#mortuary 1983

[fanofspooky]

Scream King - Bill Paxton

[acidtripper666]

Mary McDonough in Mortuary (1982/1983)

(I do not own these images)

[yappacadaver]

Research notes (please ignore the psychic energy)

[abs0luteb4stard]

W A T C H I N G

[pleasecallmealsip]

“this is easier than posing the true problem”

Florence Gauthier: On the subject of Wajda’s “Danton”

Annales historiques de la Révolution française, No 251 (Janvier-Mars 1983), pp. 182-185

Certainly, all political discourse began with 1789, indeed, so much for François Furet’s wishful thinking that the Revolution is finished! (1) If there was a time in which 1789 founded the Republic, then there also came a time in which 1789 became the embryo of the proletarian Revolution. From teleology to teleology, today we have arrived at this: the French Revolution, according to Wajda, was an early draft of Stalinism.

It is essentially by psychologic methods that Wajda shapes his film to lead us deeper into these totalitarian hearts. And what comes first is fear.

The film bathes in oppression, the greenish, greyish, brownish colours, the harsh blue lighting, make the actors look diseased. Fouquier-Tinville is pale as linen, Saint-Just is bistre, Robespierre goes from yellow to grey and ends up in the most mortuary green imaginable on his bed of expiation. Not one “normal” head apart from that of Danton, the eyes are reddened, the teeth are unclean, the wigs are askew. Conversations between people are sharpened with a knife, not one smile, “people pout and sulk”, people yell instead of talk, people bark, several bursts of nervous laughter. Only Danton has a real human laugh and displays some trace of tenderness.

Not one feminine presence. Éléonore Duplay, the “fiancée” of Robespierre, rigid as the Puritanism that she presumably represents, slaps her little brother who cannot learn his table of the Rights of Man and of Citizen and weeps without a sound. Lucile Desmoulins is hard as a rock.

The angles of view are clogged up. All is cut off by corners of walls, by corners of streets, by narrow doors, by corridors, by railings. Every view is framed, driven along like hunted game. A noise from the deep perpetually grinds at the characters and the audience; far-away whispers from far-away people?

Not one “normal” voice, all are raspy, what an ordeal! The horrible bitter voice of Robespierre, the whimpering of Desmoulins, the barking of Saint-Just, the dog teeth of Billaud-Varennes. The figures…! They come out of the most sordid hovel imaginable. Is that Collot with his blackened eyes, his vermillion mouth open like a shop-window? That head of an old haggard, is that Couthon? Apart from Danton, all the others hail from the hideous underbelly of I don’t know which Hospital. The mediocrity, the gross vulgarity, the burden of chains weighing on all … this is hell. Is this the revolution? How horrible! Try as Danton might to stop this dance, he is caught up in the inexorable mechanics. Try as Robespierre might to reign in the process, he is carried away in the well-oiled mechanism that overpowers his illusions as a utopian, as a lover of Truth, of Justice, of Equality. He is the Conscience and he must pay for his folly. Hell is revolution.

⁂

Wajda wanted to give a psychological dimension to the Danton case. All this is in play from the very first scene, in which Robespierre, already green with envy, watches through his window Danton basking in the crowd. Danton is supposed to love Robespierre and finds joy in having humiliated him. Then comes a little tenderness: he lets himself be touched on the neck by forcing Robespierre’s hand up there, and he groans with pleasure. Robespierre refuses this love, he is presumably envious of Danton’s vitality, the vitality that he is incapable of. Hence Danton will die.

The relationship of Saint-Just – Robespierre is cut from the same cloth. Saint-Just is in love with Robespierre and incessantly circles him like a fly. He comes to celebrate victory after Danton’s death. Scene at bedside, Robespierre unwell. Saint-Just holds out his arms and his brilliant idea: he offers personal dictatorship to his idol. Robespierre refuses, he certainly does not want to be loved!

It must be clarified that no document at all backs up these interpretations and I ask myself, is this what “psychology” is, is this the humane and profound dimension? Is today’s trend to reduce the human being to these little connections?

Here we see Robespierre once more emasculated under a persistent legend, for the Sex of the Jacobins “works” well for many, and a vast literature please themselves by contrasting a corruptible, bon-vivant Danton, in short, a humane man, with a puritan Robespierre and thus, for one thing follows another in deduction, a frigid and despotic Robespierre. What is the point of hiding behind these oppositions reduced to differences in character when it was also about political conduct and about different interpretations of power? Robespierre did not abuse his position or his power to exercise sexual power, and thus we see him here accused of impotence (and of repressed homosexuality and of being unable to love and thus of despotism, etc, etc…) It is true that this is easier than posing the true problem, the problem of one aspect of power so concealed in Robespierre’s case and presented in Danton’s case as a trait of a human and “natural” character. In both these cases, the problem of power has disappeared. Is it understood that Robespierre was a young and beautiful man, elegant, refined, and that he had much success? I must naively recall this fact, since this opposition of characters that Wajda imposes is supposed to allow him to “explain” his characters and the revolution.

There is not one “woman” in this film. In the 18th century, were all relationships relationships between men? Wajda pairs up Danton-Robespierre, the two complementary aspects, the Flesh and the Conscience. Yet the Wajda’s talking point here is too Catholic for the era, it belongs to the 17th century and elsewhere. The Enlightenment’s humanism, the pantheist revolution, the thought of Nature – all this is simply absent. Why do we have to think of Robespierre disguised as the tortured Jesus and as an archbishop? (2)

Is this not a double-reading of the Danton-Robespierre pairing that is proposed to us? Danton the material for the west, Robespierre the passion, the folly for Poland. But no, this Catholic and masculine conception does not belong to the 18th century. No, Danton could not be reduced to animality, and Robespierre, anti-clerical, pantheist, the philosopher of Nature, is not the Catholic and romantic hero presented here.

⁂

This error of perspective is compounded with innumerable factual errors. Here are but a few of them: the ransack of the printing house of “Le Vieux Cordelier”, pure invention. Robespierre wanting to remove Fabre from David’s tableau, The Tennis Court Oath, pure invention (Wajda reaches a peak here: he accuses Robespierre of falsifying history, and it is he, Wajda, who is inventing this episode!), this archbishop costume on Robespierre preparing for the Festival of the Supreme Being, pure invention. Yet these inventions are not mere details, since they were intended to portray a character. It is by these little touches that Wajda establishes a parallel between the Terror and Stalinism, and he does not hesitate to present Robespierre as the chief of a totalitarian regime. This hardly acknowledges reality and the Robespierrists’ reflections on power and on democracy. Thus, Wajda makes Danton say this line: “the people have only one dangerous enemy, it is their government.” Yet we find out that it was Saint-Just that delivered it in his speech from 10th October 1793, establishing the “revolutionary government”. The perspective is bizarrely false. What did Saint-Just say? “You had energy, the public administration lacked it. You desired economy, the accountants did not follow up with your efforts. All the world has pillaged the State. The generals have waged war against their own army. The owners of productions and of foodstuffs, all the vices of the monarchy, at last, have joined forces against the people and against you.＊ A people have only one dangerous enemy, and that is their government; your government has waged war against you with impunity.” (3)

In the summer of 1793, Robespierre turned down a proposition to hand all power over to the Committee of Public Safety. The complex establishment of the “revolutionary government” must have allowed the application of a policy based on the popular organisations (agrarian law: the suppression of feudal dues; the parcellation of land; the price maximum: a fight against the high cost of living; waging civil war and war on the borders).

The Robespierrists, predicting that power naturally corrupts, took all possible precautions so as to prevent the organs of the “revolutionary government” from exercising tyranny on an institutional level. Thus, the Committee of Public Safety, which answered to the Convention, for the Convention alone governed, was re-elected every two months⁑ by the Convention. When we know that a vote in the Convention sufficed to eliminate the Robespierrists on 9 Thermidor, we should understand that power of a dictatorial nature was entirely outside of the Robespierrists’ conception. Thus, that Saint-Just could have offered Robespierre personal dictatorship is some notable nonsense. Furthermore, the Jacobins were never a uniquely powerful party, and they were a minority in the Convention as well as in the Committee of Public Safety.

⁂

Wajda presents a Danton who wants to pause the revolution and to enjoy life, that is to say, he wants to enjoy the wealth that the revolution has brought him. Since only the economic question is evoked, let’s talk about it. In the Montagnards’ programme, the fight against the high cost of living holds an essential place. Let us recall very quickly what this entails. After 29th August 1789, the Constituent declared “economic liberty”, and then, faced with resistance, “martial law” to facilitate its implementation, on 21st October 1789. This economic liberty accelerated the increase in prices, exacerbated by the creation of the assignat. Since no taxes (impôts) have been paid since 1789, the government departments resorted to money-printing. This resulted in an unprecedented economic crisis. Up to 1793, the departments of the government merely imposed martial law, so hundreds of people were repressed, massacred, and condemned. This was the period of liberal terror. Let us recall that the economic question was the principal cause of the fall of the Gironde on 31st May - 2nd June 1793.

Martial law was abolished on 23rd June 1793, and economic liberty was also abolished by establishing the price maximum in September. The prices of foodstuffs were raised by a third compared to the pre-assignat prices from 1790 and fixed at that, and wages were raised by a half: so, there was a relative rise in wages. To make the policy of the price maximum coherent, the Robespierrists called for the suppression of the assignat and a return to metallic money. The Convention, however, refused their calls systematically, and the so-called omnipotent Robespierre in the Committee of Public Safety was unable to obtain this suppression.

At the time of the Danton affair, the application of the maximum price limit was very severe, and the black market was growing. Only popular mobilisation allowed people to wrest every sack of grain from the producers. The Robespierrists depended simultaneously on the government and on popular mobilisation to effectively fight the rising prices. They did not succeed in this, and the reasons are still very poorly understood, for hardly any studies exist on the application of the agrarian law of Year II, or on the price maximum.

Wajda seems to be saying that the government is responsible for the economic crisis. That is doubtlessly the case, but the government itself was conflicted about what policy was to be followed, and this ought to have been clarified. It was in this context that the Dantonist offensive, sensing the weakening of the popular movement, was launched, demanding, among other things, to end the then-ongoing implementation of the anti-liberal economic programme. How could it be that it is the Dantonists who are presented as the “friends of the people”? Since we know that the abolition of the price maximum in Year III was followed by an appalling crisis, it is reasonable to doubt this. We shall therefore be honest and present them as the friends of the speculators, of the army suppliers, of those who purchased national property, in short, of the profiteers of the revolution. We will learn more by plainly stating what the problem at the heart of Year II was.

Florence GAUTHIER

＊This speech was addressed to the Commission, hence the difference between "the people" and "you". Recall Slavoj Zizek's claim that the Jacobins never was a Party that could create the People embodied in it.

⁑ This seems to have been an error. The Committee of Public Safety had its powers renewed by the Convention every month.

Notes in the original:

1 F. FURET, Interpreting the French revolution (Penser la Révolution française), Gallimard, 1978, and his interview in “Libération”, 17th January 1983, where, referring to Wajda, he compares openly, and for the first time, Robespierre to Stalin. One can compare this excellently with the latest book of J. -P. FAYE, Portable Politic Dictionary in Five Words (Dictionnaire politique portatif en cinq mots), Gallimard, 1982, which does not recognise in the Jacobin discourse the source of totalitarianism.

2 Albert MATHIEZ noted already in 1910: “the physiognomy of Robespierre has been really deformed for 20 years by republican historians such that talking today of the religious ideas of the Incorruptible might appear an impossible task. Robespierre, it is proclaimed, was a man with a narrow brain, a man of the old regime, a cold man of ambition, who wanted to reign over France and through the terror impose on her a counterfeit of Catholicism, the deism erected into the religion of the State.” Study on Robespierre, edited Sociales, reedited, p.157. As we see here Wajda takes us 70 years back.

3 SAINT-JUST, Political Theory, Seuil, 1796, p. 234.

I would like to thank @czerwonykasztelanic for offering to emend the draft.

[haveyouseenthishorrormovie]

Stats from Movies 701-800

Top 10 Movies - Highest Number of Votes

Ringu (1998) had the most votes with 1,327 votes. Chillerama (2011) had the least votes with 360 votes.

The 10 Most Watched Films by Percentage

Beetlejuice (1988) was the most watched film with 80.9% of voters out of 780 saying they had seen it. Demonic Christmas Tree (2022) had the least "Yes" votes with 0.4% of voters out of 491.

The 10 Least Watched Films by Percentage

The Nun 2 (2023) was the least watched film with 70.6% of voters out of 633 saying they hadn’t seen it. Demonic Christmas Tree (2022) had the least "No" votes with 9.2% of voters out of 491.

The 10 Most Known Films by Percentage

Beetlejuice (1988) was the best known film, only 0.4% of voters out of 780 saying they’d never heard of it.

The 10 Least Known Films by Percentage

Demonic Christmas Tree (2022) was the least known film, 90,4% of voters out of 491 saying they’d never heard of it.

The movies part of the statistic count and their polls below the cut.

The Uninvited (1944) The Crazies (1973) Witchfinder General (1968) The Conspiracy (2012) When a Stranger Calls (1979) The Evictors (1979) The Birds (1963) Ice Spiders (2007) Rubber (2010) Eyes of Laura Mars (1978)

Daughters of Darkness (1971) Akira (1988) The End of Evangelion (1997) The Woman in Black (2012) Milfs vs. Zombies (2015) Knife + Heart (2018) It's a Wonderful Knife (2023) Attachment (2022) Gothic (1986) Jakob's Wife (2021)

Stranger by the Lake (2013) The Fog (2005) The Greasy Strangler (2016) Angel Heart (1987) Tumbbad (2018) The Snow Woman (1968) Sugar Hill (1974) Saloum (2021) WNUF Halloween Special (2013)

Sound of Violence (2021) Nosferatu the Vampyre (1979) The Haunting of Molly Hartley (2008) Death Laid an Egg (1968) Baskin (2015) The Last Will and Testament of Rosalind Leigh (2012) The Fearless Vampire Killers (1967) The Haunting of Julia (1977) The House That Dripped Blood (1971) Megan Is Missing (2011)

Ringu (1998) Three... Extremes (2004) Trench 11 (2017) Out There Halloween Mega Tape (2022) Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer (1986) The Driller Killer (1979) Berberian Sound Studio (2012) One Cut of the Dead (2017) Demonic Christmas Tree (2022) Butcher, Baker, Nightmare Maker (1981)

Urban Legends: Bloody Mary (2005) Motel Hell (1980) Shallow Ground (2004) Annabelle: Creation (2017) Annabelle Comes Home (2019) The Conjuring 2 (2016) The Conjuring: The Devil Made Me Do It (2021) Morgan (2016) Sputnik (2020) Devil's Pass (2013)

Dracula's Daughter (1936) Dagon (2001) We Are Still Here (2015) We Are What We Are (2013) Somos lo que hay (2010) The Serpent and the Rainbow (1988) Midori (1992) The Believers (1987) Troll 2 (1990) Chillerama (2011)

The Town That Dreaded Sundown (1976) The Mortuary Collection (2019) The Little Girl Who Lives Down the Lane (1976) The Pit and the Pendulum (1991) House (1985) Flatliners (1990) The Town That Dreaded Sundown (2014) Crimson Peak (2015) Frailty (2001) Hell Night (1981)

Eyes of Fire (1983) Sister Death (2023) Tonight She Comes (2016) Bad Dreams (1988) Dead Snow (2009) Dead Snow 2: Red vs. Dead (2014) Veronica (2017) The Nun II (2023) Brotherhood of the Wolf (2001) Maniac (1980)

Man's Best Friend (1993) M.O.M. Mothers of Monsters (2020) The Reptile (1966) She Creature (2001) Beetlejuice (1988) The Incredible Melting Man (1977) Kandisha (2020) So Vam (2021) Bit (2019) Death Proof (2007)

[horrororman]

🔪 Notable films that were released on September 2nd...

#TheHunchbackofNotreDame (1923)(NYC, NY).

#LonChaney

#SeeNoEvil (1971).

#LustforaVampire (1971)(US).

#horror

#Mortuary (1983).

#BillPaxton

#Nightmares (1983)(NYC, NY).

#Apollo18 (2011).

#scifi #sciencefiction

[unhclywater]

— BASICS

Name: Mikala Alijah Seabrooke, A.K.A. Michael or Mik. Age / D.O.B.: 58 / April 17th, 1965. Gender, Pronouns & Sexuality: Male in the same way you might view Cthulhu as a masculine figure, he / him / his, demisexual & aromantic. Hometown: Brooklyn, New York. Affiliation: The Syndicate. Job position: Organ trafficker (and other extracurricular activities), retired funeral director as of 2021. Education: Completed all 12 grades, acquired a health sciences degree at Kingsborough Community College at age 27 and a mortuary science degree at Hudson Valley Community College at age 32.  Has undergone continuing education throughout his time working for funeral homes. Relationship status: Some secret third thing (weird marriage is the secret third thing). Children: None that he wishes to be aware of (two probably). Positive traits: + Articulate, confident, hardworking, methodical, persuasive. Negative traits: - Amoral, antagonistic, cruel, morbid, pedantic.

— BIOGRAPHY (CONTENT WARNING: military involvement, death, cruelty, murder, war crimes, torture, animal/human experimentation, gore, organ trafficking - it's just bad news bears under here, heed the warnings.  Please refer to the abridged version w/o heavy mentions of these triggers if the content below is not for you.)

It’s spring of 1965 in Brooklyn, New York.  A boy enters the world, healthy and screaming.  He is the last born of three boys, and the only one to survive the following years, evading the Grim Reaper’s forceful grip.  With a single mother and three boys with their own unique challenges, their family is unorthodox.

Mikala, or Michael as he’s known in social circles, is even more unorthodox.  Childhood is simple enough, frustrating because he could never relate to his peers, not even his own brothers.  An odd child, it starts the same as it always does—a general malaise towards the living, a penchant for experimenting with the dead.  No one needs to know about the roadkill he conducts experiments on, so they don't.

He graduates high school in 1983, top of his class, then promptly enlists in the United States Army.  It matters not to him that he lost both of his brothers, five and eight years his senior respectively, to war.  Serving your country is merely what you did to make the men in your life proud and the women dote over you.  Above all, he wants to feel—to kill.

Cut to 1985.  He's twenty years old and feels so alive after witnessing so much death and depravity in a mere two years.  He has a hostage.  He should tell someone, he really should.  But this is his capture, and so he doesn't.  The torture lasts a handful of days, though it might as well have lasted a lifetime to his innocent victim.  Interrogation leads to physical harm, lighting the match to a fiery path of torture, experimentation and, finally, death.  Information acquired from his hostage is offered up to those positioned above him on a bloodied silver platter.  Questions aren't asked, not for now.

Jump a few more years to 1989. He has completed his time in the military, not by choice.  It's alleged that Michael committed multiple war crimes during his time serving, but only by a singular witness.  The trial drones on for nearly a year, no evidence is found, and he walks as a free man amongst the innocents.  His ability to lie and twist stories saves him multiple times throughout his life.  Immediately after this, he enrolls into community college.

The next few years are uneventful, though he's intoxicated by power after winning his hefty case.  He lives on the downlow by choice, having tasted plenty of murder in his time in the military.  This changes at age 29 in 1994.  In ice cold blood, he murders the woman he's dating.  With attention to detail, he dissects and learns to preserve the human body, the organs within it.

He enters 1995 by enrolling into yet another community college, this time in mortuary science.  Ten lovely years go by as he pursues his one and lonely passion, until he is noticed by The Syndicate.  Wrong place, right time, or perhaps the other way around.  In either case, Michael offers himself—his services—up.  It takes a village to be this criminal and ruthless, and so he accepts the inherent shelter this organization provides.  He trades his access to cadavers, more specifically organs, in return with the time-to-time involvement in assassinations, murders, and body disposal as well.

Throughout this time, starting in the mid-1990s, Michael discovers an inmate named Malachi Howahkan and does research on his case. Naturally, he likes what he finds, so he begins sending letters, money, et cetera to him. The two become romantically involved, going so far to propose to each other in their letters. Funnily, Malachi is the exact reason Michael enters The Syndicate in the first place, his soon-to-be husband in prison noticed and recruited first. When Malachi is released from prison in 2003, he shows up on Michael's doorstep. Just as naturally, he accepts his long-term penpal and partner, albeit with some surprise. Within the year, they're married.

From 2005 to 2021, life continues on as normal as it can for the abnormal.  Summer of 2021 brings his retirement as a funeral director, a slightly controversial move, yet he's not lost access to what matters most in his position with The Syndicate.  He finds alternative means, he always does.

As of 2023, he dedicates himself wholly to the gang, the only commitment that's ever mattered to him.

ABRIDGED VERSION: Born to a single mother, loses his brothers to war, enlists in the Army himself, commits multiple war crimes, is taken to court based on those war crimes, no evidence is found, he wins the case, acquires a degree in health sciences, murders woman he's in a relationship with shortly after graduating, acquires another degree in mortuary science, spends several years working in funeral services and participating in extracurricular activities on the side, discovers Malachi Howahkan while he's in prison and becomes his penpal, the two start a romantic relationship of sorts, they marry almost immediately after Malachi is released from prison, joins The Syndicate in 2005 due to his access to bodies, cements himself as an organ trafficker with occasional involvement in assassinations/murders, retires as a funeral director in 2021, continues his unscrupulous work for the organization.

— WANTED CONNECTIONS / PLOTS

Dalliances: It's rare for him to get intimately involved with someone, given his marriage, however it's not impossible.  It's turbulent, it's hardly romantic, and it's all about gain—for him. He's using the person for one reason or another. Again, deets are worked out as we plot/write. (0 / 2) Ex-lovers: The dalliances that are no longer dallying.  Again, quite rare for him to accumulate past lovers, but he's nearly sixty for God's sake and has been around the block once or twice.  (0 / 2) Friends: Or whatever is the next best thing.  These are people he doesn't mind, actively seeks out for company, etc.  This is most often going to be other Syndicate members.  Formal apology for the pet names said friends have garnered over time—think of them as his way of saying "I don't loathe you." Foes: He keeps his friends close and his foes closer.  There are a million and one ways he could've wronged your muse and created this hostile attitude towards each other, so let's chat it out! Coworkers: A.K.A. beloved Syndicate members.  He is particularly fond of those who get their hands bloody, and likely enlists their assistance in acquiring cadavers for organ trafficking purposes, delighted to take care of and dispose of the body for them.  While he'll do the "acquiring" part himself, even after his retirement from the funeral home, he likes it more when he can get someone else to.  Ex-coworkers could include other funeral service workers, hospital staff, etc. Military mates: Essentially, people who served at the same time he did (1983-1989).  Doesn't have to be Army branch but it does help. Perhaps the one person to witness his war crimes and snitch? Children of Dracula: Alright, this is a little dramatic, but. Michael's kids that he doesn't have a connection with and never has, however perhaps they've reached out? Want to get to know estranged papa? They would be in their late 20s to early/mid 30s. (0 / 2) Cop who arrested him: Self explanatory. This is the police officer that took him into custody when he was accused for war crimes, maybe even believes he's guilty despite the verdict. Bad blood all around. (0 / 1) Lawyer who defended him: Again, self explanatory. Legal representation was his lifeline during his trial, and he likely feels as if he owes this person to this day. (0 / 1)

[christiangittingsblog]

Seahenge: Research and history

Introduction:

This is an interesting video on Seahenge, which shows the importance of research when it comes to producing videos about history so that wrong information doesn't get out. Below is a cool description of what Seahenge is, why it had to be moved, and the history of the site.

"Seahenge, also known as Holme I, was a prehistoric monument located in Holme-next-the-Sea, near Old Hunstanton in the English county of Norfolk. A timber circle with an upturned tree root in the centre, Seahenge, along with the nearby timber circle Holme II, was built in the spring-summer of 2049 BCE, during the early Bronze Age in Britain.[1] Contemporary theory is that they were used for ritual purposes; in particular, Holme II has been interpreted as a mortuary monument that may originally have formed the boundary of a burial mound.

To preserve the timber in the site from exposure to air, due to recent exposure of the remains by the sea, it was excavated in the Spring of 1999,[2] and its remains were taken to an archaeological museum and then a maritime museum for the preservation of the wood. In 1999, a reproduction was put up by some of the excavators near the site. In 2008, after further study, a second reproduction was erected near the original's location. "

What did the video creator get wrong:

The video creator probably assumed that the USA and the UK when it comes to historic site laws, archaeology practices and the maintenance of historical sites, in general, are the same (it is probably a good idea to research the laws of another country before commenting on or visiting that country, otherwise you will make yourself an idiot or even worst, fined and arrested, I have heard of tourists visiting historic sites in other countries and being arrested for doing something stupid like damaging the historic sites, by the way, don't do that).

The video creator in this video also says that English Heritage stole the Seahenge Historic site, I think this video creator needs to research the role of English Heritage at the time the incident happened and UK heritage laws, by doing so. they would know that at the time of these events, English Heritage did have the legal right and power to remove the Seahenge under UK Law (to save the site),.

But it seems English Heritage didn't use their powers in this case they were invited by the appointed person of the site to advise them what to do and did not just barge in and take it, English Heritage and the appointed person engaged to look after the site, agreed together that the Historic site needed to be removed for its safety.

There seems to be some rubbish on the Internet these days that English Heritage stole the seahenge, but this is untrue, English Heritage did not steal anything (in fact they saved it as people and the sea were destroying it, plus it was an Archaeology unit engaged to do the work who removed the seahedge not English Heritage they only advised to do so after the appointed person of the Seahenge agreed to do so).

"When originally formed in 1983, English Heritage was the operating name of an executive non-departmental public body of the British Government, officially titled the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England, that ran the national system of heritage protection and managed a range of historic properties. It was created to combine the roles of existing bodies that had emerged from a long period of state involvement in heritage protection. In 1999, the organisation merged with the Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments of England and the National Monuments Record, bringing together resources for the identification and survey of England's historic environment."

Now, Historic England takes on the executive powers of English Heritage

"On 1 April 2015, English Heritage was divided into two parts: Historic England, which inherited the statutory and protection functions of the old organisation, and the new English Heritage Trust, a charity that would operate the historic properties, and which took on the English Heritage operating name and logo. The British government gave the new charity an £80 million grant to help establish it as an independent trust, although the historic properties remain in the state's ownership. "

I also remember the events of the removal of the seahenge being filmed for the UK programme Time Team where UK archaeologists discussed the site, the main archaeologist I think was discussing the site was Francis Pryor then director and lead archaeologist of Flag Fen where the seahenge ended up, and the reason for removing it was to save it.

Also, there is a big difference between moving or stealing, historic sites or. objects from another country or culture, and moving a historical site you already own to save that historic site.

By the way, I love this video creator's content and I recommend their videos, so check them out. They just got the information in this video wrong. Usually, their content is correct.

Seahenge references:

Seahenge - Wikipedia

Seahenge, An Extraordinary Historical Discovery in Norfolk

English Heritage - Wikipedia

Another video about the Seahenge this time an eyewitness account by someone involved in the Seahenge removal event:

[mitigatingchaos]

Sometimes, Access Needs To Be Denied

I found this saying on the FB feed of an old classmate and decided it was with sharing. Jeff was President of our class back at the Cincinnati College of Mortuary Science in 1983-84 and I was President of Pi Sigma Eta, our professional fraternity. While we have not gotten together since graduation, we have monitored each other via social media over the years and are like-minded in many ways, You…

[malditoportal]

DEAMBULANDO POR CRYSTAL LAKE 101

MORTUARY (1983)

[tacticalvalor]

«────── « HEADCANON » ──────»

Here's my headcanon that I have for Tony Prince surrounding his homosexuality and the culture he seems to have grown up in.

CW / TW for: Homophobia, Police Brutality, Prison Culture, Sexual Acts, and Drug Abuse.

According to Tony’s wiki page, which cites information found within the games and the overall “lore” of Grand Theft Auto, Tony was never openly gay until 1985:

“  The first club Tony opened for himself was PUDDLE, a rave venue famously located in a converted mortuary, until it was shut down when Tony was arrested for tax evasion in 1985, spending 3 months in jail.  According to Luis, Tony also first earned the nickname “Gay Tony” in 1985 - as the nickname suggests, Tony became openly homosexual by the time he was 27. “

Now obviously there isn’t a lot of history depicted up until this point, the only other notable things really being that Tony was born in 1958 in Dukes (the Grand Theft Auto equivalent of Queens, a borough in New York state), and he hated it there. A lot:

“ According to the Maisonette 9 website, “as a young boy, he wandered to the Humboldt River and dreamed of living on the other side (in Algonquin) so he would no longer be considered bridge and tunnel”. He also used to play in front of the Monoglobe and would sometimes stare into it, wondering what life was like in different countries. He is ashamed of his Dukes background, and it’s hinted during the beginning of Departure Time that he doesn’t speak to his parents anymore. “

However, with how much the Grand Theft Auto series likes to pull from reality (and dramatize it as a form of criticism), and as I’m a gay male myself, I want to assume that Tony did not have a realization that he was gay in 1985, but rather was able to feel proud about coming out in 1985 (re: he knew he was gay but repressed it).  

Let’s bullet point some LGBT+ history from New York state between roughly 1969 - 1985, as Tony would be between ages 11 - 27 respectively during this time period:

1969 (Age 11): Stonewall Riots happened in Greenwich Village. The Stonewall riots were a series of violent conflicts between gay men, drag queens and lesbians against a police officer raid* in New York City.  Riots began as police raided the inn.

1970 (Age 12): Commemorative march held one year after the riots, organized by the impetus of Craig Rodwell, owner of the Oscar Wilde Bookshop, drew 5,000 marchers up New York City’s Sixth Avenue, which drew nationwide publicity and put the Stonewall events on the historical map and led to the modern-day pride marches.

1971 (Age 13): In 1971, the first version of the Sexual Orientation Non-Discrimination Act (passed 2002; Age 44) was introduced into both houses of the state legislature.

1974 (Age 16): The Village of Alfred became the first municipality in the state to pass a gay rights ordinance, which prohibited discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

1977 - 1979 (Ages 19 - 21): Gaysweek existed as the first openly LGBT weekly newspaper in New York. At the time, it was one of only three weekly LGBT publications in the world, and the first to be owned by an African-American.

1980 - 1983 (Ages 22 - 25): The New York Court of Appeals case New York v. Onofre abolished most remaining laws regarding sodomy in New York. In 1983, the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual & Transgender Community Center was established in New York City (borough: Manhattan).

1985 (Age 27): The Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation was formed by a group of gay and lesbian artisans in New York City (borough: Manhattan).

* NOTE: Law enforcement officials could legally raid LGBT+ oriented establishments on the behalf of the anti-gay accommodation rules of the NY State Liquor Authority, who had said it was illegal for homosexuals to congregate and be served alcoholic beverages in bars.  Bars that did operate would have to bribe either the police or local mafias.  These regulations were legally overturned between 1965 and 1966, however, just because it was changed did not mean the police adhered to it at all.

So from what can be gleaned, it really would make sense that Tony was never openly gay from the moment he may have realized that.  I mean, in Grand Theft Auto IV which takes place in 2008, we still see Tony being called a fag, fairy, and queen by numerous people.  He still actively faces discrimination, however it’s not nearly as bad as it was.  

Yet we’ll delve into the modern history later, let’s focus now on Tony earning the nickname and his three months in jail in 1985.

Tony went to jail in 1985 for tax evasion and served three months.  It’s a bit of a stretch to draw a connection to Tony’s “coming out” and his time in prison, yet it’s not an impossible thing and I personally see the two being connected given their timeframe. 

Sexual behaviors in prisons/jails often include:

Suppression, in which an inmate chooses celibacy (i.e. refrains from sexual activity while in prison, most commonly to stay loyal to a partner who is outside of prison)

Autoeroticism (i.e. masturbation)

Homosexuality (which consists of two types, consensual true and consensual situation. Consensual true occurs between people who were already homosexual before entering prison. Consensual situation occurs between people who have homosexual experiences for the first time in prison)

Sexual violence (which includes coercion, manipulation, and compliance. Manipulation is performed for power or some kind of reward. Compliance occurs to obtain safety, protection, or out of fear).

** NOTE: A small disclaimer before I go any further, a lot of the above applies to prison culture.  The distinction between a jail and a prison is the severity of the crime and sentences served.  Tony went to jail because he only served three months.  If his sentence was one year or greater, he would have gone to prison.  Granted, the culture tends to be fairly similar across both institutions, dependent on the population (types of inmates).

The interesting thing in Tony’s case is that given the interactions he had behind bars, if any himself, were consensual, he can apply to both the consensual true and consensual situation model.  With how rough the culture surrounding LGBT+ individuals and dating was up to this point, it’s hard to imagine he had any sort of intimacy with another male, yet he has recognized that he is gay, yet has also not come out.  If he had any interactions during this time, then that would have most likely been his first.  The only thing I can assume that would lead to him earning the nickname “Gay Tony” during the course of 1985, and his consequent coming out, would be that he has had intimate relations within that three-month period, and it became a “brand” from his jail time, so to speak, as giving inmates nicknames based on whatever attributes makes them notable is very common even to this day.

It could also be entirely coincidental, but that’s what headcanons are for.

And since we’re here, let's look at some of New York’s LGBT+ history in the early 2000s:

2002 (Age 44): The Sexual Orientation Non-Discrimination Act was passed by the Legislature. Governor George Pataki signed the bill into law, and it went into effect on January 16, 2003 (Age 45).

2005 (Age 47): The Queens Chapter of PFLAG announced the creation of the “Brenda Howard Memorial Award”. This was the first time a major American LGBT organization named an award after an openly bisexual person.

2008 (Age 50): Governor David Paterson issued a directive for all government agencies to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states of the Union where such marriages are legally certified. 

TLDR:

Tony earned the nickname “Gay Tony” while serving time in jail and becoming a “prison bitch”.

Also, Tony is an older gay male who did not have the privilege to openly express himself and pursue healthy relationships until he was older (and therefore more likely to be excluded and feel ostracized by the emerging crowd of “baby gays”), and this is part of why he tends to seek risky and abusive relationships, as well as abuse drugs, despite being “old enough” to know and acknowledge how these things hurt him.

[kotarokrusher]

Bill Paxton as Paul Andrews in Mortuary (1983)

[sewerfight]

why is this so fucking funny

[fanficdumbchic]

Paul Andrews is Obsessed With You

Headcannon - Paul Andrews x Fem Reader - SFW

AN: Essentially, this is as if you were in Christie’s place in the movie.

He keeps murdering random, distant members of your family just so he can run into you at the cemetery.

He beams every time he musters the bravery to hand you flowers and does the weird little run.

Anyone at school that is mean to you ends up mysteriously disappearing.

You find yourself randomly followed by a black station wagon that swerves ominously but never actually poses any real threat.

He spends most of his free time decorating parts of a warehouse for your wedding that you are not aware of.

A mysterious hooded figure is always peaking around in your bushes or your in-ground pool.

If you’re parents are toxic, he will gladly support you and embalm them without your knowledge. 

He always runs up to you after school to ask if you want to come over and listen to Mozart or The Doors. No in-between.

He thinks you are beautiful the way you are, to the point that he wants to preserve you in just that state for decades to come via embalming.

He gets weirdly upset if you ever mention wanting to be cremated.

[trash-gobby]

Summary: Paul takes you to visit his mother's grave in her birthday in order to introduce the two of you and open up about his grief.

Word Count: 1.1K

Pairing: Paul Andrews X Fem!Reader

Characters: Paul Andrews, Reader

RATING: PG 13+

⚠️Warnings!: Angst, discussion of death, grief, family member death

The day was bright and sunny, which felt sort of out of place for a meeting at the cemetery. You didn't understand why of all places this is where Paul wanted to meet you, and frankly, it was concerning. He'd been so insistent over the phone, saying it was extremely important.

As you stood there at the entrance to the plot, soaking in the hot summer sun and the perfectly cool breeze rustling the leaves on the tree's, you waited.

Paul and you had been going out for around six months, and it had been quite the intense relationship. Paul had met you when you were taking the same elective at college in history of cinema. It hadn't been a particularly interesting class, but it had filled in your requirements as an upper level liberal course. He was sitting a couple seats behind you, and after the first day of class he'd asked you out to coffee. He'd been so awkward, but something about his earnestness really charmed you. It had been such a great time, talking about your shared interest for science and fantasy book. You really hit it off and planned to see each other again, going out to the movies and having dinner at a local bistro. After that you two had been basically inseparable, spending sometimes way to much time together.

However, lately you had to admit, there was something bugging him. Paul seemed more pensive and less his goofy self, though he tried not to let his lower mood affect your relationship. That didn't mean you hadn't noticed though, or that you didn't care. You wanted him to be happy, and not knowing what was making him so glum was worrying you. So when he asked you here, to this place of mourning, it only made you worry more.

"Y/N!" You were taken out of your thoughts by the sight of Paul, riding up to you on his bike holding in one hand a bouquet of flowers, and wearing a brown suite. You had a sundress on yourself, and felt a little underdressed in his presence.

"You look quite smart," Paul looked down and smiled at this comment before looking back up at you, as he stopped his bike in front of you. He ruffled your hair playfully before giving you a light kiss.

"And you look beautiful, as always."

Hopping of his bike you walked together over to the fence in front of the gate, where Paul began to lock up his bike.

"I was wondering," you looked down, trying to avoid making eye contact as you asked, "why did you want to meet here? I hope it's not to strange of me asking. I've just been worried about you."

Paul stood up, placing his hands on your shoulders, making you look up at him in the eye.

"I know you've been worried, and I'll tell you all about it. That's why I wanted you to come here with me. I wanted to share this day with you. It's really important to me," he said softly, trying to comfort you.

"I just didn't know how at the time, but now I do."

"So," you said, trying to sound a little more hopeful.

"Come with me," Paul lowered his hands, and took one of yours in his own, coaxing you with him into the cemetery.

The smell of freshly cut grass and flowers was in the breeze, and the sound of birds twittering about filled your ears as the two of you walked for a while in silence, hand in hand. You had to admit that the graves were well tended, some with freshly cut flowers in beautiful ornate vases, and various little trinkets left behind as tokens for the dead. You'd always found something oddly comforting about cemeteries. The fact that people would come here to be with their loved ones even though they'd passed on, was something you found touching.

As the two of you worked your way further into the twisting and turning paths filled with tombstones, mausoleums and ornate statues, you found yourselves at a area of the cemetery which looked to have some much newer graves. Paul guided you to one grave in particular, situated under a sycamore tree. The headstone read Donna Andrews, 1933-1982, loving mother and dedicated teacher.

"My dad and I asked for a spot right here, 'cause mom always said she wanted a spot in the shade if ever she laid to rest." You looked over at Paul, feeling your feeling of protectiveness rising up again, but he looked over to you and gave you a reassuring smile.

"It's her birthday today, and I wanted to introduce you," he said bashfully.

"Paul," you said, squeezing your hand in his own.

"Really, I tell her about you all the time when I visit every week, and I always feel a little sad when her birthday comes around."

"I understand that. I'm glad you brought me here to meet her," you replied, bringing him into a embrace, trying to show that truly did appreciate him sharing this with you. As you broke the embrace, you looked over to Mrs. Andrews grave, taking in it's intricate beauty, a fine resting place for a mother.

"I guess I should introduce myself. Hello Mrs. Andrews, I'm Y/N and I'm your son's girlfriend. He's one of the most kind and considerate guys I've ever met. You've raised him well, and I am so happy to be finally meeting you."

"Yeah mom, I'm glad your meeting Y/N, she's really accepted me as I am, and doesn't think I'm weird, or at least she doesn't mind how weird I am," Paul chuckled.

"She's really the best person I've ever met, I only wish you'd been here to really meet her and get to know her like I have," his eyes welling up with tears, threatening to spill over. You put your head on his shoulder using your other hand to draw him close.

"Hey, I'm here, I've got you." you said soothingly as Paul began to lightly cry, chest heaving and tears streaking his face. It lasted a while, standing there in each others company as Paul cried.

"Do you want to lay the flowers together?" You asked as his crying had abated a bit more, him nodding in agreement. Together, hand in hand, you walked up and placed the bouquet down.

"It's really lovely, I'm sure she loves it."

"Lilies were always her favourite. She loves the smell and their colour, so pure," Paul said, running his thumb over the back of your hand he was holding.

"You'll stay with me?" He asked, looking at you in the eye, face still wet with tears and red around the eyes from crying. You reached up and wiped his face, stroking it softly.

"Always," you said, hugging him again, getting it returned tightly from him.