever write with more infatuated precision about Barbara Steele, whose image graces the cover of your Bava tome. Do you have any personal favorites in that regard; any individual author or works that acted as a kind of Virgil for you?

Tim Lucas: I haven't read Durgnat extensively, but when I discovered him in the 1970s his books FRANJU and A MIRROR FOR ENGLAND were gospel to me. Tom Milne's genre reviews for MONTHLY FILM BULLETIN were always intelligent and well-informed. Ivan Butler’s HORROR IN THE CINEMA was the first real book I read on the subject, along with HITCHCOCK/TRUFFAUT - and I remember focusing on Butler’s chapter on REPULSION, an entire fascinating chapter on a single film, which I hadn’t actually seen. It showed me the film and also how to watch it, so that when it finally came to my local television station, I was ready to meet it head on. David Pirie’s books A HERITAGE OF HORROR and THE VAMPIRE CINEMA I read to pieces. But it was Joe Dante's sometimes uncredited writing in CASTLE OF FRANKENSTEIN magazine that first hooked my interest in this direction - followed by the earliest issues of CINEFANTASTIQUE, which I discovered with their third issue and for which I became a regular reviewer and correspondent in 1972. I continued to write for them for the next 11 years.

THE CHISELER: I was wondering how you responded to these periodic shifts in taste and sexual politics, especially as they address horror movies — or even something like feminist critiques of the promiscuity of rage against women evident all throughout Giallo; the fear of female agency and power which is never too far from the surface. Are sexism, and even homophobia, simply inherent to the genre?

Tim Lucas: None of that really matters very much to me. I've been around so long now, I can see these recurring waves of people trying to catch their own wave of time, to make an imprint on it in some way. For some reason, I find myself annoyed by newish labels like "folk horror" and "J-horror" because such films have been with us forever; they didn't need such identification before and they have only been invented to get us more quickly to a point, and sometimes these au courant labels simply rebrand work without bringing anything substantially new to the discussion. Every time I read an article about the giallo film, I have to suffer through another explanation of what it is - and this is a genre whose busiest time frame was half a century ago. Sexism and homophobia are things people generally only understand in terms of the now, and I don’t know how fair it is to apply such concepts to films made so long ago. Think of Maria’s torrid dance in METROPOLIS and all those ravenous young men in tuxedos eating her with their eyes. Sexist, yes - but that’s not the point Lang was making.

I don’t particularly see myself as normal, but I suppose I am centrist in most ways. I don’t bring an agenda to the films I write about, other than wanting them to be as complete and beautifully restored as possible. That said, I am interested in, say, feminist takes on giallo films or homosexual readings of Herman Cohen films because - after all - we all bring ourselves to the movies, and if there’s more to be learned about a film I admire, from outside my own experience, that can be precious information. I want to know it and see if I can agree with it, or even if it causes me to feel something new and unfamiliar about it.

My only real concern is that genre criticism tends to be either academic or conversational (even colloquial), and we’re now at a point where the points made by articles published 20 or more years ago are coming back presented as new information, without any idea (or concern) that these things have already been said. As magazines are going by the wayside, taking their place is talk on social media, which is not really disciplined or constructive, nor indeed easily retrievable for reference. There are also audio commentaries on DVD and Blu-ray discs. Fortunately, there are a number of good and serious people doing these, but even when you get very intelligent or intellectual commentators, they often work best with the movie image turned off, because it’s a distraction from what’s being said. Is that true commentary? I'm not an academic; I’m an autodidact, so I don't have the educational background to qualify as a true intellectual, and I feel left out by a lot of academic writing. I do read a good deal and have familiarity with a fair range of topics, so I tend to frame myself somewhere between the vox populist and academia. That's the area we pursued in VW.

THE CHISELER: David Cairns and I once published a critical appreciation of Giallo, using fundamentally Roman Catholic misogyny — and, to a lesser extent, fear of gay men — as an intriguing lens. For example, lesbians are invariably sinister figures in these movies, while straight women ultimately function as nothing more than cinematographic objects: very fetishized, very well-lit corpses, you might say.

Tim Lucas: See, I admire a lot of giallo films but it would never occur to me to see them through a lens. I do, of course, because personal experience is a lens, but my lens is who I am and I’ve never had to fight for or defend my right to be who I am. I have no particular flag to wave in these matters; I approach everything from the stance of a film historian or as a humanist.

There is a lot of crossdressing and such in giallo, but these are tropes going back to French fin de siècle thrillers of the early 1900s, they don't really have anything to do with homophobia as we perceive it in our time. In the Fantomas novels, Souvestre and Allain (the authors) used to continually deceive their readers by having their characters - the good and the evil ones - change disguises, and sometimes apparently change sexes.

I remember Dario Argento saying that he used homosexual characters in his films because he was interested in their problems. He seldom actually explored their problems, and their portrayal in his earliest films is… quaint, to be kind about it… but it was a positive change as time played out. I think the fact that Argento’s flamboyant style attracted gay fans brought them more into his orbit and the vaguely sinister gay characters of his early films become more three dimensional and sympathetic later on, so in that regard his attention to such characters charts his own gradual embracing of them. So in a sense they chart his own widening embrace of the world, which is surprising considering what a misanthropic view of the world he presents.

THE CHISELER: But Giallo is roughly contemporaneous to the rise of Second Wave Feminism. Like the Michael & Roberta Findlay 'roughies', this is not a fossilized species of extinct male anger we're talking about here. Women's bodies are the energy of pictorial composition; splayed specifically for the delectation of some very confused and pissed off men in the audience. I know of no exceptions. To me it makes perfect sense to recognize the ritualized stabbings, stranglings, the BDSM hijinks in Giallo as rather obvious symptoms of somebody's not-so-latent fear and hatred.

Tim Lucas: I think that’s a modernist attitude that was not all that present at the time. Once the MPAA ratings system was introduced in late 1968, all genres of films got stronger in terms of graphic violence and language, and suspense thrillers were no exception. At the time, women and gay people were feeling freer, freer to be themselves, and were not looking for new ways to be taken out of films, however they might be represented. Neither base really had that power anyway at that time, but at any rate it wasn’t a time for them to appear more conservative. That would come at a later period when they felt more assured and confident in their equality. Throughout the 1960s, even in 1969 films like THE WRECKING CREW and BEYOND THE VALLEY OF THE DOLLS, you can see that women are still playthings of a sort in films; there are starting to be more honest portrayals of women in films like HUD, but the prevailing emphasis of them is still decorative, so it makes sense that they would be no different in a thriller setting. There’s no arguing, I don’t think, that the murder scenes become more thrilling when the victim is a beautiful, voluptuous woman. It’s nothing to do with misogyny but rather about wanting to induce excitement from the viewer. If you look back to Janet Leigh’s character arc in PSYCHO, the exact same thing happens to her, but because she’s a well-developed character and time is given to explore that character and her goals and motivations, there is no question that it is a role women would want to play, even now. However, the same simply isn’t true of most giallo victims, which should not be seen as one of their rules but as one of their faults. In BLOOD AND BLACK LACE, I think Mario Bava shows us just enough of the women characters for us to have some investment in their fates - but when the giallo films are in the hands of sausage makers, you’re going to feel a sense of misogyny. It may be real but it may also be misanthropy or a more commercial mandate to pack more into a film and to sex it up. I should add that, because I’m not a woman or gay, I don’t bring personal sensitivities to these things, so I see them as something that just comes with the territory, like shoot-outs in Westerns. If you were to expunge anything that was objectionable from a giallo film, wouldn’t it be just another cop show or Agatha Christie episode? You watch a giallo film because, on some level, you want to see something with the hope of some emotional or aesthetic involvement, or with the hope of being outraged and offended. There is no end of mystery entertainment without giallo tropes, so it’s there if you demand that. Giallo films aren’t really about who done it, only figuratively; they are lessons in how to stage murder scenes and probably would not exist without the master painting of PSYCHO’s shower scene, which they all seek to emulate.

THE CHISELER: You mentioned Val Lewton earlier. Personally, I've never encountered anything like the overall tone of his films. There's always something startling to see and hear. Would you shed a little light on his importance?

Tim Lucas: He's an almost unique figure in film in that he was a producer yet he projected an auteur-like imprint on all his works. The horror films for which he's best known are not quite like any other films of their kind; I remember Telotte's book DREAMS OF DARKNESS using the word "vesperal" to describe the Lewton films' specific atmosphere - a word pertaining to the mood of evening prayer services, which isn't a bad way of putting it. I've always loved them for their delicacy, their poetical sense, their literary quality, and their indirectness - which sometimes co-exists with sources of florid garishness, like the woman with the maracas in THE LEOPARD MAN. In THE SEVENTH VICTIM, one shy character characterizes the heroine's visit to his apartment as her "advent into his world," and when I first saw it, I was struck by the almost spiritual tenderness and vulnerability of that description. Lewton was remarkable because he seems to have worked in horror because it was below the general studio radar, which allowed him to make extremely personal films. As long as they checked the necessary boxes, he could make the films he wanted - and I think Mario Bava learned that exact lesson from him.

THE CHISELER: I've always been fascinated by a question which is probably unanswerable: Why do you think it is that movies based on Edgar Allan Poe stories — even those films that only just pretend to sink roots in Poe, offering glib riffs on his prose at best — invariably bear fruit?

Tim Lucas: Poe's writings predate the study of human psychology and, to an extent, chart it - so he can be credited with founding a wing of science much like Jules Verne's writings were the foundation of science fiction and, later, science fact. Also, from the little we know of Poe's personal life, his writing was extremely personal and autobiographical, which makes it all the more compelling and resonant. It's also remarkably flexible in the way it lends itself to adaptation - there is straight Poe, comic Poe, arty Poe, even Poeless Poe. It helps too that a lot of people familiar with him haven't read him extensively, at least not since school, or think they have read him because they've seen so many Poe movies. The sheer range of approaches taken to his adaptation makes him that much more universal.

It also occurs to me that people are probably much more alike internally than they are externally, so the identification with an internal or first person narrator may be more immediate. But it's true that his work has inspired a fascinating variety of interpretation. You can see this at work in a single film: SPIRITS OF THE DEAD (1968), which I’ve written an entire book about. It’s three stories done by Roger Vadim, Louis Malle, and Federico Fellini - all vastly different, all terribly personal expressions of the men who made them.

THE CHISELER: Speaking of Poe adaptations, I've long thought it's time to confront Roger Corman's legacy; as an artist, a producer, an industrial muse, everything. Sometimes I think he's the single most important figure in cinema history. And if that's a wild overstatement, I could stand my ground somewhat and point out that no one person ever supported independent filmmakers with such profound results. It's as though he used his position at a mainstream Hollywood studio to open a kind of Underground Railroad for two generations of film artists. He gave so many artists a leg up in a business where those kinds of opportunities were never exactly abundant that it's hard to keep track. Entering the subject from any angle you like, what are your thoughts on Corman's overall contribution to cinema?

Tim Lucas: I can think of more important filmmakers than Corman, but there has never been a more important producer or mogul or facilitator of films. I said this while introducing him on the first of our two-night interview at the St. Louis Film Festival’s Vincentennial in 2011. He was largely responsible for every trend in American cinema during its most decisive quarter century - 1955 through 1980, and to some extent a further decade still, which bore an enormous influx of talent he discovered and nurtured. People talk about Irving Thalberg, Darryl F. Zanuck, Steven Spielberg, etc. - but their productions don’t begin to show the sheer diversity of interests that you get from Corman’s output. He has no real counterpart. I’ve spent a lot of the past 20 years musing on him, first as the protagonist of a comedy script I wrote with Charlie Largent called THE MAN WITH KALEIDOSCOPE EYES, which Joe Dante has optioned. A few years ago, I decided to turn the script into a novel, which is with my agent now. It’s about the time period before, during, and after the making of THE TRIP (1966). It's a comedy but one with a serious, even philosophical side.

You know, Mario Bava once described himself to someone as “the Italian Roger Corman.” It’s incredible to me that Bava would have said that, not because it’s wrong or even because he was a total filmmaker before Corman made his first picture, but because Bava has been dead for so long! He’s been gone now almost 40 years and Roger is still making movies. And he’s been making movies for the DTV market longer than anybody, so he sort of predicted the current exodus of new movies away from theaters to streaming formats.

THE CHISELER: Are there any other producers/distributors you'd care to acknowledge, anyone that you think has followed in what you might call Corman’s Tradition of Generosity?

Tim Lucas: No, I really think he is incomparable in that respect. I do think it’s important to note, however, that I doubt Roger was ever purely motivated by generosity of spirit. I don’t think he would put money or his trust in anyone merely as a favor. He’s a businessman to his core and his gambles have always been based on projects that are likely to improve on his investment, even if moderately. I have a feeling that the first dollar he ever made is still in circulation, floating around out there bringing something new into being. I also don’t think he would give anyone their big break unless they had earned that break already in some respect. And when he does extend that opportunity, he’s got to know that, when these people graduate from his company, he’ll be sacrificing their talent, their camaraderie, maybe even in some cases their gratitude. So yes, there is some generosity in that aspect - but he also knows from experience that there are always new top students looking to extend their educations on the job. I wish more people in the film business had his selflessness, his ability to recognize and encourage talent. It may be his greatest legacy.

THE CHISELER: You introduced me, many years ago, to Mill of the Stone Women — I'll end on a personal note by thanking you and asking: Would you share an insight or two about this remarkable gem, particularly for readers who may not have seen it?

Tim Lucas: MILL OF THE STONE WOMEN was probably my first exposure to Italian horror; I saw it as a child, more than once, on local television and there were things about it that haunted and disturbed me, though I didn't understand it. Perhaps that's why it haunted and disturbed me, but the image of Helfy's hands clutching the red velvet curtains stayed with me for decades (a black and white memory) until I got to see it on VHS - I paid $59.95 for the privilege because my video store told me they would not be stocking it. It's a very peculiar film because Giorgio Ferroni wasn't a director who favored horror; the "Flemish Tales" that it's supposedly based on is non-existent, a Lovecraftian meta-invention, and it's the only Italian horror filmed in that particular region in the Netherlands. It looks more Germanic than Italian. I’m tempted to believe Bava may have had a hand in doing the special effects shot, which look like his work, but they might also have been done by his father Eugenio, as he was also a wax figure sculptor so would have been good to have on hand. He seldom took screen credit. So it's a film that has stayed with me because it's elusive; it's hard to find the slot where it belongs. It's like an adult fairy tale, or something out of E.T.A. Hoffmann. I can’t tell you how many hours I’ve wasted, trying to find another movie with the unique spell cast by that one.

5 notes · View notes

closetofanxiety · 5 years ago

Text

Money In the Bank ‘19: Your Man On The Scene

I went to see WWE’s Money in the Bank PPV last night, courtesy of a high school friend who had free tickets. Here are some quick impressions:

* It’s wild that Wrestlemania was once held in this building, the XL Center (locals know it only as the Civic Center) in beautiful Hartford, Connecticut. Built in the 1970s, this building is an archaic dump. The seats have that vertigo-inducing 90 degree incline so beloved of Ford-Carter era stadium designers, and are smaller and closer together than the seats in coach on domestic airlines. I worried intermittently about deep-vein thrombosis.

* We had good seats. We had PLATINUM seats. Seats that still felt like being crammed into a jar next to some beefy guys from Boston who seemed nice until they lustily joined the “CM Punk! CM Punk!” chants during the cage match.

* This is probably obvious, but these things are a lot more fun in person than they are on television. You really get a sense for how risky a lot of the spots are, including the spots that seem routine on TV, and everything is so much louder. The microphones under the ring make the canvas sound like a cannon going off every time someone takes a bump.

* The amount of people leaving for the bathroom or the concession stand during the cruiserweight title match was genuinely shocking. I mean, I sort of knew that’s what happened, but to actually see streams of people climbing the stairs as soon as the entrances start is really something. Almost our whole section left. Among the people left, there were scattered chants of “BORING” throughout the match. I felt really, really bad for Tony Nese and Ariya Daivari.

* I don’t know how it came across on TV, but the crowd was bonkers for Nikki Cross. She’s really connected somehow, despite being given nothing to do. The WWE has a potential star on their hands, that they’ll undoubtedly screw up!

* The women’s ladder match was pretty good. Less good: this guy’s sign

* Every time they showed the promo video for the Saudi show, the crowd shit all over it. Loud, sustained booing. Music to my ears! I was sitting opposite the hard cam and wearing a Jamal Khashoggi shirt, but somehow my protest did not shake the Saudi regime to its foundations.

* There were a lot of fans wearing referee shirts for some reason. Is this a thing? Please don’t let this become a thing.

* The Becky-Charlotte-Lacey-Bayley thing was so well done. There was a real Becky-hating mutant sitting behind me who was so excited when Charlotte won. It really irritated me. Then Bayley came in to make the save and I yelled “Cash it in!,” which prompted the guy behind me to say, “Shut up, dude! She’s not going to cash in!” When she did, and she beat Charlotte, he was totally silent. I loved it. A genuine surprise. GOOD BOOKING FOR ONCE GANG.

* Please someone tell me there’s a GIF of Elias walking past the UConn national championship murals. I could use it for work.

* It is my sad duty to inform you that the nerds are back to booing Roman Reigns.

* The Seth Rollins-AJ Styles match ruled hard. I can’t believe they tossed it out at this PPV with a hasty build, instead of saving it for Summerslam or Mania even. I’m glad they did, though, because it was a lot of fun.

* Best fan of the night: An older, gray-haired lady who was BANANAS for Seth Rollins. She kept passionately chanting “BURN IT DOWN! BURN IT DOWN!” That’s the way to be a wrestling fan, dammit.

* Fuck Lars Sullivan.

* I once saw Ricochet at a nightclub in Providence with like 250 other people. Isn’t that fascinating? Doesn’t that make me seem cool? Don’t you want to hear many more of my great stories?

* I thought the men’s ladder match was good. Finn Balor and Ricochet took madmen-level bumps. Apparently Michael Cole rose to the occasion. The finish was wonky as hell, although I don’t really expect consistent quality from WWE, so I didn’t share the outrage that characterized my Twitter timeline. This guy probably wasn’t happy:

Match Ratings:

Daniel Bryan & Rowan vs. Usos: Good, fun

Women’s ladder match: Good, fun. Bayley probably should have done more.

Rey Misterio vs. Samoa Joe: The exact right length for this (1:40)

Shane McMahon vs. The Miz: I really regretted not using this match for a bathroom break

Tony Nese vs. Ariya Daivari: I felt bad for these men

Becky Lynch vs. Lacey Evans: Nothing spectacular. Basically fine. Are there other kinds of Southern belles besides sassy ones, I wonder.

Charlotte Flair vs. Becky Lynch: Good match, great ending with Lacey and Bayley getting involved and Bayley cashing in her title shot and beating CHAR-LITT

Roman Reigns vs. Elias: Another match of appropriate length (10 seconds)

Seth Rollins vs. AJ Styles: This ruled. I would have been happy to see this go another five minutes.

Kofi Kingston vs. Kevin Owens: Fine, but suffered in comparison to the match that came before it. The crowd liked Kofi, but he didn’t have overwhelming babyface heat or anything. He got, like, a Well-Regarded Intercontinental Champion Pop.

Men’s ladder match: Lot of fun craziness, ending with the return of the vanilla gorilla. Brock Lesnar is what happens when you reject Roman Reigns, folks.

Overall grade: Glad My Ticket Was Free

#WWE #Money in the Bank #Money in the Bank 2019 #show reviews #my photos

7 notes · View notes

friendlycybird · 6 years ago

Text

The Magnus Archives Characters

If you’ve been reading all my TMA posts, you’ve probably gathered a little bit of how I feel about each of the characters. I figure I’ll just take a moment to be plain about each of them. To keep this brief, I’ll only be discussing characters whose voices we have heard more than once, who are currently alive. So obviously there are a few characters with a lot of weight in the overall arc or even just that make my shortlist of favorites who I won’t be getting into. Yet. Lemme know if I forgot anyone who fits those qualifiers.

Jonathan Sims - The Archivist.

I...I don’t even know what to say about Jon? He made me angry a lot in the beginning, but I always knew I’d grow to love him. I think I was helped a lot by coming into TMA direct from Gravity Falls? In that Jon seems very much cut from the same cloth as Ford. So it was always a familiar sort of irritation I felt with him, and still feel if I’m honest. Placing a “save the world” flavored burden on him doesn’t really help with the parallels there either. I think that...ultimately I just want to help him? I’ve noticed a lot of my affection for other characters tends to be built on how much they care about or want to care for Jon. Really I just wanna wrap him in a blanket, give him some tea, let him sleep for a week and then give him a nice safe job where he gets to do a lot of quiet reading.

Martin Blackwood

My baby. I don’t think you understand how much I love this man, alright? I fucking *adore* Martin. He’s the best. He’s just. Doing his best and he’s totally overwhelmed and probably always has been because he’s neck-deep in a job he’s not technically qualified for that just became a HELL of a lot more than a job and he’s just genuinely *sweet* and fucking...naive. But he’s learning, and when it comes down to it he steps up. He’s my favorite, and I don’t expect that to change.

Tim Stoker

Tim is like a housecat. Pound by pound he ought to be nature’s perfect predator...except for the fact that he’s the smallest animal in the room and it pisses him off. He actually reminds me a bit of a character you might see on a show like The Good Place. Genuinely fun, professional, flirtatious, - and utterly consumed by a situation so far beyond him that it’s all he can do to even imagine that he’s still a good person. While Martin is stepping up to do what he needs to do, what’s expected of him, Tim is just trying to survive with his...sense of self intact. I’ve been told Tim gets some “interesting development” that makes a lot of stuff around him spoilery, and honestly I haven’t asked if I’m there yet because I find his development so far extremely interesting. Assuming he has a secret to be revealed though...I’m definitely looking forward to it.

Elias Bouchard

I wish I could hate him. I wish I could dismiss him as evil and be on my way. It’s not that simple though, is it? Elias is an avatar of The Eye. He may or may not be the same Elias Bouchard that shares his official record, and I’ve recently realized that can’t possibly be the first name he’s used. Whatever else is happening, Elias wants to stop The Unknowing. Or, more precisely, he wants to train Jon to stop The Unknowing. At this point it seems he is almost completely unrestrained by any human limitations in terms of knowledge and ability, but his hands are almost completely tied by the workings of something...higher. He’s...a genuinely fascinating character. Surprisingly so for someone with so little affect.

Sasha James

Okay, I know I said I’d stick to the ones who are still alive I *know*. I Just. I couldn’t leave out Sasha. That was the team, right? Tim, Sasha, and Martin. Sasha was empirical without being blinded by a need for evidence, and arguably the most courageous character we’ve had yet. Coming out of months working in Artifact Storage and not being as desperate to leave the Institute as later season Tim? I Miss Sasha, and giving up hope of getting her back has been the hardest thing this show has made me do yet.

Melanie King

If someone had to replace Sasha, I’m glad it’s Melanie. She’s a good foil for Jon, I think. She’s practical, but seems like she’s a fun person when her life isn’t totally falling apart. Maybe I just have a soft spot for characters with backgrounds in media production, I don’t know, but I’m definitely enjoying her.

Basira Hussain

I love her? I don’t know why, or when this happened I certainly didn’t straight-up love her coming out of the initial Section 31 episode but somewhere along the lines... and like. I’m perhaps more amused than I should be by the reactions to people thinking she’s romantically linked with Jon - and as I type this I realized what I love about her so much. She gives me something of a Donna Noble vibe. I can’t back that up with any textual evidence but...

Michael

Effortlessly alien. Naturally other. He wears his status as something inhuman so well that the implication he may have been human as recently as 2007 is utterly jarring and I’m *desperate* for an explanation. I’m glad he’s the first...avatar...we’ve actually heard from in its full capacity as such? Because he’s such a perfect example with the kind of...otherness...being featured here.

Alice “Daisy” Tonner

She appeals to the part of me that watched Nine Seasons of Supernatural, honestly? She fits that...Hunter Mold, in an increasingly “(s)he who fights monsters...” sort of way. I don’t blame her for wanting to kill Jon. I don’t blame her for backing down when Elias played her relationship with Basira against them both.

Georgie Barker

She’s coming for my “Favorite Character” Spot HARD. She’s already knocked Gerard Keay out of his second place spot and if Martin hadn’t been so wonderful in Light’s Out she might have pulled first. She’s AMAZING. She *Recovered* from a brush with well, That! She recovered and she’s living her life and she can’t feel fear but that doesn’t for a moment make her stupid or reckless - or make her lose compassion for people who are scared. She’s a master a tough love and has been so *good* for Jon this season.

Also, her cat is fucking adorable. ...and now I’ve said that I’m actually really worried about the cat.

#Cybird Says Things #about TMA #The Magnus Archives

7 notes · View notes

portalford · 6 years ago

Text

It Sure Beats Standing Still

AO3

If Stan finds one more jar, bottle, or bag of undefinable monster body parts someplace where food, and only food, is supposed to be, he’s going to kick Ford’s ass.

He’s been the unofficially designated cook more or less since they set sail, because if the job was left to Ford they would both starve in a week. Besides, Stan really doesn’t mind cooking. He’s actually kinda good at it; nothing fancy, but solid fare.

He was going to try his hand at that potato stew he vaguely remembers from their childhood, because he also vaguely remembers Ford liking it and he’s still trying to work his brother off those fake food pills of his, but when he went to get the potatoes he nearly stuck his hand in a (open, Ford, why) jar of monster guts.

So now, instead of making a nice hot lunch for both of them on what’s shaping up to be a chilly day, he’s marching downstairs, jar in hand (better than hand in jar, at least), to yell at his brother.

“Ford!”

“Stanley!” Ford is in his study, a tiny storage room they didn’t use for anything else. It’s crammed floor to ceiling with books and papers and even more weird jars. Stan can’t figure how Ford finds anything, or even gets into his own study, but that’s Ford’s problem, not his. “You won’t believe what I’ve found, it’s–”

“Yeah? You wanna know what I found?” He holds out the jar.

Ford skips right over his irritation and goes straight to the jar. “You found the Leviathan tentacles! I’ve been looking everywhere for them.”

“And do you know why you couldn’t find them?”

Ford, catching on, immediately gets cagey. “…I may have misplaced them.”

“You sure did. In the kitchen. Right next to the food. That we eat.” Stan wants to set the jar down loudly, because it’d be a great end to that little spiel, but there isn’t a clear space anywhere on Ford’s desk, so he just awkwardly hands it over.

“I’m sorry, Stanley,” Ford says, and Stan can tell he means it. “I was testing the effects of extreme heat on Leviathan skin, and–”

“Wait, hold up, testing heat? How?”

“I just put a tentacle in the frying pan. I used my little electric burner, not the stove,” Ford adds quickly, as if that makes it any better.

“Is that where the frying pan went?” Stan had been looking for the pan this morning, when he wanted to make eggs. He just assumed that he’d misplaced it and had toast instead, but apparently this is one theft he’s not responsible for.

“Yes, well.” Ford clears his throat and twists his fingers together, which is basically his equivalent of squirming. “It turns out that extreme heat has a… very negative effect on Leviathan skin.” A pause. “It melted to the pan.” Ford shrugs, clearly not planning to mourn the loss of their one frying pan. “But now we know how to fight one off, if it comes to that!”

“Ford, is there melted Leviathan somewhere in this room.”

“No, I threw the pan overboard.”

Stan sighs. “Yeah, I guess.” He scratches the side of his nose. “Well, there’s no fixing that. I’m gonna make lunch, and then–” he stops. Reconsiders.

“And then what, Stanley?”

It’s been a month and a half since they set sail, and things are going well. Going great, actually. They’ve fallen into a rhythm, an easy give-and-take that Stan hasn’t really had with anyone since he was a kid and running around with Ford on the beach.

That said, it’s new enough that he’s still a little hesitant to ask for stuff sometimes, to push for things he likes and wants to do, even though Ford’s assured him a hundred times that it’s okay to ask.

(Ford is a hypocrite, because Ford doesn’t ask either. He just thinks Stan doesn’t notice. Still, the fact that Ford is just as wary of pushing too hard, of losing what they have, is kinda reassuring, in its own way. They’ll get there).

This time, Stan opts to suck it up and finish his sentence. “And then maybe we could take a break.”

Ford frowns. “A break?”

“Yeah, genius, a break. Leisure. Just spending time hangin’ out, recharging. It’s a normal-people thing.”

“Ha ha.” Ford pushes some papers aside – most of them end up on the floor, but he doesn’t seem to care – to make room for the jar. “I know what a break is, Stanley. I take them.”

“Sure, when you pass out. You’ve been kinda wrapped up in your work lately.”

“I’m not obsessed.”

Ford’s tone has gone stiff – that’s still a touchy subject. “I didn’t say that.” Acknowledge, but don’t dwell; this is not turning into a thing. “You just need to live a little! Give your brain a chance to think about somethin’ besides fried monster.”

Ford relaxes and offers a smile, conciliatory. “Did you have an activity in mind?”

“I was gonna go fishing.” Stan takes the ritual pause after this announcement, and right on cue, his brother makes a face. Ford’s always hated fishing, so much so that Stan can’t even be offended because it’s just funny. They used to ‘debate’ (Ford’s word, not Stan’s; none of those arguments they had were anywhere near as civilized as an actual debate, but it made Ford feel better so whatever) about the merits of fishing when they were kids, and Stan doesn’t recall them ever reaching a satisfactory conclusion to the issue. Their first week on the Stan O’ War II resurrected the childhood dispute, and Stan would be lying if he said he didn’t actively push Ford’s buttons over it now and then.

He is lying about it, actually, because Ford’s asked and he said no, but they both know he’s lying so it doesn’t count.

“I’m gonna fish,” Stan repeats. “You can just sit out on deck and read one of your nerd books.”

“No, I think I want to try.”

“Try?”

“Fishing.”

“You want to fish?” Stan’s proud of how not-incredulous he manages to sound.

“Yes.” Ford looks absurdly determined, like he’s preparing to take on a Gremloblin or something instead of just sit still with a fishing pole for twenty minutes. “I want to see why everyone seems to enjoy it so much.” He glances up at Stan. “And you’re right. I have been… preoccupied, lately, with the kelpie clan we found. I haven’t spent much time with you.”

Most of Stan is genuinely pleased and touched and all kinds of other stupid sappy feelings. He didn’t say it outright, but Ford wants to spend time with him. Ford wants to do something that Stan enjoys just because Stan enjoys it.

The rest of Stan is gleefully anticipating a hilarious trainwreck of an afternoon and a hell of a story to tell the kids.

Either way, he’s thrilled.

He realizes he hasn’t actually said any of this out loud, and Ford is starting to look anxious.

He clears his throat. “Yeah,” he says. “Yeah, sure. I’ll dig up my spare pole.”

Ford smiles, and Stan mentally promises to do his best to make sure Ford has fun fishing, because maybe he’ll do it again.

Even if it’d be really funny to wind him up.

*****

They’re ten minutes into this endeavor, and it actually hasn’t been terrible.

Ford listens to Stan’s explanation of how to set and bait a hook like he’s going to be quizzed on it later. He then listens to Stan’s little song and dance about how ‘fishing should be fun, Sixer, don’t overthink it’ with a little less intensity, but he seems to be trying. He only stabs himself twice baiting the hook, and that’s better than Stan when he started fishing, so.

They’re both leaning against the rail and Ford is rambling about possible upgrades for the fishing rods, some of which actually sound pretty great and some of which… don’t.

“I don’t think hypnotizing the fish to bite the hook is a good idea,” Stan says, butting in on Ford’s tangent.

Ford takes a moment to recall his thoughts pre-interruption before asking, “Why not?”

“It takes all the uncertainty out of it.”

That, predictably, doesn’t work on Ford.

“Isn’t that a good thing? If you’re trying to catch fish, shouldn’t you make it as easy and foolproof as possible? For that matter, you could–”

“I told you, Sixer, fishing’s not about catchin’ fish. At least, not casual fishing, like we’re doing.” Stan draws his line in and casts it out again, motioning for Ford to do the same.

Ford does, a little less smoothly. “Then what is the point? I’ve read about fishing, and–”

“You read about– never mind; ‘course you did. Where?”

“On the Internet,” Ford says. “I looked it up on Wikipedia while you were making lunch.”

It figures. Ford’s been living in the modern world for less than three months and he’s already better with the Internet thing than Stan will probably ever be, and that suits him just fine. Let Ford do the work. “Sure, you can fish to eat. We’ll probably eat what we catch, if that makes you feel better, but – when you’re fishing by yourself, if’s just a way to have something to do, y’know? Like you drawing when you’re just sittin’ around. And fishing with other people is a social activity. Fun.”

“Fun,” Ford mutters, and Stan stifles a laugh.

“Yeah, fun. It might not be your thing.”

“I don’t think it is,” Ford says, absent and gazing out over the ocean, “but it is your thing, so I could do it once in a while, too. If you wanted.”

Stan does want that, a lot, but all he says is “Moses, you got sappy in your old age.”

“As if you’re one to talk. You made that potato stew for lunch because you remembered I like it.”

“I like it too,” Stan retorts, defensive.

“Yes, but that’s not why you made it.” Ford looks smug, like he knows he’s right.

He is, but Stan's not going to give him the satisfaction of admitting it.

“Leave monster guts in the kitchen again and we’ll see how much potato stew you eat.”

“Those were appendages, not innards, and I could make it myself.”

Stan snorts, then outright laughs at the offended look on Ford’s face. “You’d get distracted. By the monster guts you left in the kitchen.”

“I would not.”

“Would too.”

“Would not.”

“Would–”

Ford’s fishing rod nearly wrenches itself out of his hand. Startled, but still with his over-fast portal reflexes, he hangs on.

He does wheeze when he gets slammed gut-first into the rail, but you can’t win them all.

“You got a bite!”

Ford doesn’t have enough air left in him to talk, but the withering glare he shoots Stan gets his point across well enough.

Stan means to stand back and let Ford reel his catch in himself, maybe take a picture with the camera phone for the kids (and himself), but another yank on the rod almost takes Ford over the side. Stan promptly steps in.

It feels like there’s a truck tied to the other end of the line.

“Ford–”

An ugly grey-green blob rears up twenty feet from the Stan O’ War, water rushing from its mouth as it bares razor-sharp teeth at them.

“What the hell.” Stan turns to Ford, hoping for an explanation. His brother is practically vibrating with excitement. “Ford, what is that thing?”

“I have absolutely no idea!” Fantastic. Ford lunges back, nearly knocking Stan over. “Help me bring it in!”

“How is the line even holding it?” No way fishing line rated for twenty pounds should stop that monster – it’s not especially big, compared to other things they’ve seen, but it’s angry and determined and that makes it dangerous.

“I modified it.” Ford slips on the deck; Stan catches him around the waist to keep him from knocking his head on the rail. “I didn’t– want you to lose anything you caught because your line wasn’t strong enough. Same with– with the pole.”

It’s so completely out of left field, so thoughtful in the most ridiculous way, and isn’t that just like Ford.

Stan looks at the furious thrashing thing out in the water, then back at Ford, and mentally accepts his fate. He knew what he was getting into when he went sailing with his brother, and he signed up for the whole damn run. Fish monsters included.

He plants his feet like he’s about to throw a punch and says, “Masterclass in landin’ a fish, bro. You ready?”

Ford’s answering smile is all teeth.

Fifteen minutes of swearing, soaking, and fist-swinging later, they’ve landed themselves the catch from hell.

Stan looks down at the wriggling monster, now trapped in one of Ford’s magic warded nets, and wonders if he’ll ever just get to have a normal day.

Probably not.

Ford is already circling the net, trying to get a better look at the creature and skidding a little on the slippery wet deck in his excited hurry. He looks ridiculous with his slime-covered jacket, bruised cheek, and dripping hair.

He also looks happier than Stan’s seen in... forever, since even before the science project mess.

Honestly, if all Stan has to put up with to keep Ford this happy is sea monster guts in the kitchen and the occasional demon fish, he’s a lucky man.

“Stanley?”

“Yeah, Ford?”

“I’ve changed my mind about fishing.” Ford crouches down to the deck, still grinning like he’s won the lottery. “I haven’t had this much fun in years.”

#gravity falls #gravity falls fanfiction #stanley pines #stanford pines #my writing #absolute maniacs the pair of them #i thought of the first line in algebra class and i've lowkey been writing it in my head all day until i was able to actually type it up

30 notes · View notes

britesparc · 4 years ago

Text

Weekend Top Ten #453

Top Ten Films That Make Me Happy

So every once in a while I do one of these things and the world ends up moving so fast that between me having an idea, writing the list, and it going up on Tumblr of a weekend, the plates have shifted and it doesn’t seem quite as relevant anymore. I remember listing ten films I wanted to see because cinemas were reopening; I think only two of them ever actually saw the inside of a Cineworld. And so we have this week; when I came up with the idea for the list, I thought either we’d all be in a celebratory mood, or else need commiserating. And at the time of writing, it’s looking – thankfully – that we’ll have enough reasons to be cheerful to be getting along with. But who knows? If you’re reading this on Saturday there may be a new president, or maybe the old one’s bombed China.

It’s a funny old world.

Anyway, like I said, my initial thought was that, in this time of darkness, we might need a little light; that everything is rather remorselessly grim and difficult, and we could do with a bit of cheering up. We’re all back in lockdown, the idiots are in charge, and Halo Infinite was delayed till next year. Lots of crap is going on. And, yes, fingers crossed, maybe we will be celebrating the Idiot in Chief getting booted out of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue before too long, but life has taught me never to count chickens, and you can always do with a little restorative nip in your pocket, just in case. And what is a good curative for the blues? A fillum.

Yes, feel-good films. Cheerer-uppers. Movies that make ya happy. There are lots of them, of course; it’s practically a genre. But one man’s meat is another man’s poison, and one man’s (end of) It’s a Wonderful Life is another man’s (middle section of) It’s a Wonderful Life. Which is to say that what makes me happy might not make you happy. I found this when doing a bit of research for this list; as is common, I often have quite a few ideas when I’ve thought of a topic, but I like to Google it (or Bing it, as I get Microsoft Reward Points and I’m saving up for a few months of Game Pass), just in case there’s some obvious film that has escaped my mental grasp. In this case what I found was some of the films that people consider to be uplifting are downright weird – Forrest Gump? Really? And a lot of truly mediocre romcoms seem to float people’s happiness boats, from the wildly uneven Love Actually to the tepid You’ve Got Mail to the overlong and overly twee The Holiday (a film which I hated on first watch but which has grown on me, Stockholm-style, as I’ve seen it over and over again every year). And some people even list stuff like Lord of the Rings or Star Wars or Pirates of the Caribbean; good movies, true, but are they feel-good? I mean, loads of people die in all those films; in one of them an actual planet blows up. I know we like zombie monkeys and Harrison Ford in a waistcoat, but they’re not really the most relentlessly cheerful films, are they?

Or are they? I mean, when I got right down to it, there were quite a few blowy-uppy pictures that are genuine comfort blankets for me (Air Force One, which I watched so much at one point that I used to fall comfortably asleep to it when I was on my own, nearly made the cut). So, y’know, who am I to judge? I think what makes us feel comfortable, happy, and upbeat can be wildly diverse and erratic, even within our own taste window.

And really that’s what I was after here; comfort movies, films that uplift or inspire or just, well, make you smile. Not just because we’ve blown up the Death Star or because Tom Hanks has snogged Meg Ryan again. But there’s something about the film, from its story to its characters to its composition, that is continuously joyful.

So whether we’re lifting a glass in celebration or drowning our sorrows with an armful of Stella, here’s to the films that make us feel better. Chin up, folks. It might never happen!

Paddington 2 (2017): what is it about this film that evokes such joy? I’d say everything, from the script to the performances to the music to the shot choices. The bad guy is funny, the dire situations rarely threatening, almost everyone is nice, and it ends with a redemption and a musical number. Beyond all that, though, Paddington himself is such a supernova of absolute goodness that you can’t help but feel optimistic just by watching him. It’s perfect, really.

WALL-E (2008): a film that starts with the end of the world but it gets better. It’s a cinematic joy, the virtually dialogue-free opening giving us dystopic vistas and a real sense of mood. But it’s WALL-E himself who brings the real feels, a mechanical wonder who does nothing but make other people happy and improve their lives almost by accident. he saves the human race and the planet simply by trying to be nice to one person at a time, and that’s a hell of an optimistic message.

When Harry Met Sally (1989): far sarkier than the other two films, and obviously a bit more, well, grown up (we all know what you must not do with Mister Zero), this is nonetheless a beautiful film. A slow-burning romance between two friendly, funny people, witticisms flying from every mouth, some absolute, genuine emotional stakes that you really, really care about, and the single most romantic ending a film has ever had.

Groundhog Day (1993): let’s face it, it’s the best film either Harold Ramis or Bill Murray has ever been involved in, and I bought every issue of Transformers/Ghostbusters. A tour-de-force of cynicism and sourness from Murray, but he gradually unravels (in more ways than one), becoming a happier and better person. It’s funny, it’s sweet, and the complexities of its chronally-displaced plot means there’s loads you can unpick. Masterfully written, directed, and edited, and that’s some of its joy, too.

The Hudsucker Proxy (1994): the Coens have, obviously, made a lot of very good films, and not all of them are darkly serious (No Country) or darkly hilarious (Fargo); they also have lighter fare, but none as floaty-light or so supremely joyous as Hudsucker. The script is pure screwball but also a precisely-honed, fast-spoken, Golden Age charm; the performances are all fantastic (we also get the best Lois Lane, Perry White, and Steve Lombard scene ever shot, and it’s not even in a Superman film). Look, it’s hilarious, it’s arch, it’s fantastically put-together, and it’s actually, genuinely hopeful and optimistic. It’s my favourite Coen Brothers movie.

Singin' in the Rain (1952): I’ve always got a lot of love for movies about Old Hollywood, but Singin’ isn’t really some kind of backstage satire; really, it’s a story about love, honesty, and creativity – movies are just the backdrop. But it’s the songs. Let’s face it, it’s the songs – and dances. These are some of the most joyous songs put to celluloid, and Gene Kelly absolutely attacks them from all sides. But I’ve gotta say, my favourite number is probably Donald O’Connor running up the walls in “Make ‘Em Laugh”.

Strictly Ballroom (1992): there’s a personal touch to this one, as my wife and I chose “Love is in the Air” for the first dance at our wedding. But there’s more to this film than memories of me being a shit dancer: it’s a supremely romantic film, possibly the most enjoyable straight-up romance from Luhrmann’s Red Curtain trilogy (spoiler alert: no one dies). A great underdog tale, two kids taking down a corrupt system, a story of the unlikely girl nabbing the hot guy; it’s timeless, it’s well-told, and its unusual setting (ballroom dancing competitions in Australia) gives it an extra kick.

My Neighbour Totoro (1988): Ghibli films often present us with a nicer, fairer world, where even the nasty monsters are there to teach us important lessons, or at the very least plucky kids can do the right thing and save the day. Totoro is different in that there isn’t an antagonist; there isn't much drama or, really, plot. It’s two very small girls dealing with a complex life situation, and also a giant bear-monster thing with a massive mouth who could be scary but is actually really nice and magical and saves the day because the girls deserve it, and also there’s a hollow cat that’s also a bus. It’s fantastic, but it’s also so nice, just a load of nice people and nice monsters being nice to each other, and if – let's say – the elements can be good, can't we be good too?

Die Hard (1988): yeah, okay, contradiction corner; a supremely violent and sweary action movie that makes me “feel good”. Is it the bit where he throws a bomb down a lift? Or shoots a dude from beneath a table? Or when Ellis dies? Honestly, yeah, there’s a little bit of that; the action stuff is so well-done. But it’s also a film with a ton of heart and soul and wit and life. John McClane is a masterpiece of character design, a gruff cop with a heart of gold, a capable action hero but also a working-class schmo who just wants to try to get back with his wife. He struggles and bleeds and doubts himself; he’s not a superman. The villains are incredible, with great lines and great designs and a great scheme; you care about these guys, they’re interesting. There's a part of you that wants Gruber to get away as much as you want John and Holly to get back together. It's a Christmas movie, all about family and forgiveness, and It's just plain fun, uncynical and sentimental and really, really funny. It's the best action movie ever made, I watch it every year, and it brings me great, great comfort and joy.

The American President (1995): oh no, too soon! But I couldn’t include The West Wing in a list of feel-good films, so this is the next best thing; smart public servants being smart, as well as moral and just, wearing their immense power with the right amount of humility. Sorkin really believes in the majesty of the office of President, and the founding myth of America and what that means, and he makes you believe in it too. His dialogue is, of course, exceptional, witty bon-mots and one-liners, but the love story is great too; two people finding each other later in life and trying to make it work despite everything. So it’s a great film, a funny film, a sweet film, a romantic film, but also kinda important; a film that makes you aspire to higher ideals, that gives you hope and confidence in the institutions of government. I suppose it is a fantasy – God knows, the last four years have shaken these institutions to their very core, over here as much as in the States – but The American President can make you believe again.

There you go. Ten films that just make me happy if I'm down, or cement that happiness if I'm already in the mood. All of these films, you’ll notice, are also very, very good; not some kind of “guilty pleasure” (if such a thing exists; don’t pleasure-shame!). Funnily enough, it’s the quality of the films that adds to their charm; I appreciate the craft as much as the plot or theme or performances. Like when I watch American President (or, more accurately, The West Wing) and I just enjoy seeing people good at their jobs be good at their jobs, then watching a well-made film makes me happy because I like seeing people good at their jobs be good at their jobs.

Anyway. Tear yourself away from Twitter, stop refreshing fivethirtyeight.com, pour yourself a drink, and – hopefully – make yourself happy this weekend. Unless you voted for Trump, then you can get in a bin.

#top ten #feel-good films #feel-good movies #movies #happy #optimism #biden #harris

0 notes

ramajmedia · 5 years ago

Text

10 Best Carnival Row Characters | ScreenRant

One of the best new shows right now is Carnival Row. If you got hooked on the first season, which released over Labor Day weekend, then it may just be your latest genre obsession to fill the void left behind by Game of Thrones. The dark fantasy series follows the conflicts between Humanity and the Fae.

Related: 5 Best & Worst Episodes Of Game Of Thrones (According To IMDb)

Its issues of immigration and politics are very topical to the current landscape. The series is led by Orlando Bloom and Cara Delevingne but full of vibrant side characters too. Amazon has already renewed it for a second season. We're taking a look at the ten best characters on the show so far.

10 Darius

Darius is one of Philo's only real friends outside of the relationships he's made with Vignette and Tourmaline. They fought together in the war and Philo remained by Darisus's side even after he had been bitten and changed into a werewolf. In return, Darius kept Philo's secret about him being half-fae. He could smell it on him ever since the change.

At present, we know Darius is being held in a cell but now that Philo's true nature has been revealed, it's not clear what will happen to Darius moving forward. Considering what a great character he is and how much story they can still tell with him, hopefully, he sticks around.

9 Constable Berwick

Constable Berwick is Philo's faithful partner while he works as Inspector. He doesn't get much development or even many lines yet he's always present and does his diligence to aide Philo in any way he can. When Philo gets thrown in a jail cell, Berwick is the only one to believe Philo is innocent.

He comes to warn Philo about the plans Dombey has for him to ensure he doesn't wind up dead. It would be fun to see Berwick become more of an ally moving forward, especially if he became something of a mole inside the police force in season two.

8 Sophie Longerbane

Sophie Longerbane is the daughter of the Chancellor's opposition, Ritter Longerbane. She is played with graceful finesse and cunning by actress Caroline Ford. It is Sophie who technically kickstarts the events of the series by writing a blackmail letter supposedly from Aisling and sending it to the Chancellor.

Related: 10 Reasons Why Cersei Lannister Is The Strongest Character On Game Of Thrones

Piety discovers it and begins her murderous rampage. Sophie's goal is to create chaos because chaos breeds opportunity. She's sort of like the Cersei Lannister of Carnival Row, incest included, since she willingly starts an intimate relationship with her half-brother and by season's end may even be marrying him.

7 Piety Breakspear

Piety is the main antagonist of season one. She creates a Darkasher after discovering that her husband has a secret illicit half-fae son that could threaten the very prophecy she has bid her entire future on. Piety fiercely believes that her son, Jonah, is destined for greatness as foretold by a faun witch.

Philo's very existence threatens Jonah's future and his potential ascension to power. We find out she is the one responsible for all the murders on the Row. Luckily, Vignette and Philo are able to stop her and her Darkasher before she succeeds in finishing her evil plot. Indira Varma plays Piety and she is phenomenal in the role. Piety makes for a wicked and entertaining antagonist.

6 Absalom Breakspear

Played by professional and respected actor Jared Harris, it's impossible to imagine a world where Absalom doesn't wind up on this list. His character development doesn't begin or make sense until towards the end of the season, but he's a genuinely good man who doesn't hate fae like most other humans.

He is revealed to be Philo's birth father and is deeply saddened by his mother's death and the fact he never got to know his son. Absalom even does his best to get Vignette freed and pardoned so that she and his son can leave the Burgue forever and be happy together. It's a shame he died so soon.

5 Imogen Spurnrose

Imogen is not a likable character at first. Her cruelty and distaste towards fae and particularly Mr. Agreus doesn't endear anyone. But over time, she and Agreus fall for one another and embark on an unconventional romance.

Played by accomplished actress Tamzin Merchant, Imogen quickly becomes one of the characters on the show that is the most fun to watch. By season's end, she and Mr. Agreus escape on a ship. In season two, we should see how their journey truly begins as they attempt to escape the wrath of Imogen's vengeful brother Ezra.

4 Agreus Astrayon

Mr. Agreus is a wealthy faun that moves into the house across the street from the Spurnrose residence. Initially, Imogen Spurnrose detests the fact a faun is living in high society. She ignores him, treats him with disdain, and hopes he'll leave. But then when she and her brother need money, they come to a deal for Mr. Agreus to invest in their business while Imogen helps him find a place with her inner circle.

Agreus is a strong willed man. Despite being a faun and aware of discrimination, he doesn't let people talk down to him. He's cheeky and has a dry wit that attracts Imogen after a while.

3 Rycroft Philostrate

Orlando Bloom plays the leading character in the series, Inspector Rycroft Philostrate. Philo's story is the one we are asked to get most invested in as we slowly begin to learn the truth about the murders being perpetrated by the mysterious and foreboding Darkasher. It turns out the link all the dead share is none other than their involvement in Philo's life.

RELATED: The Lord Of The Rings: 10 Facts About Frodo They Leave Out In The Movies

Along with the core series mystery, the first season also follows Philo's journey to understanding who he is, coming to terms with his long-held secret, and the deep love he holds for Vignette after everything they've been through.

2 Vignette Stonemoss

Cara Delevingne delivers a surprisingly subdued and heartfelt performance as the brave and fierce Vignette Stonemoss: a fairy who fled from Tirnanoc after the Pact took over. From the very beginning, Vignette is hard to ignore, given her willingness to help her own kind and try to save them from becoming victims to the Pact's cruelty.

She is the main female lead of the show although surprisingly, her storyline doesn't wind up being as central as Philo's is. Come season two, Vignette should get more of a focus seeing as she and all the other fae are now trapped on the Row.

1 Tourmaline Larou

Tourmaline may not be one of the leading characters, but she is still a significant part of the series. As Vignette's best friend and former lover, the blue-haired pixie is incredibly bubbly and hilarious. It's impossible not to be charmed by her, and she stole everyone's heart by the end of the first episode.

She still holds a torch for Vignette, and they even share a steamy kiss at one point in the season. For now, it looks like Vignette and Philo are getting back together but is it possible that Tourmaline could still be a viable romantic rival come season two? If not, hopefully, she gets a fantastic new love interest of her own.

Next: 10 Pre-Lord Of The Rings High-Fantasy Movies That Are Still Worth Watching

source https://screenrant.com/best-carnival-row-characters/

#screenrant

0 notes

jillmckenzie1 · 4 years ago

Text

Critic & Son – Star Wars Edition

You shouldn’t expect your kids to be into the same things you are. It certainly wasn’t the case with my father and me. Bill was a World War II veteran, a lover of big band music, and a guy with the kind of effortless charisma that made him likable to everyone he came across.* He was also a casual moviegoer. I remember him laughing himself into a mild asthma attack during The Naked Gun, and I remember us seeing both Goodfellas and The Silence of the Lambs theatrically.

However, I should emphasize he was a casual moviegoer. Did he care about the works of Altman and Kurosawa? Nope. Not even a little. Movies were strictly for entertainment, full stop. For some odd reason, I dove into movies far deeper than he ever did. Along with my desire to visit Loch Ness and my wish to make a pilgrimage to the grave of John Belushi, obsessive filmgoing was one more piece of evidence to my father that his son was defective, perhaps fatally so.

With my son, Liam, things are different. At twelve years old, he’s already developed strong opinions of his own regarding film. In between snickers, the mother of one of his friends told me about Liam critiquing their video library. He’s said, “I love Sonic the Hedgehog, but it’s not a good movie.” He’s a perceptive kid, and like just about everybody else in this time of plague, he’s bored to tears.

For the last couple of months, I’ve gotten numerous comments from Liam that were variations of, “Can I help write a review? Please? Please?” In the interests of familial harmony and for my own physical safety, we’re going to have a recurring feature around these parts On a semi-regular basis, Liam is going to join me in ranking the top five picks of franchises and genre flicks to you, our discerning readership.** We’ll begin with our Top Five picks for Star Wars Visual Media:

Liam’s #5 – The Last Jedi: My reasoning for placing this here is that The Last Jedi chose to experiment with the mythos of the Star Wars universe. It made bold moves, took characters in unexpected ways, and had the coolest space fight of all time, even if it came out of nowhere. There could’ve been more brand-safe plays, and a heck of a lot of people disliked this movie for said bold moves, but this is the movie from the sequel trilogy that I re-watch the most.

Tim’s #5 – The Mandalorian: Maybe all this time Star Wars is better suited for television? As the crown jewel (and virtually only series of note) on Disney+, The Mandalorian follows the adventures of a taciturn bounty hunter tasked to take care of an alien infant that’s both Force-sensitive and cute as the dickens. It’s essentially Lone Wolf and Cub with spaceships and blasters, along with some interesting ideas about parenting and nature vs. nurture.

Liam’s #4 – Rogue One: The best way to fill a plot hole is to make a feature-length movie about it! Rogue One is a smart, witty, and brutal Star Wars movie. It introduces a cast of fun and intriguing characters and then kills them off in a variety of ways. It features cameos from C3PO, The Ghost from Rebels, and the best scene of Darth Vader ever, which really makes his next duel look sad in comparison. A solid war film, and the best prequel movie from Star Wars.

Tim’s #4 – Rogue One: For a minute there, it looked like we’d get a series of self-contained Star Wars movies that had nothing to do with the Skywalker Saga. Then Solo killed that idea stone dead.*** Before that happened, we got Rogue One, an honest-to-Tarkin war movie about a suicide mission to swipe the Death Star plans. A game cast and director Gareth Edwards’ intense sense of scale took an idea that was unnecessary and transformed it into an engaging piece of entertainment.

Liam’s #3 – Revenge of the Sith: I know I called Rogue One the best prequel, but it isn’t my favorite. Revenge of the Sith is the movie that makes the prequels feel important. It shows us Palpatine annihilating four separate Jedi Masters, we finally see Anakin become Darth Vader, and we see the decimation of the Jedi through Order 66 in what is, in my opinion, the best half an hour of Star Wars.

Tim’s #3 – The Last Jedi: If I’m being honest with you, I have to admit that I kind of hate the sequel trilogy that kicked off with The Force Awakens. Both that film and The Rise of Skywalker look gorgeous, have fun action sequences, and rely almost entirely on nostalgia to push the narrative forward. The polarizing middle chapter The Last Jedi took big chances, including a grizzled Luke Skywalker who’s given up being a hero due to a moral failing. Writer/director Rian Johnson had very little interest in catering to fans. That’s a good thing, and I prefer having my expectations subverted.

Liam’s #2 – The Mandalorian: In easily the best piece of Star Wars television, The Mandalorian shows us what it is like to be a bounty hunter after the fall of the Empire. We see a cast of colorful characters interact with the bounty hunter, we get Taika Watiti as a murder droid and, most importantly, Baby Yoda. It is breathtakingly beautiful and has some of the best writing in Star Wars.

Tim’s #2 – The Clone Wars: Hey kids! Instead of swashbuckling adventure, how about we spend time focusing on trade disputes and political skullduggery? We all know that the Prequel Trilogy, by and large, sucks. But showrunner Dave Filoni saw through the layer of anti-entertainment. It took some time to get going. Over seven seasons, The Clone Wars managed to make the fall of Anakin Skywalker tragic, managed to turn faceless clone troopers into mostly sympathetic characters, and managed to introduce Ahsoka Tano. She’s Anakin’s apprentice and her journey from an annoying sidekick to a hero with the courage to walk away from the Jedi Order is genuinely mythic.

Liam’s #1 – The Empire Strikes Back: In one of the best sequels ever made, Empire blows the original Star Wars out of the water with how smart the writing is, one of the best lightsaber fights of the series, and causing the heroes to lose by the end of the film. It made Darth Vader into one of the best villains of all time and caused all other Star Wars projects to feel meek in comparison. It’s no wonder that this movie still is one of the most impactful movies even after 40 years since its release.

Tim’s #1 – The Empire Strikes Back: We can all agree that Star Wars is one of the most important movies ever made. Its sequel, The Empire Strikes Back, does what most sequels can only dream of doing. It takes everything that works about the first film and makes it better. The action scenes are more interesting, the dialogue isn’t as clunky, and the characters have arcs that are deeper and better defined. We have a hero who makes many, many stupid mistakes, making his eventual wisdom feel more hard-won. We have a plot twist that’s astounding. We have a Harrison Ford performance that’s charming and engaged. What’s not to love?

*The racist Border Patrol agent that he got fired? Probably not a big fan of my pops. Buy me a beer sometime and I’ll tell you the story.

**Huge credit goes to film writer Drew McWeeny, whose outstanding column Film Nerd 2.0 examined his introduction of classic movies to his boys. It’s excellent writing and I’ve wanted to try something similar myself. His work is well worth paying for and you can buy their introduction to the Star Wars movies here.

***There was talk about a riff on Seven Samurai, in which a squad of Jedi Knights had to defend a small settlement from hordes of Imperial troops. I would have loved to have seen that.

from Blog https://ondenver.com/critic-son-star-wars-edition/

0 notes

douchebagbrainwaves · 5 years ago

Text

THE HARDEST LESSONS FOR IN SILICON VALLEY

Errands are so effective at killing great projects that a lot of money. Book publishers, for example; but it is for many software startups because they're now so cheap. Which in those days there was practically zero concept of starting what we now call a startup: a business that would start small and stay small. As usual those numbers are dominated by a few big winners.1 They just sit there. The effects of World War II were both economic and social.2 A better name would be curiosity. So the question is not what will happen to existing forms, but what you'd like to like. True, but I have never once sensed any unresolved tension between them.

It's also wise, early on, to seek jobs that let you do many different things that were just ridiculous, and believed them so strongly that you risked ostracism or even violence by saying otherwise. In fact, what makes the preceding paragraph true is that most readers won't believe it—at least to the extent of acting on it. Because a glider doesn't have an engine, you can't fly into the wind without losing a lot of instincts, this one was unintentional. It's hard for us now to understand what a conceptual leap that was at the edge of what could be manufactured. There are roughly a thousand times as many people alive in the US right now as lived in Florence during the fifteenth century. Once, when I was eight, I was rarely bored. The people who want you to do.3 He always seems to land on his feet.4 And yet practically no one does.5

Partly because, as components of oligopolies themselves, the corporations knew they could safely pass the cost on to their customers, because their competitors would have to as well. A round is the first test: there is no permanent place for ugly mathematics? It's that adults take responsibility for themselves. It's hard to find work you love, you're practically there.6 If there were a little man in your head is not to take stock in the startups is that startups are often involved in disreputable things. So one thing that falls just short of the standard, I think what they mean, but this algorithm guarantees they'll miss all the very best ideas. What are the great Renaissance patrons of the arts.7

Well, not really.8 And of course another big change for the average startup is that programming languages have improved—or at least postpone, turning into managers, just as, occasionally, playing wasn't—for example, set prices based on the cost of customer acquisition. I don't know; but not startup founders. So the best solution is to look at. That's the good part. By honest I don't mean that I'd slack in school.9 Why didn't Henry Ford realize that networks of cooperating companies work better than a single big company?10 As big companies' oligopolies became less secure, they were high-ranking officers.11 In principle it was possible to start a company that would become big.12 Money by itself is not that investors encourage innovative startups to sell out, but it's important enough to be mentioned on its own.13 There are two ways this kind of thing for fun.

The reason not to put all your eggs in one basket is not the reason there are only 15 big hits a year could easily become 50 or even 100. And yet in the mid 20th century. Your mother at this point is not trying to paint well; he cared almost too much.14 They seemed wrong. But Y Combinator runs on the maker's schedule, meetings are a disaster. The Northwest Passage that the Mannerists, the Romantics, and two generations of American high school students rarely benefit from it, because so long as you're over a certain threshold of intelligence, what matters most is determination.15 How hard would it be to jumpstart a silicon valley? But an illusion it was.

He thought for a second, and said ok.16 I think symmetry may just be my own stupidity. He turned out to be your best work will it be your magnum opus on Sumerian temple architecture, or the detective thriller you wrote under a pseudonym?17 The principle extends even into programming. VCs look impressive to limited partners. A lot of cities look at Silicon Valley and the whole world, for that matter have speculative meetings. The professors all seem forbiddingly intellectual and publish papers unintelligible to outsiders.18 That's a separate question. And then I'd gradually find myself using the Internet. Milan with just as much of their energy and imagination, but they were only a little more extreme than other big companies. We're more patient.

The best plan, I think it's because humor is related to strength.19 Morally, they care about getting the big questions right, but not so much that resembling nature is intrinsically good as that nature has had a long time to work, and it's happening as far afield as the car industry. The word used for this process was misleadingly narrow: deregulation. I had to ask. -B procrastinators—the whole company. I was when a friend asked if I'd heard Steve Jobs had cancer.20 Another reason not to put all your eggs in one basket is not the way it's portrayed on TV. The good news is, the highs are also very high.

Notes

Writing college textbooks is unpleasant work, like angel investors in startups. I call it ambient thought. Startups that don't scale is to assume the worst thing about startup school to be room for startups, has one booked for them by returns, it's because of the more corrupt the rulers.

The person who has them manages to find a broad range of topics, comparable in scope to our users that isn't the last 150 years we're still only able to grow as big as a process rather than doing a bad reputation, a player who persists in trying such things can be a predictor of success. One-click ordering, however. The Roman commander specifically ordered that he had never invented anything—that startups aren't the problem to fit your solution. At the time of unprecedented federal power, in 1962.

The person who has them manages to find someone else. If you're not trying to sell your company right now. One-click ordering, however.

What's the connection? But having more of the rule of law is aiming at.

03%. They live in a more reserved society, or black beans n cubes Knorr beef or vegetable bouillon n teaspoons freshly ground black pepper 3n teaspoons ground cumin n cups dry rice, preferably brown Robert Morris points out that this was the recipe is to write an essay about why people dislike Michael Arrington. In a series A termsheet with a real partner. Obviously this is also a good grade you had a killed portraiture as a cause them to represent anything.

A scientist isn't committed to rejecting it. Patent trolls can't even measure the degree to which it is certainly more efficient, it would literally take forever to raise more, the less educated parents seem closer to the other becomes visible. Max also told me about a form that asks for your protection. There is nothing more unconvincing, for example, willfulness clearly has two subcomponents, stubbornness and energy.

Parker, William R. I couldn't think of ourselves as investors, is to seem big that they probably don't notice even when I switch person.

I may be even larger than the valuation of the recruiting funnel. It's surprising how small a problem into your head. The markets seem to understand about startups.

If all the money. Bullshit, Princeton University Press, 1996. Some genuinely aren't.

These two regions were the seven liberal arts colleges are doomed. Enterprise software. Most of the aircraft is. The most important information about competitors is what we now call the Metaphysics came after meta after the first person to run an online service.

Most computer/software startups are often surprised by this standard, and the low countries, where it does, the LPs who invest in it, because it was very much better, but bickering at several hundred dollars an hour most people realize, because unpromising-seeming startups are ready to raise more, are available only to the erosion of the funds we raised was difficult, and why it's such a valuable technique that any company could build a silicon valley out of fashion in 100 years.

The reason Google seemed a plausible excuse. Com.

On Bullshit, Princeton University Press, 1983.

And it's just as you start fundraising, because they could attribute to malice what can be either capped at a blistering pace in the construction industry.

Rice and Beans for 2n olive oil or butter n yellow onions other fresh vegetables to a later Demo Day. Some VCs will try to disguise it with.

Japanese. We tell them exactly what constitutes research in the succession of spectacular treason trials that punctuated Henry's erratic matrimonial progress made him an obvious candidate for grants of monastic property. But this is what people will pay for stuff online, if the president faced unscripted questions by giving a press hit, but I'm not dissing these people make up their minds, they have that glazed over look. Aristotle looked at with fresh eyes and even if our competitors hate most?

The thing to be room for startups might be enough. If you're the sort of wealth, not economic inequality is not a coincidence you haven't heard of investors. How can I make the hiring point more strongly.

The way to make peace. For the price of a business is to the Pall Mall Gazette.

But not all of them. We still do things that don't scale is to trick a pointy-haired boss into letting him play. The First Industrial Revolution, England was already the richest and most sophisticated city in the mid 1980s.

I don't know how many computers the worm might have to act. In a series A deal flow, then their incentives aren't aligned with the amount—maybe not linearly, but essentially a startup. The chief lit a cigarette. The original version of Word 13.

0 notes

stopsubstanceabuse1-blog · 6 years ago

Text

How exactly to Dress for a romantic date evening (and so many more): helpful information for guys

New Post has been published on https://www.substanceabuseprevention.net/how-exactly-to-dress-for-a-romantic-date-evening-2/

How exactly to Dress for a romantic date evening (and so many more): helpful information for guys

Today we are going to speak about just how to dress for a date to make certain that this occasion will never be the very last one. In the end, males usually wish to replace the convenience and practicality in clothes for a style that is nice follow fashion styles. Consequently, selecting clothing for the date that is first burdensome for some guys. Nevertheless, such an event is essential plus it’s a great chance to get acquainted with each other better. Of course you reveal your emotions For some girl, nothing should be an obstacle on the real solution to your relationship along with her. Properly composed collection of garments as well as theappropriate add-ons in stability with good ways is the greatest method to your heart of a selected one. Therefore, the option of clothing with this occasion must be taken along with severity. It really is not likely that your particular friend may wish to invest her night for you if, as an example, you wear a tracksuit on a romantic date in a cafe. Therefore, let’s determine what to put on on a night out together such that it does not surprise your friend?

just how to dress for a night out together

Things to wear on an informal first date

Some genuinely believe that they have to dress really, well in the very first date therefore that a lady is stunned by just exactly exactly how cool they appear. However great deal hinges on a woman and for which you get. Some girls can perceive your super image as one thing that you highly flaunt. And also this will last not so well. Additionally, in the event the very first date happens not in a cafe however in a far more active environment, for instance, you choose to walk when you look at the park, you then don’t need certainly to wear a tuxedo. Your outfit will be out of simply devote this example. Anywhere you ask a lady, use the planning procedure as well as your appearance really. This can inform your chosen one that some effort has been made by youand need the conferences to keep. Don’t wear your chosen beach shorts and flip-flops. These specific things look careless and they are perhaps perhaps perhaps not suited to an initial date. A lady may be disappointed to see you such clothing and believe a romantic date just isn’t so essential for your requirements. They could be used each time a relationship becomes more trusting.

Simple tips to dress for a night out together when you look at the oxygen

The perfect combination: a top, a pullover having a V-neck, jeans from the thick material ( perhaps perhaps maybe not from a suit and without arrows), and sneakers or “lightweight” shoes – loafers or derby. An alternative solution perfect combination: An jacket that is informal of soft fabric, a top, a tie, jeans, suede shoesor shoes that are derby. As a whole, the ensemble should not be pretentious, although not too sloppy. A lady should recognize that you’re get yourself ready for a date – hence, you instantly attract her yourself. And, most of all, you will be making her recognize that you’re not crazy. These clothing will perfectly solvethe difficulty – what things to wear on a night out together.

simple tips to dress for a dateWhat to wear on a very first date to supper

Yes, “sloppy” style is a large trend now. But, trust me, no girl shall like you treat her by having a sloppy mindset. Therefore, you are able to put away knitted recreations jeans, hoodies, and sneakers. Just because these are the clothing for that you travelled to Milan. We are able to state that its not all girl will differentiate brand name clothing from ordinary people. A woman shall think similar to this: “Yeah, he happens a night out together in sneakers, this is certainly, using exactly what he saw into the wardrobe. He just isn’t thinking about making the feeling on me personally. We don’t like it!” Keep in mind, casual date garments won’t be the same as activities people! You can wear such clothing just if they’re ideal for other areas, for instance, a nightclub.

How exactly to dress for the dinner date in a restaurant

Needless to say, when you have a night out together annually, you wish to commemorate this occasion with all the current pomp that is proper for instance, putting on a tuxedo (especially since It has been washed by you recently). But don’t do so. Night by choosing date garments being uncomfortable for your requirements, to start with, you are going to damage yourself – you are going to feel constrained. Then, you will ruin a night out together: a woman will feel your stress and can barely desire any such thing, aside from another cappuccino. But also should you feel much more comfortable in a tuxedo, leave it in the home. Too solemn ensemble kills all fluids that are sexual.

Additionally, there will be something in a guy by having a tie around their throat. But a tie must certanly be loosened, just as if after having a day that is hard. Particularly this technique works after having a day’s that is real: you will find not very several things that excite a lady like a person who is able to head to work (and if he nevertheless really loves their work, it is simply bingo). Well, it will be good in case a tie had been used having a https://rose-brides.com suit (our culture hasn’t yet grown for a tie-shirt combination). A suit does not have to be costly. Its part could be satisfied with a jacket that is soft casual design and pants (from thick textile, without obligatory arrows) a few colors lighter when compared to a coat.

Things to wear for a very first date at the cinema

It is possibly the many place that is democratic conferences. In cases where a film is uninteresting, you can just together have fun. For the cinema, good footwear, clean jeans, a top or perhaps a sweater will be good. Such clothing, it will be convenient if you wish to carry on a night out together in a nightspot after a film. Some want to wear a classic coat with jeans – recently it really is becoming popular. But be mindful: some women hate such combinations. For them, it seems like fashion through the century that is last.

Things to wear in a nightspot

Yes, often the very first date is appointed even in such places. Needless to say, a nightclub and a date that is first somewhat incompatible things, however if the decision is currently made, then think of ways to astonish a woman, aside from the dances that are crazy. Visiting the club, it is possible to wear the exact same casual date garments like jeans and a blazer that is non-standard. Because of the real method, if you are likely to at the very top nightclub, it is far better to wear a jacket from a well-known brand name just because a 5-dollar T-shirt and old jeans may look somehow away from spot (regardless if your wallet will burst a good bundle of cash). At The time that is same clothing for the club should always be because free as possible, allow one to go, and, on top of other things, it ought to be comfortable. Otherwise, dances will develop into the torture of the heat collapse.

Things to wear for a date that is first cold temperatures

An ice rink is a really place that is popular times. You will do a rest and sport in the new atmosphere. Music is pleasant and folks are content. In a three-piece suit from Tom Ford, you certainly will look absurd such a location. Purchase a beneficial recreations suit and that’s all. As a substitute, your sweater that is favorite and jeans may also be appropriate. Make sure to just take a dry t-shirt to alter then.

How exactly to dress for a romantic date at the opera household or movie theater

Right right Here you can’t try out garments. So that you can go right to the movie movie theater or opera and appear great, a person has to purchase (it yet) a if he hadn’t done black colored tuxedo, footwear of this exact same color and a light shirt. This kind of accepted spot as being a movie movie theater excellently demonstrates just how a guy should look on a night out together. Correctly produced design increases your possibilities to conquer your beloved.

What things to wear for the car/motorbike/yacht trip

Right Here the key criterion is so it ought to be convenient to help you drive a chosen car. As an example, for an automobile, casual clothing with a small touch of negligence – an unbuttoned shirt collar, somewhat tucked sleeves, and costly watches is the many option that is successful.

how exactly to dress for a dateImportance of footwear

In spite of how calm the environmental surroundings is, your footwear must certanly be in good condition. Whichever shoes you wear, you will be certain that a lady shall fundamentally look closely at them. This element of a wardrobe states great deal about A person and is one of those signals that help make an basic concept of one’s character. Going on a romantic date, ensure that your shoes are clean, comfortable and, if at all possible, fashionable.

Just just exactly What garments to put on on a night out together rather than to screw up

Don’t wear total black colored: this will probably produce a situation that is unpleasant if one thing bad took place. It is advisable to put on clothing of dim colors, not black colored. Select the colors that are following a basis: maroon, green with emerald color, blue. If you’re maybe maybe not scared of experimenting, placed on a purple that is dark top. And don’t select clothing with bright inserts or slogans that are screaming for the date that is first.

Don’t wear brand brand new clothes. As an example, clothing which you purchased yesterday. But in the event that you nevertheless would you like to wear some brand new top or suit, then chances are you shouldn’t forget to cut all of the unneeded things such as labels and costs.

Stick to the guidelines for combining colors. Hope you keep in mind that your clothes should not be variegated if you are planning someplace with a woman. Stay glued to a color solution with at the most four colors. If you wear jeans of delicate Shades of blue and gray, then combine these with brown footwear. The same can be believed to matches.

Select colors that suit the tones of the eyes and epidermis. Warm colors will assist you to stress the eyes of brown and colors that are dark. To stress green and eyes that are blue select cool colors: blue, grey. Will you be stressed that the epidermis on the face is in a poor state? Your investment red and shades that are white. They stress redness and imperfection.

Don’t combine brown footwear and a suit that is black. The basic scheme associated with color mix of clothing and footwear can be as follows: black colored footwear may be used with black colored, dark grey or dark blue matches just. Brown footwear must be used just with a light-colored suit or jeans. As an example, such footwear are used with a light gray or light blue classic suit, along with light or that is blue grey jeans. It’s easy to keep in mind and also the understanding of these guidelines will bring a benefit that is tangible. Girls are particularly amply trained when you look at the problems of color compatibility, therefore it’s far better to keep that at heart in order to not ever disappoint them.

Don’t just forget about add-ons. A tie should be very carefully combined and tied along with the rest regarding the image. A lovely white handkerchief in your pocket is A very element that is functional which can be appreciated by females quite definitely. To classic pants, it’s important to have a gear created from top-quality materials, ideally from leather-based.

Your investment tees with “cool” prints. They surely don’t fit when it comes to very very first date. What woman will appreciate a top with a printing like “i enjoy intercourse” or boy” that is“Real?

Check it out on and determine exactly exactly just how it sits. Prevent too loose and too slim cut. Tight jeans look improper on males and pants that are too wide negligently. They provide the impression which you don’t care how exactly to dress. If you’re unhappy how clothing look, contact an atelier to modify clothing to the human body kind.

You have to look great. Clothing of a guy that is happening the date should look great; footwear ought to be refined. Should we remind males that they have to shave their stubble and cut their finger nails? Prior to going down, don’t forget to usage perfume with an aroma that is pleasant.

Wear clean underwear and brand brand brand new socks. Before a romantic date, it is advisable to hold clean underwear and socks. You don’t discover how your date may end. You don’t like to screw up, appropriate? As you can plainly see, dear males, getting dressed precisely Doesn’t mean spending a complete great deal of the time thinking about pictures very very carefully. To Create stylish and simple sets of garments, you are able to properly make use of these helpful recommendations.

0 notes

theconservativebrief · 6 years ago

Link

The past few weeks have possibly comprised one of the most intense news cycles since Donald Trump was elected to the presidency. The spectacle, drama, and emotion of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh and Palo Alto University professor Christine Blasey Ford testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding Ford’s sexual assault allegations against Kavanaugh captured our attention and set off a wave of controversy and debate around difficult topics like sexual misconduct, white male privilege, and rape culture.

If you’re one of many people who’ve subsequently sought distraction from the news, both online and off, you’re not alone. And if you’re the type who finds solace in internet frippery, the memes of the moment are here for you.

From the lighthearted “Zendaya Is Meechee” to an outpouring of delight over the new Philadelphia Flyers mascot, Gritty, the breakout memes of the current news cycle have been notably apolitical, with a concerted emphasis on whimsy — a distinct contrast to the tone of world events. And last week, on the day of Ford’s and Kavanaugh’s testimony about her alleged sexual assault, meme threads like the one below sprang up as a proposed way to ward off the anxiety over what the hearings might entail:

We are starting a thread of pet photos, goofy memes, and wholesome jokes right the fuck now. Reply with content accordingly.

I will start off with this, which @PatriciaValoy sent to me earlier, and which kills me entirely. pic.twitter.com/1lIZxQoQr6

— andrea grimes (@andreagrimes) September 27, 2018

Increasingly, people appear to be using memes and cute pictures and videos to mitigate anxiety, as a form of wellness and self-care. For many, they offer a way to cope during times of tension and stress.

This trend hasn’t arisen out of nowhere — but there’s a reason it feels new. The mainstreaming of the “wholesome meme” is a specific response to a geopolitical era that is unprecedented in recent memory for its turbulence and polarization. And it represents a shift brought about by the natural evolution of the internet.

For as long as the internet has existed, memes have served as a shared form of currency. Historically, the most enduring and popular memes have tended to combine edgy humor, layered in-jokes that require multiple levels of understanding to be effective, and an element of absurdity or surrealism that reflects something about the internet’s randomness at large. Galaxy brains. Dead gorillas. Moths.

But roughly since the 2016 election, many of the memes that have risen to the forefront on social media have abandoned the irony, political satire, and nihilism we’re grown used to seeing. In an era when so many of us have accepted that everything is on fire and anything we love will inevitably become problematic, the memes going viral of late have been, dare I say it? Wholesome. Loving. Even comforting in their simplicity and silliness.

Recent meme trends over the past couple of years have found us praising good dogs and reconciling with our dog-hating enemies. We’ve been celebrating nostalgic songs that make us wanna dance. We’ve created whimsical nonsense songs based on animated kids’ movies. The emerging theme seems to be an emphasis on banality, on the pleasantly comforting and invitingly harmless. These memes are nice, and aggressively no more than that.

Additionally, the rise of “here’s a fun internet thing to help you get through the day” now seems to be a default way to respond to moments of stress. We’re turning to adorable animals and silly memes that are basically the equivalent of internet dad jokes — and sometimes are themselves dad jokes. They’re “Hang in there!” kitten posters for the digital age.

The changing nature of recent mainstream memes also reflects a shift in where they’re created and who’s creating them. Prior to the dominance of social media (which took hold in the late 2000s), memes that made the leap to mainstream internet culture — think anything that was passed along via email forwards — typically began on cult meme sites like Homestar Runner or YTMND, or on forums like Something Awful, 4chan, or Reddit.

Then in the mid-aughts, meme-specific sites like I Can Haz Cheezburger helped proliferate specific kinds of memes, mainly image macros — the classic “still photo with a caption emblazoned on it”:

Cheezburger

The gradual move away from 4chan as the progenitor of most of our memes is partly a natural cultural response to the evolving extremism that has taken over much of that site’s culture. The memes that are generated there today are more likely to appeal to a niche fringe of conspiracists and alt-right frog fans, and the people who once made mainstreamable memes on 4chan have largely departed for other platforms.

During the early rise of social media, between roughly 2005 and 2008, Reddit and Tumblr took over as the primary grounds through which memes were created, sourced, and circulated. It’s taken a while, but as Twitter has come into its own, evolving away from the era of Weird Twitter and its niche memetic rules, we’re seeing more and more memes originate and circulate on the site (though it’s also very common for “new” memes that go viral on Twitter to have already made the rounds on Tumblr).

And many of those memes are of the more wholesome variety.

My friend Amanda Brennan is a noted meme librarian, meaning she researches and catalogs the evolution and taxonomy of internet memes — she’s a curator of Tumblr’s fandom trends and a former contributor to the internet meme database Know Your Meme. She told me in an email that the “wholesome” trend in meme culture began to really pick up steam last year with memes like “My skin is clear, my crops are watered” — a text meme that facetiously pokes fun at the idea of the classic “forward this message/reblog for good luck” directive by presenting an image of something positive and then claiming that the image has cleared your skin, watered your crops, or brought you whatever piece of good fortune you might want in your life.

Indeed, one of the themes of Tumblr’s 2017 Year in Review was “wholesome memes.”

For Brennan, the proliferation of these memes is partly about authenticity — and the decompartmentalization of identity on the internet. “I think people are getting more in touch with presenting their authentic personalities online rather than presenting what they feel like they should be on social media,” she said. “On Tumblr, authentic actions come first. You’re there for whatever thing you love the most — animals, TV shows, musicians, your favorite ship. People are starting to realize that maybe it’s okay to be that authentic version of yourself everywhere on the internet.”

The shift in emphasis toward wholesomeness isn’t just affecting memes. The rise of the concept of the “soft boy” in pop culture, like To All the Boys I’ve Loved Before’s Peter Kavinsky, has served as a counter to centuries of patriarchal depictions of masculinity in part because he is a nonthreatening version of manhood. Nurturing and emotive, the soft boy comes without built-in toxicity, at least ostensibly; though some observers are divided over whether he’s genuine or just another fuckboy in sheep’s clothing, he’s increasingly being framed and embraced as a sincere alternative to the red-pill-variety dude who just wants to use you.

The idea of “cinnamon roll” characters has percolated on Tumblr for the past few years as a testament to our love of characters who are defined mainly by their sweetness rather than their edginess. In sci-fi and fantasy fandoms, the concept of “hopepunk” has sprung up to describe an emerging trend of literature and media in which social systems and humanity itself are portrayed as fixable, if not inherently good.

In essence, these trends are part of a wider cultural reexamination of hurtful narratives, and a celebration of the marginalized people that those narratives have long erased or ignored. They also offer remedies for those narratives, through self-aware depictions of positive and inclusive ideas and social structures.

Memes have a natural role to play in that reevaluation.

“As internet culture widens and deepens along with the news cycle, more people are taking certain issues more seriously,” Brennan told me. “We all seem to seek out humor that’s light and fun for the sake of being fun.”

Sure, you might not believe that rating a dog 14/10 or celebrating this guy and his piano-playing cats registers as any kind of moral victory against countercultural extremism. But these small nods to whimsy, to gentleness, and to more vulnerable emotions are a vital reminder that humanity, despite all current appearances to the contrary, has evolved beyond fearmongering, violence, and hatred of the other.

When you sing “Zendaya Is Meechee,” you’re fostering the idea that humanity’s united appreciation of a silly song can be greater than its penchant for stoking tribalism and division. And at the very least, you’re finding support — along with everyone else who’s exhausted by the current culture wars — in something happy and fun instead of recoiling at the thought of, well, everything else.

And that’s an idea worth memeing.

Original Source -> The rise of the wholesome internet meme

via The Conservative Brief

#IFTTT #The Conservative Brief

1 note · View note

closetofanxiety · 7 years ago

Text

Show Review: Women’s Wrestling Revolution, “From the Pinnacle to the Pit”

Once she was known as Emma and she was bungled by WWE creative. Now she is known as Tenille Dashwood, and she is wrestling at a hookah bar on a Sunday afternoon in a part of Worcester, Mass. that even realtors wouldn’t dare call “up and coming.” Let’s take a look!

What: Women’s Wrestling Revolution

When: Sunday, March 25, 2018

Where: Electric Haze, the best hookah bar in Worcester, Massachusetts

Who: Announced as WWR’s largest crowd ever, I would guess there was something like 200 people crammed into a small space. I was with Mike and Joel.

Show notes: FKA Emma brought a crowd, including a lot more little kids than you normally see at these things. As little kids are the best wrestling fans, this was a blast. On the other hand, there are things about WWR that don’t necessarily make for a kid-friendly environment, as became evident during the last match, when an 8-year-old got bulldozed by a suicide dive outside the ring.

The Matches:

Oceanea vs Willow Nightingale

We came about halfway through this one. This was one of the four matches on the “Powerbomb Pre-Show”; for the first time, that pre-show featured no male wrestlers. Ladies are doin’ for themselves! I like Willow Nightingale a lot. Oceanea is Ashley Vox with a new name and look. The ring announcer pronounced her name like it’s spelled Oceania, as in the continent, but to me it looks like it should be pronounced “Ocean-EE-uh.”

Rating: Didn’t see enough to rate it.

Solo Darling vs. Allie Recks

A battle of two crowd favorites, which is one of my pet peeves. Darling has become a genuinely accomplished wrestler with an arsenal of power moves that you wouldn’t expect from someone so wee. Recks needs a more developed character than “PG-13 Christina Von Eerie,” but is game here, and bumps well for Darling. Kind of a Darling showcase, and the Sugar Creature gets the win with the cloverleaf.

Rating: Three hookahs.

Delmi Exo vs. Faye Jackson w/Stokely Hathaway

Stokely Hathaway is one of my favorite people in all of wrestling. In an age where it’s hard to get people to boo you, he manages to draw heat while still having a “man you love to hate” aura. His gimmick - roughly, that life is kind of like the old TV show “Martin” - is magnificent, and he managed to get the crowd chanting “tender roni,” an obscure Bobby Brown reference. Jackson is coming along as a Nia Jax-style powerhouse, and pretty much dominates the action here. Just as her sister Ashley Vox has a new gimmick, Delmi Exo is now billed as “Just One of the Boys” and comes out in cutoffs and a baseball cap. I don’t get it, but she seems like she’s having a good time. Exo is super streaky as a wrestler; some shows she looks good, others are full of mistakes. This is one of the former, and it’s a fun match that Jackson eventually wins, relying on her superior power.

Rating: Two and a half hookahs.

Terra Calaway vs. Maria Manic

Speaking of new gimmicks, Manic is now a brunette and going by “The Monstrosity” instead of being a real-life Barbie doll. I like the new ferocity! This is a slugfest with Calaway, who isn’t as agile as Manic but is bigger and has plenty of brawn. These two big gals immediately start trading haymakers, and it’s fun. Manic wins with a Samoan drop onto a steel chair. Brutal!

Rating: Three hookahs.

FIRST INTERMISSION

If you know me, you know I SUPPORT THE BOYS in all things, but lately I’ve been getting more mark pictures. This time around it was Tenille Dashwood, who seemed nice but a little seasick, and Shotzi Blackheart. There was a big line for the latter, and I was the last person she took a picture with before heading to the back as intermission ended. I got all kinds of dirty looks and grumbles from the people still in line. GUESS YOU SHOULDN’T DAWDLE DURING INTERMISSION, FOLKS.

Shotzi Blackheart vs. LuFisto

I’m not sure if this is Blackheart’s first time in the Northeast, but in any case it’s her WWR debut and if it’s not her first-ever show in New England, she is not a regular visitor to God’s country. The crowd is hot for her, and hot for LuFisto as well. Two fan favorites squaring off: not a fan of this booking, but whatever. Blackheart is sporting new spar-spangled ring gear that, with her biker look, makes her look like a character from “Zabriskie Point.” Or maybe “Easy Rider”? Some movie about the hippie dream turning sour on the violent highways of America. Anyway, this match moves quickly, with Blackheart trying to use her speed and flexibility against LuFisto’s power and strength. They trade strikes and submissions for a while, evenly matched, before LuFisto gets the upper hand, putting Blackheart in the tree of woe and hitting her with a palm strike that sounded like a rifle shot. LuFisto wins via BURNING HAMMER and then they do the “great match, fellow gladiator” handshake thing and Blackheart gets a hearty “please come back” chant.

Rating: Three and a half hookahs.

Nadi vs. Kennadi Copeland

The return of Nadi, the Armenian princess! I love her gimmick so much. Ethnic gimmicks are always a little dicey, but this one is so region-specific that it practically doesn’t count as an ethnic gimmick unless you live in southern California. She’s really improved since her last visit; she’s dropped some weight and is a lot faster on her feet. This is Copeland’s second WWR show, after a brutal squash loss to Calaway. Copeland, who is downright skinny, is more evenly matched with Nadi, who starts things off with a good heat-generating promo about how much she hates coming to Worcester, which she compared to taking the lid off a septic tank and climbing inside. Compared to Blackheart-LuFisto, this is tentative and unmemorable in terms of ring action, but far surpasses it in story: we have a plucky underdog babyface against a cheating heel, and the crowd explodes when Copeland gets the surprise win.

Rating: Three hookahs.

Vanity vs. Kasey Catal

A “Create a Pro Showcase” match, as these two are regulars in that promotion. They work well together, and they have complimentary styles heavy on strikes and power moves, but for whatever reason this match never shifts into second gear for me. There’s nothing bad about it, but in the absence of a story and with two wrestlers who are competent but unspectacular, there’s not much to get excited about.

Rating: Two hookahs.

Kris Stadtlander vs. Davienne w/Sammi Lane

One thing I like about WWR shows is the crowd. This is not a “smart” crowd with people cheering the heels or dispassionately analyzing the matches (although there are a few people like that); for the most part, people at these shows cheer the good guys and boo the bad guys, and seem genuinely excited about the wrestling. This match is one that benefits tremendously from that dynamic: in terms of wrestling, it’s not hugely different from Vanity vs. Catal, but in terms of storyline it has a significant advantage in the hated villain Davienne. People boo the hell out of her. They boo her hometown, Rutland (”Go back to Rutland!” screams a guy next to me; Rutland is maybe 10 miles from Worcester). They boo everything about her. Stadtlander is working a Chikara-esque gimmick where she’s from outer space and has magic-ish powers, which could be terrible but mostly works because the crowd just wants to see Davienne lose and get sent packing back to Rutland and its stupid-ass Central Tree. Alas, justice is denied this week, and Davienne wins, thanks to cheating assistance from Sammi Lane. WILL NO ONE RID US OF THIS HATED VILLAINESS?

Rating: Three hookahs.

Tenille Dashwood vs. Jordynne Grace

Grace is insanely over with the crowd, so much so that people actually start booing once Dashwood’s music starts, before they remember that she is an emissary from the glamorous world of WWE and we’re supposed to cheer. I wonder what Dashwood thought about wrestling in a venue without seats, with the smell of hookah smoke in the air, a well-behaved dog happily wandering the premises, and guys in Bruins hoodies saying, “Holy shit, she’s HAWT AS FUCK” when she comes out. It’s a long way from Emmalina. This is a well-worked, fast-paced match between two talented wrestlers who happen to be fantastically conditioned athletes. Both are working face, but Grace is using her superior size, giving Dashwood the chance to be the underdog. Watching this match, with her ability on full display and her undeniable charisma, it’s hard to know how the WWE missed the boat on Dashwood. She wins, people cheer, there’s a good sportsmanship handshake, the whole deal. The dog was wagging his li’l tail as the Bruins fans drank Narragansetts in celebration.

Rating: Three and a half hookahs.

INTERMISSION TWO

I got a mark pic with LuFisto, who’s raising money to deal with her cancer treatment. She rules, and I know lots of people are pulling for her. I went outside to get some air because it was hot and stuffy in there and felt the stirrings of spring on the afternoon breeze.

Barbi Hayden vs. Penelope Ford

I moved my spot around the ring for the second half of the show, and I was standing across from three little girls who were members of a gymnastics team of some sort, and who went absolutely berserk for everything in every match. I can’t tell you how much it enhances my enjoyment of a wrestling event to see little kids who are OUTRAGED at every instance of cheating and completely elated, jumping up and down, when the good guy wins. The good guy in this match was Ford, who does a handspring elbow that was especially popular with the young gymnasts. Overall, this match was a little clunky; Hayden and Ford both missed a few spots and didn’t quite gel, although Hayden is terrific as an arrogant heel. The story helped the match get over with me, but both women are capable of better performances.

Rating: Two and a half hookahs.

Team Adams (Karen Q and Tasha Steelz) vs. Alisha Edwards and Gillian Leigh

BOW DOWN TO THE QUEEN OF NEW ENGLAND. Alexxis is now trading as Alisha Edwards and is one of my favorite heels - maybe my favorite - in wrestling today, at this moment. She is magnificent at baiting the crowd, moaning to the ref, cheating against the faces, and throwing a tantrum when the tide turns. She started out by running over to the three young gymnasts, who wanted high fives, and screeching “YOU WISH” before turning her back on them, and only got better from there. At one point, she dragged Karen Q over to another kid who had made the mistake of cheering for the Team Adams wrestler. As Edwards raked Q’s face against the rope, she screeched, “COME ON, I CAN’T HEAR YA CHEERING FOR HER” at the terrified kid. This woman is a gift to us all. This match is loads of fun, lots of fast-paced tag action, as Team Adams work very well together and Leigh bumps around like a goddamn lunatic. The crowd boos every single time Alisha Edwards gets tagged into the match; it’s incredible. Eventually the faces rally and Edwards taps out to the Boston crab. I can’t wait to see her again.

Rating: Three and a half hookahs.

Skylar vs. Rachael Ellering

Yet another face vs. face match. The crowd loves both these women, although Skylar is probably a bit more popular. She’s come a really long way in a short time; expect to hear a lot more about her as she starts working on bigger stages and outside the region. She’s the clear underdog in this match, as Ellering dominates most of the match, using her superior strength to cut off any run Skylar tries to make, until she wins with a surprise pin. The crowd loved it.

Rating: Three hookahs.

Jordynne Grace vs. Deonna Purrazzo

This match was supposed to be Deonna vs. her antagonist Sonya Strong, but Sonya came out in street clothes and said she’s ill, and not cleared to wrestle. YOU ARE A COWARD. Deonna says she’s ready to wrestle every night, and offers a shot to anyone in the back. Jordynne Grace’s music hits, and we find ourselves in a battle of the WWR aces! Just in terms of in-ring work, this is the best match of the day, with Purrazzo using her old-school psychology to counter Grace’s explosive power. Storyline-wise, even though this is another face vs. face match, it has plenty of juice because the rivalry between these two has been slowly building for months over who’s the top dog in the company. To my surprise, Purrazzo loses cleanly - the interference from Sonya Strong I was expecting came after the match was over, when Sonya ran in and started beating on Deonna. Jordynne ran back to make the save, and Sonya dove out of the ring, absolutely flattening a kid standing at ringside who didn’t move out of the way. He seemed OK! And really, knocking a kid over is a next-level heel move. I’m glad the Strong-Purrazzo feud is going to keep building - it’s legitimately one of my favorite stories in wrestling right now - but I would have had Sonya cost Deonna the match, so the “who’s the ace?” thing would still be hanging out there. Either way, though, terrific match.

Rating: Four hookahs.

#Show Reviews #Women's Wrestling Revolution #women's wrestling

1 note · View note