#love a good parallel love how matt is portraying all the gods

[chaosgenasi]

Are you scared? Yes.

[incandescent-creativity]

Happy Storyteller Saturday! Who would your characters be if they were Greek Gods/Goddesses? (I was asked this question recently and found it fascinating so I'm passing it along!)

Oooh, yeah I like this!

Dr. Agau would be Hera like in demeanor: cold, harsh, punishing, etc. Her domain would probably be something like medicine and intelligence. Very authoritative. Doesn’t come down to earth to fuck around, figuratively or literally.

Beth is, of course, a deity of the ocean and also of storms. She is a goddess that has a lot of parallel imagery: she is portrayed both as kind and smiling, her blonde hair flowing in the water and her eyes closed, AND as a powerful storm goddess who has lightning cracking through her hair and bright blue eyes glaring at you. So she’s like a Zeus/Poseidon mashup!

There’s a legend about her that tells the story of how she came to earth and fell in love with a mortal. She snuck into her mother’s library and stole the knowledge on how to make him one of them.

So when Hans became a god, he becomes a god of the skies and the weather. He’s also sort of a protector god, and is prayed to for safe travels. (Over land, that is. His wife receives the prayers of shipgoers)

Hallie is a goddess of time and age. While Agau is the one prayed to for cures to sicknesses already ailing people, she is the one they pray to for long life, safety, continued good health. She ALSO controls the seasons!

Her image among the people is sort of... aloof but well intentioned? Like, she doesn’t answer all the prayers dedicated to her, but if she does, she DELIVERS.

Christian is the god of volcanoes and fire, but this includes the Hestia vibe of hearth and the warmth of family and home. For being such a god, he’s not really seen as... relatable? Or beloved?

At least not by the general populace; he also serves as the protector of outcasts. He’s somewhat like Hephaestus, with the volcano thing and the “reject god” vibe.

Matt is just about the opposite: beloved by the general citizens, and has a cheery and benevolent personality. This is a little at odds with his divine purpose: he is a patron god of warriors and is prayed to for strength and success in battle. So like a kinder Ares?

Michael serves as the god of death, but not like... carnage-death, more like... The moment of passing. His prayers are for the end of suffering, for quick and easy deaths (and probably honorable deaths too), for safe passage to the other world.

But ya know, he’s also called on to kill your enemies. (Which he doesn’t do, but hey).

Note: according to legend, he and Beth are the only deities created directly by Agau’s hand out of nothing.

Note, the Sequel: Finnigan is the god of family

[the-desolated-quill]

The Woman Who Fell To Earth - Doctor Who blog (Change, my dear. And it seems not a moment too soon)

(SPOILER WARNING: The following is an in-depth critical analysis. If you haven’t seen this episode yet, you may want to before reading this review)

Never before have I gone into a Doctor Who episode with such a mixture of excitement and dread as I did with The Woman Who Fell To Earth. On the one hand we’ve finally got a female Doctor, something most Whovians have been waiting decades for, but on the other hand she’s being written by Chris Chibnall, a writer who (and let’s be generous here) has never exactly managed to win me over in the past. His past Doctor Who episodes were often derivative, stupid and poorly written and while yes he did create Broadchurch (a show that people assure me is good, but I still have little to no interest in watching), he was also the showrunner of the god awful spinoff Torchwood, which was essentially Doctor Who’s Suicide Squad. 

So yeah, the thought of him sitting in the driver’s seat and at such a crucial moment in Doctor Who’s long history didn’t exactly get me hyped for the new series and if I’m honest, come Sunday 7th October, I was bracing myself for the worst.

Then the most pleasant of surprises. The Woman Who Fell To Earth turned out to be really, really good. I’m actually gobsmacked by how much I enjoyed this episode. I never thought I’d see the day where I’d be praising a Chibnall episode, but here we are.

I think one of the reasons why I enjoyed this episode so much is because it feels like all the aspects that annoyed me about RTD and Moffat’s respective eras have been sheared away. There’s no convoluted plots. No dangling arcs. No forced whimsy. No smart arse dialogue or pretentious speeches. In fact this had a lot more in common with a classic series story in terms of its pacing and scale. It’s not some global threat where everyone is dashing about like headless chickens on speed. The threat is contained to one town in Northern England where only a handful of people are in danger. Even the music has mercifully been restrained. While I do have a fondness for Murray Gold’s work on Doctor Who, his music often had a tendency to go too overboard, bombarding the senses and drowning the audience in slush. New composer Segun Akinola offers a much more subtle and moving score. It enhances the action and certain emotional moments without bashing you over the head and, crucially, Akinola knows when to shut up and let the actors carry the scene.

I must say it’s such a relief to see some humanity injected back into Doctor Who again. After years of convoluted, timey wimey Moffat nonsense, Chibnall has had the good sense to bring everything back to basics. It’s not about the aliens, the special effects, the exotic locations or the overly pretentious plots that require a fucking flow chart in order to make sense of them. It’s all about the characters. And what wonderful characters they are. Ensemble casts rarely work on Doctor Who, but I have to say I really like this cast. Out of all the new companions, Ryan is probably my favourite. Tosin Cole gives a really good performance and I really like how he’s written. In particular I like how the episode portrays his dyspraxia. The way New Who has handled things like disability and mental health in the past has left a lot to be desired, but here Chibnall gets it just right. He never makes a big thing out of it and the episode never comes across as patronising or condescending. It’s treated like any other character trait, which is exactly how it should be.

Mandip Gill is also good as Yasmin Khan, a police officer who feels like she’s not getting the most out of her life or career. She reminds me slightly of Rose Tyler, but unlike Rose, Yasmin is more proactive. She doesn’t sit around waiting for something to happen. She pursues new opportunities when they come up and gets frustrated when someone puts a wall in front of her. It’ll be interesting to see how she’ll adapt to time travel over the course of the series.

And then there’s Graham, played by Bradley Walsh. To all my non-British readers, let me give you a quick education on the wonders that is Mr. Walsh. He’s one of our most versatile performers. He’s been a footballer, a comedian, an actor and a gameshow host. He’s an incredibly funny man as well as a great dramatic performer. Having seen him in Law & Order UK, I knew he’d be perfect and he didn’t disappoint. There’s a weariness to him that’s incredibly charming and likeable, but then he’s able to go from comedic to emotional at the drop of a hat. The eulogy he gives at Grace’s funeral was incredibly powerful and moving, as are the moments where he tries to bond with Ryan, who’s clearly sceptical of any kind of father figure in his life due to how unreliable his dad is. Both Graham and Ryan are the ones to keep a close eye on I think. Ryan in particular will be carrying a lot of baggage as the series progresses. His determination to ride a bike shows not only the pain he feels toward losing his Nan, but also the guilt. If he hadn’t lost his temper, chucked his bike down a cliff and then pressed the weird glowing shapes, none of this would have happened. He clearly feels he’s responsible for her death and I’m looking forward to seeing not only how he grows and moves on from that, but also how Graham will step up and help him, being the grandfather Ryan needs if not necessarily the one he wants.

It’s the characterisation that is The Woman Who Fell To Earth’s greatest strength. Not just the from the main cast, but the supporting characters too. Little moments like the old man telling his granddaughter he loves her before getting killed by the Stenza or the crane operator listening to self motivation tapes is what gives this episode more depth and soul. And then of course there’s Grace, played wonderfully by Sharon D. Clarke. I’m hard pressed to think of a single character from the Moffat era that I gave anything resembling a shit about, which is why it’s so remarkable that I’m able to care this much about Grace despite the short time we get to know her. She’s caring, supportive and energetic. She feels like the perfect companion for the Doctor and I would have loved to have seen her in the TARDIS with everyone else, which is what makes her death so heartbreaking. She’s not some random redshirt getting axed because the script requires more tension. She’s a three dimensional character we really like coming to a tragic end.

Okay. Okay. Let’s get to the main topic of conversation. How’s the new Doctor? Have the ‘feminazis’ ruined it? Is she swapping makeup tips with the Cybermen? Is she struggling to parallel park the TARDIS? Did she accidentally kill a whole species because it was her time of the month? (these are all things I’ve seriously heard butthurt fanboys say since Jodie Whittaker was cast and I think we can all agree it’s beyond pathetic). Well, quelle surprise, turns out the Doctor’s sex change didn’t jumpstart the SJW apocalypse after all. Who’d have thought women could be Doctors too? What a novel concept.

The minute she fell into the train, I was sold. Whereas Peter Capaldi took three whole series to finally come into his own (not that Capaldi is necessarily to blame for that. Blame the monkey at the fucking typewriter for that one), with Jodie Whittaker it’s instantaneous. She is the Doctor.

It helps that Chibnall largely dispenses with all the usual post-regeneration bullshit. With the fainting and gurning kept to a minimum, we can get on with actually learning about this new Doctor and I love what I’m seeing so far. She’s quick-witted, compassionate and quirky, but not to the point where it becomes annoying like Matt Smith’s often did (in my opinion. Tastes differ, obviously. I personally found Eleven to be unbearable at times). After the Twelfth Doctor, with his borderline misanthropy and his inability to even so much as blow his nose without a companion to hold his hand, Thirteen comes like a breath of fresh air. 

One thing I especially like about her is her complete lack of arrogance and boring machismo that previous New Who Doctors were sometimes guilty of. Rather than having her boast about how clever she is, like Ten or Eleven would have, she just shows us by building a new sonic screwdriver out of spoons. And she never tries to lord her moral superiority over others. Quite the opposite in fact. This is a Doctor who clearly values teamwork and can recognise strength in others. There are flashes of darkness too, like when she manipulates the Stenza into killing himself with his own DNA bombs, but she’s not driven by some inherent belief that she is right and they are wrong. She’s driven by the fact that she has gotten to know these people and doesn’t want anything to happen to them. Thirteen is quite possibly one of the most down to earth Doctors I’ve ever seen and I’m extremely excited to see more.

As I said, The Woman Who Fell To Earth is largely about its characters, which is just as well because the plot is... I wouldn’t say it’s bad, but it’s definitely the least interesting thing about the episode. I liked the look of the Stenza, with the teeth embedded in his face, and the gathering coil. I liked that it was a small scale threat and largely self contained, and I liked the way the plot slowly unfolds over the course of the story. However it is a bit derivative. The Stenza is pretty much a PG-13 version of the Predator and he is a bit one note. That being said, it doesn’t detract from the enjoyment factor of the episode. By keeping the plot simple for the most part, it allows Chibnall to fully explore the characters, who are clearly supposed to be the main focus.

In short, I’m pleased to say that I really liked Chris Chibnall’s first offering as showrunner (never thought I’d ever type this). The Woman Who Fell To Earth is without a doubt one of the most confident starts to a new Doctor I’ve ever seen and I’m very much anticipating where the series goes from here. For the first time, in a long time, I’m excited for the next Doctor Who adventure :D

(Oh, btw, all those idiots who were saying that Doctor Who’s ratings have been falling and that a female Doctor would kill the show off, so far this series the ratings have been at its highest since the show came back in 2005. Guess the reason why the ratings were low during the Moffat era wasn’t because of the World Cup, warm weather, streaming television or SJW propoganda. It was because Steven Moffat is a really shit writer. Go figure)

[sweetdreamr]

thoughts on thor: ragnarok

I’m gonna preface this by saying that I really really wanted to like this movie. Like. Really.

But, as the Rolling Stones once said, we can’t always get what we want.

Be warned, this is long af.

Hits:

--Valkyrie--um, lethal, gorgeous, haunted by her past? Yes please. I’ve been a sucker for that one since my Xena fangirl days. Her bond with Hulk was also funny and warm (”Angry girl!” made me smile, the more so because she seemed less angry around him.) It was nice to see somebody having fun around here.

--Hela-- Her costume was epic. I was antsy about what they’d do with her clothing, given that it can be pretty, uh, minimal in the comics sometimes. Fortunately that didn’t happen here. She was equal parts scary, funny, and seriously badass, and i enjoyed the parallels between her relationship with Odin, and that of Loki and Thor.

--Grandmaster was fucking hilarious and occasionally cruel, and who knew Jeff Goldblum could rock blue eye makeup like that?

--Fenris. I still wanna pet the puppy. Even undead he is floofy and gorgeous.

--Thor having to see Hulk naked. That’s karma, asshole.

--Loki’s costumes were fantastic, and his ability to be equally resilient yet able to charm his way into the Grandmaster’s good graces (and STAY there, since the Grandmaster is fickle af) is one of the few things about him that stayed in-character.

--It’s nice to see Loki supporting the arts in Asgard. Also, eating healthy is important. U go Loki.

--Matt Damon had the role of a lifetime as Loki. He may as well end his career now, since it’s not gonna get any better than that.

--Odin’s death scene was really beautifully done. Even if Odin suddenly being about to die made no fucking sense. At least he doesn’t seem pissed at Loki, and let us have a nice little moment between them.

--I liked the acknowledgement that Odin’s power and wealth has a really ugly history. For all Asgard’s beauty, it’s built on something truly hideous.

--Loki: “You had ONE JOB.”

--Thor is right about Hulk’s room and its stylistic choices. It was ugly af.

--Literally everything Heimdall. He gets better with every film, but goddamn does he need more scenes. Still, his hair looks great and he’s the unsung hero of the film.

--Thor losing his eye and becoming more like Odin, but hopefully better. Also, harnessing his lightning/thunder powers fucking ruled.

--”Oh? You’re the God of Hammers now?” Odin pls stop making me laugh. I’m trying to hate you over here.

Misses:

Oh boy here we go, strap in kiddies.

--Odin’s power and legacy is shown, as mentioned above, to come from true ugliness, and yet? He doesn’t have to answer for it at all, and instead dies a peaceful death. I liked that scene, don’t get me wrong, but what the fuck?

--Really, Loki? Skurge was the best replacement you could find for Heimdall? Maybe try Ziprecruiter or something next time?

--Thor. Um, has anyone seen this guy? Do you think he knows that some douchebag stole his outfit and is douching his way around the multiverse pretending to be the God of Thunder for most of the film? More on this later.

--Why would the realms have gone to hell after Loki assumed the throne? Nothing in his past within the films indicated to me that he’d be a poor ruler, certainly no worse than Odin. He might get bored with it, and come to dislike it, but Loki can and does do many things he doesn’t particularly like, and does them well. (Exhibit A: playing second fiddle to Thor, etc.)

--How the fuck did Loki’s spell drain Odin of his magic? Also, if Loki is that powerful, how the fuck did Dr. Strange manage to trap him for 30 seconds, let alone 30 minutes?

--Seriously, Odin’s death made no goddamn sense. At all.

--I’m calling a bam on Thor saying “I have a feeling it will all work out fine.” THOR. IT GETS WORSE AFTER YOU SAY THAT. EVERY TIME. STOP.

--Dr. Strange’s cameo was a waste of my fucking time. That’s like 20 minutes of my time that I will never get back. You’d think, being such an experienced actor, that Benedict Cumberbatch’s American accent would be way better, but it sounds awful. Like, really really awful. I’d rather fall for 30 minutes with Loki than have to listen to that auditory nightmare again.

--Who was Hela’s mother? (I mean given that her father is Odin, her mother could be pretty much ANYONE.) Not a big deal that we never found out, but it annoyed me anyway.

--Are we gonna talk about how Hulk has spent the last two years fucking murdering people?

--Also, how the fuck did Odin convince an entire kingdom (or NINE) that his daughter never existed? I’m assuming magic, but as the writers didn’t give enough of a damn to think this was worth explaining, I’m not about to theorize and do their job for them.

--WHY DID I HAVE TO BE SUBJECTED TO HULK’S NAKED ASS? WHAT THE FUCK DID I DO TO DESERVE HAVING TO SEE THAT WITH MY OWN EYEBALLS. THIS IS NOT OKAY.

--The Warriors Three died the most pointless fucking deaths ever, literally for no goddamn reason. There was no need to kill them off, since it would have been perfectly logical for Thor to send them to various parts of the realms to restore peace. Honestly, the only reason for their deaths that I can fathom would have been to increase Thor’s grief, but we never see him learn of their deaths or mourn them, so that can’t be it. Again, pointless.

Remember when I said I’d talk about Thor’s OOC behavior later? It’s later. And OH BOY do i have a lot to say.

--I’m about to contact the authorities and put in an MIA search for Loki and Thor’s character development. It was nowhere to be seen in this film. They were just tossed straight into their old cycle of betray, threaten, beat up. It’s stupid as fuck, and I’m really fucking annoyed that I have to sit through this again. Sometimes it’s entertaining but at this point? It’s just tedious.

I’d also like to point out that the initial relationship presented to us in the first Thor film was really not that cycle. It’s vaguely hinted at, but not completely spelled out. There was genuine love and affection punctuated by the occasional prank, but that’s pretty much all I got. While I recognize that the cycle is a central theme in the comics, the film versions are very, very different. That said, it makes giving the film characters the storylines of their comic book counterparts is a tricky business that needs to be handled a LOT better than it was here.

Spoiler alert: It was not handled well here. At all.

Oh, then there’s Thor’s repeated line of “That’s what heroes do”, which was reminiscent of this:

Not a great parallel to evoke, guys. I’m just saying.

Because last time I checked, heroes don’t leave their brothers tazed and convulsing on the floor. That’s not a hero move, that’s a dick move. Thor is supposed to have evolved from that, and bringing it back for the sake of punchline just feels like a cheap-ass way of getting laughs. (Yes, there’s the possibility that they planned this together, but again, I’m not wasting my time honeypotting for hack writers.)

I mean, the Thor we’ve been presented with so far is warm-hearted and smarter than most people think, and he does his best to make things right when he fucks up.

Except for this movie, apparently.

Also, while I didn’t mind Loki’s ‘looking out for ME’ mindset (it’s one of the few things that actually made sense--I mean fuck, who else is gonna do it?), Thor’s surprise at it was kind of ridiculous. What the fuck did you expect? It’s like he totally forgot that, at the end of the first film, he realized his role in inflicting damage onto Loki that helped to make him into what he was.

Instead it was like:

Um yes. Yes it fucking does. Does this negate Loki’s choices, or his actions? Fuck no. But it did play a role, so let’s at least acknowledge that, shall we? Having said that, it’s logical to conclude that continuing the same behavior that inflicted the initial damage is counterproductive at best. And a shitty creative choice if ever there was one.

Thor’s anger over Odin’s death, and Loki’s supposed causing of it (albeit intentionally) made sense, (i guess? i didn’t understand Odin’s death scene in case u hadn’t noticed) but it was done in such a weird way. “I hate you, oh no wait let’s banter, oh okay now i’m mad at you again, whoops no i’m not” all throughout the film. Conflicting feelings is one thing, but goddamn, pick a fucking flavor.

Also, what the fuck is Marvel’s issue with portraying psychological trauma? The way they do it, it’s like it isn’t even worth mentioning unless it can be played for laughs. (See: Naked Selvig running around in TDW, without much reference as to why he’s doing that. “Oh he’s naked hahaha”, yeah, let’s not treat this with any sympathy at ALL, good job Marvel.)

And in Loki’s case? Oh God. The whole scene where he sees Hulk again is just. So awful. That it’s played for laughs makes it worse. Loki getting his comeuppance from Hulk during the first film after trying to use him actually had purpose (Loki’s defeat and Hulk’s taking revenge at being used), but since he hasn’t done anything to Hulk during Ragnarok, it’s just not all that funny.

I mean, fucking hell, psychological trauma does have absurdities that can lend their way to humor, but doing it at the expense of the traumatized person is fucked up and gross. Whether or not the traumatized person is a nice person or not really doesn’t come into it. Or at least, it shouldn’t.

Myy good friend @icyxmischief has a lot of meta about this on her blog, and she’s way more eloquent than me, so please go read it. It’s amazeballs.

[thefroggyfiles-blog]

South Park; Does it Help or Harm

Comedy Central’s South Park has been on the air now for 20 seasons, starting in 1997. The creators of the show, Trey Parker, Matt Stone and Brian Graden, seem to have started the show as just a simple adult humor cartoon, with the occasional deconstruction of pop culture. However, the show has grown to be an political spectacle. 

The show is about four children, named Stan Marsh, Kyle Broflovski, Eric Cartman and Kenny McCormick, who live in a mountain town in Colorado named South Park. The boys go on adventures, often involving pop culture celebrities, and eventually somehow someway the story gets completely blown out of proportion and becomes utterly ridiculous. Just to try and portray the ridiculousness of the show, here is the opening disclaimer shown before every airing of the show:

Despite the recommendation that the show not be viewed by anyone, the show is one of Comedy Central's highest-rated shows (watched by more than 8 million viewers a week). It has been translated into 30 languages and shown in 130 countries, nominated for 18 Emmys (winning five), made into a movie (1999's Bigger, Longer & Uncut, which grossed $83.1 million worldwide) and has spawned a merchandising industry generating hundreds of millions of dollars (The Hollywood Reporter). Does the show inspire a pessimistic view of the world around us, or does it serve as a representation of how ridiculous the popular media’s portrayal of society is? Using cultural theory and ideologies, I plan to expose the show for what it is, regardless of my bias, and let you the reader ponder the rationale of the show.

The first set of analysis regarding the show, is based on its relationship to pop culture. In many ways, pop culture is American culture, because no other society internalizes pop culture representation like American society. This notion is often termed as the Americanization of culture. This is referring to the change of culture from an art of the people to an art for the people to consume. This is the product of a commercial capitalist society and it as resulted in popular culture being more socially and institutionally central in our society, more so than that of Europe (Storey, 8). In our society today pleasure and desire is manufactured for us based on our socio-economic position and how that position is represented in popular culture. That being said, I believe that South Park acts as a contradiction to that representation. South Park exposes the ridiculousness of having popular culture so prevalent in society’s spheres on influence, by mocking celebrities, fads and norms, yet the only reason its still on the air is because it makes money and people watch it. 

The show also exposes how Americans idolize the representative they voted for president, as if he is a figure of pop culture. For example, in episode 12 season 12, Obama wins the election and those that voted for him bask in his glory, while those that don’t think it is the end of days. Randy Marsh when looking at President Obama, pressing his face to the television comments, “He’s so awesome, he’s so perfect and awesome.” The episode then continues by making fun of the conspiracies created behind every election. They do so by rendering Obama and McCain as using the entire election as a way into the White House so they can get access to an underground tunnel leading to the heist of the hope diamond. This represents how the election has become more of a patriotic rally than a democratic debate and how things get thrown out of proportion in a heated election.

Here’s a link to the entire episode: http://southpark.cc.com/full-episodes/s12e12-about-last-night

Here’s a list of the top 10 celebrity impersonations on South Park (Warning Crude And Mildly Offensive):

“Popular culture is structured by the attempt of the ruling class to win hegemony and by forms of opposition to this endeavor (Storey, 10).” By mocking pop culture South Park exposes the agenda of the ruling class, particularly the ruling class’ use of popular media to articulate an unachievable desire conforming subordinate groups to a hopelessly commercial lifestyle. I believe this is why they chose the band Primus to produce the soundtrack for the show, a band that named their 1999 album Antipop.

Despite the benefits of putting up a mirror to pop culture and letting its hideousness be exposed, the viewer must know to interpret as such in order for it to be fully deconstructive. A viewer may very well view that show as just mindless humorous entertainment, which renders them just as capable as one of the ignorant citizens of South Park. Or, they might view the show in a pessimistic matter and internalize the content to be the stupidity of a hopeless world.

Also, South Park directly relates to a Post-structuralist interpretation of society. Its meaning is flexible and will never truly be concrete, depending on personal interpretation. Because the show is a cartoon it is in binary opposition to reality. It gets place in the same category as hundreds of texts that are unconsciously binge consumed. However, it is a deconstructive text if critically interpreted correctly. Deconstructive texts, “must always aim at a certain relationship, unperceived by the writer, between what he commands and what he does not command of the patterns of language that he uses” (133, Storey). South Park fits this definition because the language used is crude and vulgar, yet its message is, hey society look at what is accepted by you in relationship to what isn’t. It says that to talk about things using curse words is unaccepted, yet for a company to profit off of the public by manipulating them with lies into thinking a certain way is. Its exposes how stereotypes are created and internalized, yet to talk about them and address the issue is taboo. It exposes how to make jokes about Satan and God are forbidden, yet to make jokes that oppress social groups is ok. 

South Park is a deconstructive text, however if interpreted incorrectly, it can reinforce existing hierarchies. If a viewer were to watch the show without critically thinking about its message, it could potentially further the internalization of the hierarchy.

In a episode 4 season 20, the children at South Park Elementary have been exposed to an online bully that torments the young girls of the school. This leads to the split of boys and girls against each other. The girls think it’s one of the boys, when in reality its one of the parents. The episode begins with Kyle explaining the issue to his father (who is the bully or “troll”) and he says, “One guy gets online and says terrible things about girls and it reflects badly on all of us. Everyone is sad, everyone is depressed and no body knows how to move forward.” Kyle’s Dad brushes the issue aside and walks out. This is the basis for every stereotype every created. When a man of color commits an act of violence, it gets internalized by the people around him not for what the crime is, but for what he is, a man of color. Then the act becomes stereotype because it is reflected badly on all people of color. On the contrary, if a white man were to commit the same act, he would just be considered a crazy person, because he doesn’t ave the same signifier as the man of color. South Park is exposing this issue, though it is hidden in pity middle school conflict, and it exposes the societal issue. The episode then continues with students that are male exposing their genitalia during the national anthem, in protest. The character Butters is usually shy and avoids conflict, however he is the leader of the boys who are in protest. This to me shows how hate and opposition can make even the pure at heart want to take up arms against the oppressor. Additionally, South Park has reversed the roles of men and women, making the boys of the show oppressed by the women based on the actions of few. When in reality it is the majority of men who oppress women by judging them based on the means of their sexuality and their physical attributes. This is a prime example of the shows deconstructive nature.

Here is a link to the entire episode: http://southpark.cc.com/full-episodes/s20e04-wieners-out

South Park is also a critique on the postmodern society we live in. The show essentially defines its characters by the metanarratives they posses. That notion parallels how the members of a society define themselves and judge others based on these subscriptions. For example, the character Chef, one of the few black characters on the show, is overtly involved in classic African-American culture preconceptions, such as his ability to sing soul music and discuss the power of love with the children. Also, a priest makes a few appearances on the show and its almost always during a mass. The priest says something ridiculous and untraditional, yet all the people of the church take his words with reverence and respect. The one black child’s name is literally Token. 

In addition, South Park mocks the American Society for being hopelessly commercial. South Park is the definition of an, “anything goes culture, a culture of slackening, where taste is irrelevant, and money is the only sign of value” (Storey, 196). The character Kenny represents the lower class of society. Kenny is purely the object of neglect. The viewer can never understand what he is saying and he dies in every episode and yet no one seems to care. Often his dead body lays and rats surround it and then the episode ends. Kenny represents the absence of wealth and what it means to social status to be as such. Yet all the children and adults desire the same material goods commercialized. Representing the lack of separation between what is perceived as art, and what is art. 

Kenny’s Multiple Deaths:

South Park is a show that I would recommend to a friend, because it brings all of the issues of society into reconsideration. I forces the viewer to see the horrors of racism, sexism and gender binary, in a comedic environment. Though there is no comedy when having real life discussions about these issues, It makes the topic easier to cope with. However, before recommending I would explain the critical thinking elements involved in watching the show. Without understanding them, the viewer can either further their hierarchic misrepresentation of society, or view society pessimistically as hopeless and too far from revival.

If you are a frequent viewer of the show, I would enjoy hearing your interpretations of the show, before and after reading this blog. Did/Do you view the show as a exploitation of the ridiculousness of society, or as a comedy cartoon show with no other purpose than to exist as such?

Reference:

Storey, J. (2015).

Cultural theory and popular culture.

Harlow: PearPrentice Hall.

[sammy24682468]

2019 Revelation Study lesson 13

"Memory Text: “Then He who sat on the throne said, ‘Behold, I make all things new.’ And He said to me, ‘Write, for these words are true and faithful’ ” (Revelation 21:5, NKJV)."

"The destruction of end-time Babylon is bad news for those who collaborated with this apostate religious system. For God’s people, however, it is good news (Rev. 19:1-7). Babylon was responsible for inducing the secular political powers to persecute and harm them (Rev. 18:24). The destruction of this great adversary means deliverance and salvation for God’s faithful people."

"With the destruction of Babylon, the prayer of God’s people in the scene of the fifth seal is ultimately answered. Their cry, “How long, O Lord?” (Rev. 6:10) represents the cry of God’s oppressed and suffering people from Abel to the time when God will finally vindicate them (Ps. 79:5; Hab. 1:2; Dan. 12:6, 7). The book of Revelation assures God’s people that evil, oppression, and suffering will come to an end."

"It is now time for Christ to usher in His everlasting kingdom. The remaining chapters of Revelation describe not just the destruction of end-time Babylon but also the destruction of Satan and all evil. We get glimpses, too, of the establishment of God’s everlasting kingdom."

"Two thousand years ago, Christ left His heavenly home to invite His followers to a wedding supper (Matt. 22:1-14) that will take place after His marriage to His bride. “The marriage represents the reception by Christ of His kingdom. The Holy City, the New Jerusalem, . . . is called ‘the bride, the Lamb’s wife.’. . . In the Revelation the people of God are said to be the guests at the marriage supper. Revelation 19:9. If guests, they cannot be represented also as the bride. . . ."

"“In the parable of Matthew 22 the same figure of the marriage is introduced, and the investigative judgment is clearly represented as taking place before the marriage. Previous to the wedding the king comes in to see the guests, to see if all are attired in the wedding garment, the spotless robe of character washed and made white in the blood of the Lamb. Matthew 22:11; Revelation 7:14.”—Ellen G. White, The Great Controversy, pp. 426-428. After His death and resurrection, the Bridegroom returned to His Father’s house to “prepare a place” for His people, His wedding guests (see John 14:1-3). They remain on earth preparing for His return. At the end of the world, He will come back and take them to His Father’s house."

"Revelation 19:8 states that the fine and clean linen was given to the bride by Christ. This apparel shows that the wedding guests who enter the city do not claim any merit for their deeds. Thus, the “fine linen, clean and bright” represents “the righteous acts of the saints” (NKJV), acts that came as a result of their union with Christ, who lives in them. Thus, these robes symbolize His righteousness and that His people “keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus” (Rev. 14:12). While on earth, Jesus told a parable about a wedding. However, one of the guests preferred to wear his own attire instead of the wedding garment provided by the king, and he was expelled from the wedding (Matt. 22:1-14)."

"Revelation 3:18 shows that the robe of Christ’s righteousness, the gold of faith and love, and the eye salve of the Holy Spirit are the greatest needs of God’s people living at the time of the end. Jesus’ offer that the Laodiceans “buy” these gifts from Him shows us that He asks for something in exchange for what He offers us. We give up self-sufficiency and trust in ourselves in exchange for a life of faithful obedience to Christ and trust in Him as our only hope of salvation."

"Read Revelation 19:11-16. What is the name of the rider of the white horse, and what does it mean that a sharp sword comes from His mouth? What does this tell us about how to be on the winning side in the end?"

"What we see here is a depiction of Christ’s second coming, the fulfillment of the promise that believers in all ages have been longing for. Like Jesus, His people have based their faith on God’s Word. Revelation 19:11-16 is the culmination of Jesus’ many victories: Jesus defeated Satan in heaven; He defeated Satan in the wilderness; He defeated him at the cross; and He will defeat him at His return."

"“Soon there appears in the east a small black cloud, about half the size of a man’s hand. It is the cloud which surrounds the Saviour and which seems in the distance to be shrouded in darkness. The people of God know this to be the sign of the Son of man. In solemn silence they gaze upon it as it draws nearer the earth, becoming lighter and more glorious, until it is a great white cloud, its base a glory like consuming fire, and above it the rainbow of the covenant. Jesus rides forth as a mighty conqueror. Not now a ‘Man of Sorrows,’ to drink the bitter cup of shame and woe, He comes, victor in heaven and earth, to judge the living and the dead. ‘Faithful and True,’ ‘in righteousness He doth judge and make war.’ And ‘the armies which were in heaven’ (Revelation 19:11, 14) follow Him. With anthems of celestial melody the holy angels, a vast, unnumbered throng, attend Him on His way. The firmament seems filled with radiant forms—‘ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands.’ No human pen can portray the scene; no mortal mind is adequate to conceive its splendor.”—Ellen G. White, The Great Controversy, pp. 640, 641."

"In 2 Thessalonians 1:8-10, Paul gives another depiction of the ultimate victory of Christ at the Second Coming, when all the secular and religious powers, which had conspired against Him, are destroyed, and His people are delivered for all eternity."

"Revelation 19 describes two suppers, one in verse 9 and another in verses 17 and 18. At one supper you eat, at the other you get eaten. It’s hard to imagine a starker contrast of what’s at stake in the whole great controversy for every human being. What should this imagery teach us about how seriously we need to take our faith and the mission that our faith calls us to participate in?"

"Read Revelation 20:1-3 along with Jeremiah 4:23-26. During the mil-lennium, what is the state of the earth? In what way is Satan bound by chains?"

"The 1,000 years (or millennium) begin with the second coming of Christ. At this time, Satan and his fallen angels are chained. The chaining of Satan is symbolic, because spiritual beings cannot be physically bound. Satan is bound by circumstances. The plagues have desolated the earth and killed off its evil inhabitants, bringing it into a chaotic condition resembling the earth before Creation (Gen. 1:2). In such a state, the earth functions as Satan’s prison during the millennium. Because there are no human beings to tempt and harm, all that Satan and his demonic associates can do is contemplate the consequences of their rebellion against God."

"Read Revelation 20:4-6. Where are the redeemed during the millennium?"

"Revelation shows that God’s people will spend the millennium in the heavenly places that Christ prepared for them (see John 14:1-3). John sees them sitting on thrones as kings and priests, judging the world. Jesus promised the disciples that they would “ ‘sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel’ ” (Matt. 19:28). Paul stated that the saints would judge the world (1 Cor. 6:2, 3)."

"This judgment concerns the fairness of God’s actions. Throughout history Satan has raised doubts concerning God’s character and His dealings with the beings He created. During the millennium, God allows the redeemed to access the records of history in order to find answers to all questions concerning the fairness of His decisions regarding those who were lost, as well as questions dealing with His leading in their own lives. At the conclusion of the millennium, all questions regarding God’s justice are forever settled. God’s people are able to see beyond a shadow of doubt that Satan’s accusations were unfounded. They are now ready to witness the administration of God’s justice at the final judgment of the lost."

"After the eradication of sin, the earth will be transformed into the home of the redeemed. What will it be like?In Revelation 21:1, John saw “a new heaven and a new earth.” The Bible refers to three heavens: the sky, the starry universe, and the place where God dwells (see 2 Cor. 12:2). In Revelation 21:1, the earth’s atmosphere is in view. The contaminated earth and the sky cannot endure God’s presence (Rev. 20:11). The word “new” in Greek (kainos) refers to something new in quality, not in origin and time. This planet will be purged by fire and restored to its original state (2 Pet. 3:10-13)."

"Particularly interesting is the fact that the first thing John observes on the new earth is that there is no sea. John’s reference to “the sea” (with the definite article) shows that he probably had in mind the sea that surrounded him on Patmos, which had become a symbol of separation and suffering. For him, the absence of that sea on the new earth meant absence from the pain caused by his separation from those whom he loved."

"Read Revelation 21:2-8 and Revelation 7:15-17. What parallels exist in the description of the new earth and the Garden of Eden, in Genesis 2?"

"A life free of suffering and death on the restored earth is guaranteed by God’s presence among His people. His presence is manifested in the New Jerusalem and “the tabernacle of God” (Rev. 21:3), where God will dwell among His people. The presence of God makes life truly a paradise in the restored earth."

"God’s presence guarantees freedom from suffering: no death, sorrow, crying, or pain, which are all the consequences of sin. With the eradication of sin, “ ‘the former things have passed away’ ” (Rev. 21:4, NKJV)."

"This idea was well articulated by Mary and Martha at the death of their brother Lazarus: “ ‘Lord, if You had been here, my brother would not have died’ ” (John 11:21, NKJV). The sisters knew that death could not exist in the presence of Christ. In the same way, the abiding presence of God on the new earth will secure freedom from the pain and suffering that we now experience in this life. This freedom is the great hope that is promised to us in Christ, a hope sealed in His blood."

"John now describes the capital of the new earth, the New Jerusalem."

"While a real place inhabited by real people, the New Jerusalem and life in it are beyond any earthly description (see 1 Cor. 2:9)."

"Read Revelation 21:9-21. What are the exterior features of the New Jerusalem?"

"The New Jerusalem is referred to as the bride, the Lamb’s wife. The New Jerusalem is the place that Christ is preparing for His people (John 14:1-3)."

"The city is surrounded by a high wall with twelve gates—three gates on each of the four sides, allowing entry from any direction. This feature points to the universal scope of the city. In the New Jerusalem everybody has unlimited access to God’s presence."

"The city is further pictured as a perfect cube; it is 12,000 furlongs, or stadia, in length, width, and height. The cube consists of 12 edges. Thus, the city totals 144,000 stadia, which reflects the 144,000 who are translated without seeing death at the second coming of Jesus. In the Old Testament temple, the Most Holy Place was a perfect cube (1 Kings 6:20). The New Jerusalem thus functions as the center of the worship of God."

"Read Revelation 21:21-22:5. What interior features of the city remind you of the Garden of Eden? What is the significance of the promise that there will be no more curse in the city (Rev. 22:3)?"

"The most prominent feature of the New Jerusalem is the river of water of life flowing from God’s throne (see Gen. 2:10). In contrast to the river in Babylon, at which God’s people were sitting as captives longing for Jerusalem (Psalm 137), on the banks of the river of life in the New Jerusalem, God’s wandering people of all ages have found their home."

"On both sides of the river is the tree of life with leaves for “the healing of the nations” (Rev. 22:2). This healing does not refer to disease, as on the new earth there will be no disease. It refers to the healing of all the wounds caused by the barriers that have torn people apart throughout history. The redeemed of all ages and from all nations now belong to one family of God."

"The book of Revelation concludes with what was introduced at the beginning: the second coming of Christ in power and glory and the establishment of God’s everlasting kingdom. The return of Christ, when He finally will be united with His bride, is the climactic point in the book."

"However, the book does not put these events in an unrealistic context. That Jesus is coming soon is the first reality. The second reality is that we are still here waiting for His return. While waiting, we must have a clear comprehension of the messages of Revelation, and we can get this understanding by reading the book again and again until the end of all things comes. The messages of the book of Revelation constantly remind us, while we wait, not to look to the things of the world, but to fix our eyes on heaven and on Him who is our only hope. The Christ of Revelation is the answer to all human hopes and longings amid the enigmas and uncertainties of life. He holds the future of this world and our future in His hands."

"The book also reminds us that before the end comes, we are entrusted with the task of proclaiming the message of His soon return to all the world. Our waiting for His return is not passive, but active. Both the Spirit and the Bride call: “ ‘Come!’ ” (Rev. 22:17, NKJV). We must join that call. It is the good news, and as such, it must be proclaimed to the people of the world."

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS:

"•  Think about the millennium and the judgment of the unrighteous dead that occurs only after the millennium. The saved will have a thousand years to get all their questions answered. Only then will God bring final punishment upon the lost. What does this truth reveal to us about God?"

"•  Revelation 1:3 promises blessings to those who listen, read, heed, and keep the words of the prophecies of Revelation. As we conclude our study of this book, what are the things you have discovered that you need to heed and keep?"

[starving4christ]

Praying for the Advance of God's Kingdom

Tonight our focus in prayer will be on the advance of God's kingdom.

Again, when Jesus taught His disciples to pray, He emphasized that the Name of His Father would be hallowed, that is, revered as holy and glorious and awesome and mighty.

But HOW does this come about, and WHAT does it look like?

The answer is given in the next lines in the text:

"Our Father in heaven, hallowed be Your Name

     Your kingdom come,

     Your will be done,

         on earth as in heaven."

This is likely what we call "synthetic Hebrew parallelism." Synthetic carries the idea of "addition", and so the two parallel lines add, or explain, or unpack, what Jesus meant in the first line (i.e. our prayer for the Father's name to be hallowed). So the answer to the 'how' question is this: the Father's name is hallowed as His will is done on earth as it is in heaven. And His will is done on earth as in heaven as His kingdom comes on earth as it is in heaven. Many theologians, in attempting to find the central theme of the Bible, have concluded that God's kingdom is the overarching, all-encompassing, unifying theme that ties the entire 66 books of the Bible together.  Though I would tweak this by adding that Christ is the "center" and central theme of the Scriptures, I don't hesitate to affirm the importance of God's kingdom, since the eternal plan of our triune God was to establish the kingdom in and through and by Christ (for e.g. see 1 Cor. 15:20-28; Eph. 1:10, Col. 1:15-20, Heb. 2:5-10; Rev. 4-5, etc.). In the Old Testament, God's kingdom was to come originally through Adam as he multiplied "offspring" and filled the earth with God's image-bearers (Gen. 1-2). He failed (see Gen. 3). Then others, such as Noah, were to establish God's kingdom on earth (note the repetition of Gen. 1-2 language in Gen. 9). But he, like Adam, failed. In Gen. 12, after the Tower of Babel debacle, the hope of the world is placed upon the shoulders of a man named Abraham. Through him, God would finally and fully establish His kingdom and rule on earth, as He rules and reigns in heaven (see Gal. 3:16).  But Abraham, as a sinner, inevitably fails, and thus the hope of a renewed world is passed on to Isaac, and then Jacob, and then Israel. All of these "sons of Adam" eventually and ultimately fail to establish God's reign and kingdom on earth. Until Jesus comes. Long story short, Jesus the Messiah does what no other had or could do: perfectly bear God's image in the world (see Col. 1:15; Heb. 1:3) and thus establish His reign on earth. This came about in a most surprising and unexpected way: not through military conquest or some kind of religious 'jihad,' but rather through His death and resurrection from the dead (see 1 Cor. 15). And now, as the true Son of God (see Rom. 1:3-4; cf. Luke 3:38) and second Adam, He, in obedience to the will of His Father, is filling the earth with His image-bearers (see 2 Cor. 3:18; Eph. 4:22-24), a new creation that will one day inhabit a new heavens and new earth, where God, in Christ, will rule perfectly, for the heavens and earth will have become one (Rev. 21-22). But until then, the Son is accomplishing His mission through the church, the assembly of His image-bearers. And the church accomplishes this mission as we replicate, or image, Christ on earth, as He imaged His Father on earth.  We do so by "imitating" Christ, and walking in Spirit-empowered love (Eph. 5:1). Or, in the words of the apostle John, we walk as that One (i.e. Christ) walked" (1 John 2:6).  This means we too come, meekly and boldly, proclaiming the gospel of God, both in word and deed (Acts 10:36). This means we too live a life of sacrifice, going about doing good (Acts 10:38; Gal. 6:10). By doing so, we show the world how God reigns in Christ. And so, let us pray for the church, for she is God's ordained means of demonstrating and declaring His wisdom in and to the heavens and earth (Eph. 3:10-11). It is through the church that God has determined to "sum up all things under the headship of Christ" (Eph. 1:10, my translation). And so, let us (we must!) pray that through the church, God will fill His creation with image-bearers, who are born-again (lit. "from above" [i.e. heaven]) on earth to live as citizens of heaven on earth (cf. Phil. 1:27). This happens as the church goes about spreading and sowing the good news of the kingdom wherever she goes (cf. Matt. 13; 28:18-20), as God has ordained the Word to be the instrument by which He builds His "host" and saves the elect He entrusted to the Son before time even began (John 10; 17). This also happens as the church goes about spreading and sowing the fragrance of Christ in deed (e.g. Rev. 19:8), that others may see Christ in us, the hope of glory, and may give glory to our Father in heaven (cf. Matt. 5:13-16). And so, let us (we must!) pray for the advance of the [true] church. Pray for her doctrinal purity. Pray for her spiritual unity. Pray for her protection. Pray against complacency and lukewarmness. Pray against worldliness. And so, let us (we must!) pray for missions, both near and far. Pray for local churches to cross the street to preach and portray Christ as crucified to her neighbors. Pray for missionaries to cross the sea to preach and portray Christ to the nations.  And so, let us (we must!) pray for God's kingdom to come on earth as it is in heaven, in Christ, and through the church. THIS is how God's Name is hallowed. Thankfully, the Father and Son have poured out the Spirit of mission to equip and empower the church to accomplish her mission (see John 14-16; Acts; cf. Jesus' own baptism of the Spirit before embarking on His mission). In Christ, and for His glory through His church, pastor ryan Here is a list of "local missionaries" to pray for: 1. A greater burden in our church to reach our families, co-workers, neighbors, and friends with the gospel. 2. A greater desire (and even creativity) to 'get out' and 'give out' the gospel to those who have never heard it, even in our city. 3. Pray that we may work together with other evangelical churches to reach Lethbridge for Christ. 4. Pray that God would give us as a church a great burden to give more generously and pray more fervently for the gospel to spread to the ends of the earth. Here is a but a sampling of foreign missionaries to pray for tonight: 1. Vijay in India (Reach All Nations) 2. Caleb in Papua New Guinea 3. Nate and Sheila in Belize 4. Desta in Ethiopia (AIPM) 5. Andrea in Nicaragua (ABWE) 6. Donavan Epp in the northern Philippines (Ethnos) 7. Rod and Enonie in the Philippines 8. Trevor and Theresa in Indonesia 9. Anyone else you know or can think of (e.g. Heart Cry, SBC, etc.)

[ghezalplusmovies]

[Universal Pictures]

[46]

Split tells the story of Kevin (James McAvoy), a man with 24 distinct personalities whose dangerously brute identity, Dennis, kidnaps three teenage girls. It also stars Betty Buckley and Anya Taylor-Joy and is directed by M. Night Shyamalan (The Sixth Sense, Unbreakable)

My Thoughts On The Characters And Story

Remember that scene in Hook when Pockets gives Peter a face-lift and says “oh THERE you are, Peter!” I want to go up to Shyamalan and declare “oh THERE you are, M. Night!” 2015’s The Visit was a great starting point for the man that brought us “What? No!” and if he keeps up this trajectory with Split and future projects, we are in for a Shyamalanaissance…

TriStar Pictures | video source: movieclips.com, giphy

This movie simply does not work if James McAvoy is not up to task to portray such strong personalities. Not only was he terrifying at certain parts, he managed to create such distinguishable features for each identity, it was remarkable. During certain instances where one personality was attempting to be another one felt a bit muggy at times but to be fair, it is a wildly ambitious feat to attempt to achieve. I cannot sing the praises of McAvoy enough for his acting capability in Split. He portrays every identity brilliantly and plays off the other characters incredibly well. Anya Taylor-Joy of The Witch fame is fantastic and seeing those pivotal moments in her backstory interspersed throughout the film was a brilliant move. The flashbacks weren’t overused and one specific flashback just gutted me completely, I loved how each one added to her character because without them she would have just been a moody teenager. Her development was executed wonderfully and seeing the various parallels between her and Kevin truly enhanced the watch.

| Click Here For The Witch (2016) Review |

Haley Lu Richardson as Claire gave a pretty good performance whereas Jessica Sula could have been a bit better… By “a bit better” I mean like, a lot. Richardson and Taylor-Joy worked well off each other and unfortunately I felt Sula was on autopilot for most of it. Betty Buckley though was GREAT. I love her portrayal as Dr. Fletcher, you could truly feel the growing frustration she felt trying to convince people of the effects of Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID)… For all you Netflix fans too, the guard from Orange Is The New Black and Lucas from House Of Cards appear in Split.

‘Orange Is The New Black’ | Netflix

‘House Of Cards’ | Netflix

How Were The Other Aspects To ‘Split’?

Split was probably one of my favourite movie theatre-going experiences, quite like Lights Out and Don’t Breathe last year. Since this is M. Night at his relative best, there were a few chuckles during certain instances that were meant to be humourous and other chuckles used as a defense mechanism for petrifying sequences on screen. In terms of the “horror” aspect to it, this is a genuinely scary movie. Besides the already petrifying concept that is kidnapping, Shyamalan manages to frame his camera movements so that your eye-line follows where he wants you to follow and the feeling of impending doom is absolutely imminent.

There has also been controversy regarding the depiction of mental illness in Split. Anytime mental illness is involved in a film, it is imperative to strive to not overdo it or depict it in a way that is ridiculing the person suffering from the illness and for what it’s worth, I think the depiction of DID was executed just fine. The amazing performance by McAvoy is not ridiculing the illness at all and if anything, it truly adds to the complexities of his character… Side note: there is an incredible dance sequence that I did not expect at all. If this is the positive trajectory of where Shyamalan is headed, please keep this going, Movie Gods!

If you’re looking for a psychological thriller to watch with a group of friends and want to feel genuinely terrified during certain instances, check out Split.

For More Beastly Fun, Check Out The Following:

La La Land (2016) Review

7 Shows That Need A Comeback ASAP

A Hundred Cheers For A Hundred Followers!

Split receives 4/5 Matt Damon heads

Split (2017): A Spectacularly Terrifying Addition To The Comeback Of M. Night Shyamalan (Review) Split tells the story of Kevin (James McAvoy), a man with 24 distinct personalities whose dangerously brute identity, Dennis, kidnaps three teenage girls.