#we’re talking ‘multiple instances of rape’ dark | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

royalnugget42 · 5 years ago

Text

SPN is ending

And here’s my take on how it will go down, based on the limited knowledge we have. Please be aware that these are not foolproof predictions. Title analysis can only get you so far, and some of the titles are vague enough that they could mean just about anything. Still I’d like to try my best to predict the narrative based on how I would go about it and based on the vague references.

I’ll go episode by episode, include as many details as I can reasonably add, and try to keep my Destiel shipping goggles off as much as possible. Buckle up.

First one is pretty easy. Episode 14, “Last Holiday” promises to be kind of literal, with a mysterious figure appearing and giving Jack, Sam, and Dean the holidays they missed out on. However, I was curious, since Supernatural has a habit of including obscure or not so obscure references in their titles, if there was any other thing we could correlate this to.

There is actually a movie called “Last Holiday” starting Queen Latifah, whose character is diagnosed with a terminal illness, which results in her making the decision to abandon her boring life and live like a millionaire in Europe.

The idea of the fight with Chuck being a “terminal illness” on the horizon could be why now is the best time for these guys to live it up.

This possible reference coupled with the ‘last’ seems to say that this episode will be a sort of final moment of levity before the endgame. Past this episode there be monsters, lads. I’d also like to point out that since it will be just Jack and the brothers if the promo photos are anything to go by, this will be a good time to get in some forgiveness and family bonding for our characters before things go downhill again.

Looking at promo photos for this episode again, I’m not sure where, but the episode may also carry some development for the plot. I’m not sure whether the photos of Cas, Amara, and Charlie were for this episode or another one (since they are not listed as cast members for the episode on IMDb), but we’ll be seeing all of them again soon it looks like, and I can’t wait for Cas and Jack to go on a hunt together again.

This episode will be the beginning of the descent. We’re standing on the edge and staring into the void, and we’re about to take the plunge. How do I know this?

“Gimme Shelter”, the title for this new episode, seems to have a literal meaning of the characters continuing to try to hide from God. However, as usual, the title is also a reference, this time to a song by The Rolling Stones. The lyrics to said song are nice and foreboding.

Oh, a storm is threat'ning

My very life today

If I don't get some shelter

Oh yeah, I'm gonna fade away

War, children, it's just a shot away

It's just a shot away

War, children, it's just a shot away

It's just a shot away

Ooh, see the fire is sweepin'

Our very street today

Burns like a red coal carpet

Mad bull lost its way

War, children, it's just a shot away

It's just a shot away

War, children, it's just a shot away

It's just a shot away

Rape, murder!

It's just a shot away

It's just a shot away (3X)

The floods is threat'ning

My very life today

Gimme, gimme shelter

Or I'm gonna fade away

War, children, it's just a shot away

It's just a shot away (4X)

I tell you love, sister, it's just a kiss away

It's just a kiss away (5X)

Kiss away, kiss away

Cue nervous anticipation

This is definitely where things are going to really pick up plot wise. Most likely, more will be revealed about Billie’s Plan to Kill God TM. Although, the idea of Death herself leading the Winchesters to victory feels sketchy to me still. She is deliberately withholding all the details, and she’s doing it for a reason.

Something down the line is going to make the Winchesters angry with her, and she’s not going to tell them about it unless it’s absolutely necessary. I have a feeling what it is will get revealed in the next episode.

“Drag Me Away (From You)” has some very clear negative connotations, and on top of everything has a weird format. It could be based on the lyric from Africa by Toto, ‘it’s gonna take a lot to drag me away from you’, or a reference to the song “Drag Me Away” by Melissa Etheridge, whose lyrics mention angels, and are about resistance and perseverance, two defining characteristics of the Winchesters. However, I’d like to point out another correlation.

Like I said before, the title has a weird format. The only other episode of Supernatural with a similar title to this one is season 12 episode 12 “Stuck in the Middle (With You)”. That episode was about what seemed like a normal hunt, but was actually a mission for Mary by the British Men of Letters to get the Colt. In that episode, Cas came ridiculously close to dying a painful and slow death, which does not bode well for this episode if it’s correlated in any way.

If what I’m predicting for Billie’s plan is true, this episode will be where the viewers are clued in on the thing she won’t tell the Winchesters about. The brothers might not necessarily get clued in (like how they still hadn’t realized Mary’s involvement with the BMOL at the end of 12x12), but whatever Billie is withholding will have serious consequences.

For this episode, I predict that Cas will come absurdly close to death again, because I believe Billie’s plan involves him dying. Billie doesn’t consider Cas a member of TFW. Multiple times in the most recent episodes, she talks about how important Jack is, how important the Winchesters are, but never Cas, and it feels like a weird oversight.

“Ever since I got this new job, I stand witness to a much larger picture. You know what I see? You. And your brother. You’re important.” 13x05 “Advanced Thanatology”

“I told you Dean, you and your brother have work to do.” 15x12 “Galaxy Brain”

Surely Cas has a part to play, since he’s one of the main characters right? But Billie doesn’t trust Cas, as well she shouldn’t. Cas is a wildcard, an angel who doesn’t do as he’s told. He straight up stabbed her in the back, something that she was completely caught off guard by.

I could make an entire post about how Cas hasn’t played by the rules of the universe since season 4 episode 18 “The Monster at the End of This Book”, but I digress. The point is that this episode is probably going to shed some light on the true threat the team is facing. Which leads us into...

17-18

Here’s where things start to get muddy. The titles from this point on get vague, and without any solid information about the previous episodes, these could be headed anywhere.

“Unity” is the next episode, number 17, and that could mean a lot of things. In my proposed timeline it is after a supposed revelation about Billie’s plan, so maybe they feel more unified after learning it.

In Supernatural‘s usual story structure, though, it feels like this episode will probably be the buildup to what seems like the end of the villain, but will actually be the darkest hour.

The episode following right after this is titled “Despair” and I think that’s telling. Supernatural writers do this often, where the boys make a plan, and inevitably when they follow it something goes wrong. “Unity” is the plan being made and carried out, and “Despair” is either the episode where everything goes wrong, or the aftermath.

[EDIT: The title of episode 18 is actually “The Truth”, which I believe may still narratively serve the same purpose, but now I’m more convinced that this is where the Winchesters learn about Castiel’s deal and/or something that Billie has been keeping from them about the plan to kill God. Thank you to @kingofthecrossroads for the updated information.]

Before I go into detail about this two-episode arc, an obligatory

Warning: Shipping Ahead

To my eyes, “Unity” seems like the perfect place for Castiel’s arc to reach a breaking point. If I’m right, and this is the episode where everything seems to succeed, then what better time for The Empty to snatch Cas away from his happiness.

If I was a writer, and I was in fact planning on making Destiel canon, this is where I’d do it. It makes the most sense to have Dean and Cas finally realizing their love for each other be the catalyst for Cas “finally giving himself permission to be happy” especially if this episode also contains a false climax regarding the Chuck storyline. Cas has said multiple times that he’s “far from happy”, so there has to be something huge happen for Cas to get there. Not to mention, Cas would be a sort of vessel for the audience, simultaneously happier than we’ve ever been because we were finally right, and sadder than ever because Cas is gone.

“Despair” won’t just be despair that the plan failed. It could also be Dean’s despair at losing Cas, our despair at seeing our hopes for them dashed.

[EDIT: Again, the title will NOT be “Despair” it will be “The Truth”, but I still think it’s telling that Despair was a working title for long enough that it’s on the IMDb page, and if “The Truth” contains the truth about how Dean and Cas feel about each other, then this will still be a dark episode.]

Shipping over, let’s continue.

Now we come to another referential episode, “Inherit the Earth”. There’s really not enough information to have anything solid regarding the nitty gritty details, but we can take a look at what this title is most likely referencing. “Inherit the Earth” is just a tiny part of a common phrase. It’s used in media all the time, but we’re interested in the original source.

I’m not sure if the episode will contain references to all the pieces of this passage from the Bible, but “Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth” seems to build off of the last episode, “Despair”. Another translation for the word meek in this instance may have been “powerless”, and after the negative moments in the previous episode TFW would probably feel pretty powerless. Maybe, in the previous episodes, Jack failed and lost his powers again, and that’s what caused Despair, but now he will inherit the powers that God had, or inherit control of earth.

If the rest of the passage is to be taken into account here, there’s also the “poor in spirit” who will ascend to the “kingdom of heaven”, possibly a reference to Cas being depressed and fighting for Heaven to be maintained. “Those who mourn will be comforted”, and that may actually bode well for Sam and Dean, who constantly mourn for the friends they’ve lost. Maybe in this episode they’ll get some closure on that front, maybe with their friends trapped in Hell going to Heaven (Kevin). The next line after “inherit the earth” refers to “those who hunger and thirst for righteousness”, and if that isn’t Michael/Adam to a T...maybe this will be the episode we see him team up to fight God. I’m not sure who the last line might refer to other than Sam, if you have any ideas feel free to tell me.

And after all this, we have the big one.

“Carry On” is referring to “Carry On My Wayward Son” by Kansas, and I don’t have a clue what it will entail. If the previous episode goes well, then this will be a sort of epilogue, with a (hopefully) happy ending for TFW, maybe we see Eileen and Sam get together, some kind of family dinner with Jody and the girls to resolve that plot line, or potentially, if the writers plan on doing it, a scene confirming Destiel.

It’d be interesting if they showed the brothers going on a normal, run-of-the-mill hunting trip, like a simple salt-and-burn, or even a (different) woman in white. It would be a nice way to bookend the story, to end on a hunt, but instead of the brothers on their own, it’s the brothers with the help of everyone they’ve come to know and care about in their journey, all the lives they’ve touched.

If, however, the conflict is not resolved by the end of the previous episode, this could be the resolution and epilogue all rolled into one, though if it were me I would want as much time as possible to resolve any lingering character questions because, at the end of the day, Supernatural has survived because of the characters. They are what people stay for, what they watch for.

Reminder that all of this is speculation. I do not know what will happen, this is just how I think the story could progress based on what we know so far.

For better or for worse, at this point Supernatural will be over. Will they do a perfect job? Probably not. This is Supernatural, it’s not the most perfect show. However, I’m excited to see where the writers will go with it. They have their work cut out for them.

[EDITED]

#spn #supernatural #supernatural theory #spn theory #spn s15 #spn season 15 #spn 15x14 #spn 15x15 #spn 15x16 #spn 15x17 #spn 15x18 #spn 15x19 #spn 15x20 #saileen #spn 15x12 #destiel #i tried not to let it influence me #hope this is coherant

80 notes · View notes

popcult1005 · 3 years ago

Text

Comedy and Racism

I liked discussing whether or not comedy goes too far. The in-class annotation widget on canvas was really nice. I liked looking at other people’s opinion on the subject at hand. I saw someone say that punching down is never okay and that jokes about ‘not funny’ things weren’t okay either. I have to disagree with the latter statement there. Rape jokes aren’t funny if you’ve never been raped, cancer jokes aren’t funny if you’ve never had cancer, eating disorder jokes aren’t funny if you’ve never starved yourself, and suicide jokes aren’t funny if you’ve never tried or known someone who did. Your audience gets to decide what is and what is not funny. What’s a joke if you’re sitting stuck in a room? Relatable content that intrigues you. My roommate and I both grew up dirt poor and both of our dad’s have died (although very differently). We make jokes about our shared trauma EVERY DAY. It gives us a sense of power over the situation that the situation took back from us. Humor as a coping mechanism is real and a lot of people default to it. We can sit here and cherry pick what jokes can be said and what jokes can’t be said, but at the end of the day, it comes down to “Are you being an asshole or not?”. Is your intention with the joke to out someone down or to show them you are aware of their plights and you’re there for them?

Today I experienced a very good example of this. My long distance partner sent me a photo of his face. I thought he looked super cute so I showed my roommate and she stared at him and said “He looks cute, but kinda looks like Rumpelstiltskin from Shrek in that photo”. We cross referenced it and he kinda did. It was an uncanny resemblance that was just peculiar enough to be funny. She didn’t say “Oh gross, he looks like Rumpelstiltskin wtf”. I was going to share that joke with him, but I remember multiple instances of him telling me about his body dysphoria and I decided that joke may not be appropriate to tell him. He may not be at a point with this issue that jokes about his appearances aren’t going to harm him. Knowing your audience is important. Context is also super important. If I see memes about eating disorders on my Instagram feed, I’m going to report them. Social media reaches too many people for that to be safe. I wouldn’t post a meme on a mental illness, unless I knew my target audience would be reached. I promise you that dark humor is freaking hilarious when told with good intentions.

Example joke that I came up with for father’s day:

*background information*

My father was cremated and I have a small keepsake box of his ashes

Joke:

I went to my therapist and told her “Father’s Day bothers me more this year and I wanna talk about it”

My therapist: “Okay. What’s bothering you the most?”

Me: “I have no idea what parts of him I own. I could be treating his toe or his ear like a sacred item and I would have no idea.”

We looked at an article on code switching and then we watched a bunch of skits and sketches that involved code switching. Ofc we’re more comfortable with people who look like us. That just makes sense. We feel connected to them the same way people in rehab or AA feel connected to their peers who are also in that program. There’s a sense of safety from criticisms and unnecessarily hard judgements. I just don’t think it was that big of a deal, just don’t be a d*ck about things and don’t disrespect people. have some basic human decency and compassion. There’s a difference between making fun of a group of people and making fun of a stereotype of a group of people. Punching down isn’t cool but acknowledging that the stereotype is ridiculous is fine. There’s a fine line between comedy and bullying and intention, context, and personal attitude make up most of that line.

#week4

1 note · View note

wu-mo · 5 years ago

Text

A version of Godard and Trinh Minh-Ha discussing filming the last story of Brief Interviews with Hideous Men

Godard: So here we are. Adapting a story written by a U.S. fictionist. Never saw this day coming.

Trinh: Then I suppose it’s a good thing that none of this is real. Let’s just start. I want to talk a little about the story first. And I don’t mean its fatty Wallacian syntax and moral gymnastics. Just what it is, as a piece of lit. There’s no denying that it’s a devastatingly beautiful and unsettling… thing that practically gives itself up to many interpretations, cinematic or not. What sort of bothered me, initially, was the absolute, merciless lack of a female voice: our Ms. Granola Cruncher, the heart of this story, only exists in the semi-confession of the anonymous “hideous man”. We don’t know what happened to her in the end, but at this point I’m pretty sure it was something terrible. Also, I believe it can be gathered from the totality of these Brief Interviews that our interviewer, whose questions are not even presented, is also female—in fact, in John Krasinski’s earlier adaption of this book, the interviewer becomes the main character, Sara Quinn, a doctoral candidate in anthropology…

G: Adorable.

T: Well… I suppose adorable is one thing you can call it. Anyway, like I said, the lack of female voice bothered me for a while, and then I realized something: the Cranola Cruncher in B.I. #20 is not simply the moral parallel bars like many other faceless women in these interviews. Her anonymity throughout the story—and the disappearance of her entire personhood at the end of the horrifying rape—serves an essential purpose. And I don’t think we can begin filming anything without figuring out what that is.

G: I believe it’s rather simple what it is, no? Or, what she is. The absence of personhood, as you put it—I don’t think it’s to serve anything, I think it is the final goal.

T: I agree. Although it does result in certain consequences—it’s through her abandonment of selfhood that—here I’m just going to write this down—

It’s through her abandonment of selfhood:

1. that we as viewers of the story achieve empathy for the narrator, then the girl, then somewhat for the killer, then in the end towards some sort of sad mixture. Whatever it is, it’s our immediate response towards the story as literature. Through the hypodiegetic.

2. that the narrator guy achieves two different kinds of empathy: one for the girl and, eventually and horribly, the other for the serial killer, and that further results in his “becoming” of the killer. Whether literally or not. This is the intradiegetic level.

3. that the Granola Cruncher, the supposed victim of the story, miraculously achieves the third and highest kind of empathy, the total supreme demolition of the self, her becoming the world and everything… But really, this “becoming” itself is the sole purpose and I think it transcends the literal diegesis. How to convey “the couvade” that is not just between the characters but also between the story and us, reality and us. That is the true porousness of boarders. It opens up everything else.

G: Yes, yes. Expansion of the self, force field of awareness and focus… Sounds good. Who doesn’t love that? But if we were to adapt a story that is by definition written in spoken language, how would you break the picture theory of meaning?

T: How do you mean?

G: I mean the theory that the relation between reality and language is only referential, which means image of you and me, image of this fake conversation we’re having, image of the Cruncher are merely representatives of the “real stuff”. This piece is the author’s inner responsible philosopher at work, no? Sadly this narrator’s hyper-awareness is only of his own language, he is all but obsessed with how he sounds, how he appears, and so he generates this horrible field of consciousness around him. It’s the opposite of the girl’s, which seems to be of the real thing—but we have no way to imagine that realness through anything but the guy’s words. The tragic loop closes. Through his narrative all I can say for sure is that he cannot handle this level of focus and the real, outside image, outside language, the real thing. I think it destroys him as a person. I don’t know if it’s the sadness or the love or the horror that destroys him. And I don’t know if he hurts her or now in the end. I have no intention for a narrative ending anyway. Or a narrative in general. It’s not what’s important here. If there’s anything in this story that matters to me it’s—can I have a look at what you just wrote?—what matters is how the spectator makes meaning outside the illusion of this relation between image or language, and make a choice within (0) based on the intertextuality of (1) and (2).

T: I agree with most of what you said. We share similar intention when it comes to the representation or rather, dissolvement of diegesis to some degree, on both literal and cinematic levels. Because the story contains an extreme setup, even by American standards. And all is retold to us by a guy who at the beginning believes none of this. Interpersonal porousness is the obvious crux here, though I for one would not entirely abandon the plot—not all narrative is evil. So maybe now is a good time for us to get into the specifics. My question is what is the “intertextuality” and how do you plan to achieve it? Would you do another “collage” of a film?

G: Why don’t you start by telling me some of your plans?

T: So far the least of my concern is the placement—or even the existence—of any ana/prolepsis. I don’t really care what is told before what once I get past the beginning. I think the shots will find their own places. But I will say that I want to start with this scene, simply because it’s my favorite:

Nor would I even begin to try to describe what she looks like as she’s telling the story, reliving it, she’s naked, hair spilling all down her back, sitting meditatively cross-legged amid the wrecked bedding and smoking ultralight Merits from which she keeps removing the filters because she claims they’re full of additives and unsafe—unsafe as she’s sitting there chain-smoking, which was so patently irrational that I couldn’t even bring—yes and some kind of blister on her Achilles tendon, from the sandals, leaning with her upper body to follow the oscillation of the fan so she’s moving in and out of a wash of moon from the window whose angle of incidence itself alters as the moon moves up and across the window[…]

In “When The Eye Frames Red”, an interview with Akira Mizuta Lippit, I have mentioned that the spaces between image, sound and text remain spaces of generative multiplicity, in which the function of each is not to serve nor to rule over the other, but to expose, in their tight interactions, each other’s limit […] Something that seems recognizable in my work and can only be realized intuitively with each film, is this tendency in pushing the limits, to lead the work, just when its structure emerges, to the very edge where its potential to return to nothing also becomes tangible. I believe in the porous boards between arts, though in this case I don’t think I can add anything textual—scripted—to Wallace’s writing. It has a distinctive fluidity of its own. Whenever the mind is attracted to a specific still, whenever a thing begins to take form, he immediately shifts your attention to the next, the structure of the scene is formed by not the specific shapes but the process of “coming into”. When we employ the similar philosophies in filming I think it’s important to start visualizing form as an instance of formlessness.

G: And formlessness as an instance of form.

T: Exactly. On that note, I’d start the scene fading-in on the silhouette of her sitting on the blanket. In total silence, we see her gesturing and her mouth moving. Oh and I should probably have mentioned this earlier: there will not be a shot of the girl’s face in its entirety. Nor will we ever hear her voice, even if this is a scene of her telling the story. I will only present fragments of her features… Anyway, total silence, in which I'd introduce close-ups of her removing the filter, then the fan oscillating. Now this is his gaze. I wouldn’t say it’s much sexual—at this point the narrator’s just about to be completely captivated, and I think at the moment his gaze is somewhere between Scopophilia and the extreme focus. A gaze that’s about to transcend onto another plane. He is not simply viewing her as an object, that part of their relation has just ended and now she’s about to destroy him with a trueness that he can’t possibly fathom. Still, we can sense from the narrative that he is still romanticizing her physicality, there is a gross tenderness to his tone. So in the very beginning of the film, what I present is still essentially the man as the bearer of the look of the spectator, as Mulvey mentioned in Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema. The semi-erotic look on what he once believed was “a strictly one-night objective.” But the illusion of omnipotence will soon shatter as I introduce the next shots.

G: So, no voice-over narration in all of this?

T: Of the guy? No—no so far I don’t plan to introduce any kind of voice narration, at least not in the first half of the film. Maybe in the end, when the narrator’s power has been completely neutralized—

G: You mean obliterated.

T: Maybe. Yes. So his actual voice—if ever heard—is to be placed in contrast with his helplessness and hopelessness in the end. Meanwhile, following her "protofeminine contraposto", I introduce objects under subjective treatment—we’re still seeing through his gaze—“the toile skirt, hair that nearly reached the blanket, the blanket dark green with yellow filigree and a kind of nauseous purple fringe, a linen singlet and vest of false buckskin, sandals in her rattan bag, bare feet with phenomenally dirty soles, dirty beyond belief, their nails like the nails of a laborer’s hands.”

G: And this was… right before he confesses, “Have you ever heard of the couvade?”

T: Yes, a key moment that pretty much defines the story. His focus on her telling of the story—that impossible level of attention on her image—of her own focus of every little detail during the rape. In accordance I’d accentuate the color of the interior—then of the blanket—yellow, green and purple and the dirtiness of her soles and nails… these are extremely detailed, structured, you can say, within the narrative and I think it’s appropriate to dramatize texture and light with artificial saturation like I did in A Tale of Love—in which the space is also fabricated with this almost humming tension, I want the viewer to acknowledge the untrueness through what Deleuze calls hapticity—between vision and tactility, the visual becomes “felt”. And hopefully through the “felt” the viewer will sense that truth is about to be addressed in the next scene, which is from the girl’s perspective. But between the two scenes I’d like to include an aural bridge of “stridulating crickets” and the largo tick of the cooling auto”.

G: So I gather you’re about to shift to her “almost hallucinatory accentuation of detail”?

T: Yes, the noises are abrupt; so are the cuts. Now onto the next scene:

She could decoct from the smell of the gravel in her face the dank verdure of the spring soil beneath the gravel and distinguish the press and shape of each piece of gravel against her face and large breasts through the leotard’s top, the angle of the sun on the top of her spine and the slight swirl in the intermittent breeze that blew from left to right across the light film of sweat on her neck. … She could hear the largo tick of the cooling auto and bees and bluebottle flies and stridulating crickets at the distant treeline, the same volute breeze in those trees she could feel at her back, and birds—imagine the temptation to despair in the sound of carefree birds and insects only yards from where you lay trussed for the gambrel—of tentative steps and breathing amid the clank of implements whose very shapes could be envisioned from the sounds they made against one another when stirred by a conflicted hand. The cotton of her dirndl skirt that light sheer unrefined cotton that’s almost gauze.

Some of these are visual but some are very anti-image. How to convey the tactical and the aural? Because in the middle of all this, her being able to sense this vital and verdant beauty of the nature in the middle of this brutal crime can only be explained as "the L world at function". The sublime and the mystical lie in the portraits of the world becoming almost molecular for her. A simple close-up of fingers-on-grass would include tactility, temperature, and even smell. I’ve talked about this unmaking in another interview, “Shifting The Borders of The Other” with Marina Grzinic: The self-in-displacement or the self-in-creation is one through which changes and discontinuities are accounted for in the making and unmaking of identity, and for which one needs specific, but mobile boundaries. It is a question of shifting them as soon as they tend to become ending lines. Back then I was talking within a cultural context, but I think it applies here also. The sensations are no longer images perceived outside of her body. I wouldn’t focus on each shot for too long and would cut the ambient noise somewhere during the scene, right about the viewer is about to get familiar with this synesthetic cinematic sensation. Now for a moment I was thinking about including close-ups of eyeballs, then there’s the whole thing “round phallism”. So maybe not. Anyway, this is just a simple example of how I’d represent the porousness between two scenes.

G: I see. Thank you for sharing.

T: And what about you? Feels like I’ve been talking for quite a while now.

G: Hmm… these are just off the top of my head, more intentionality than execution… I’m thinking about having multiple actresses to play Ms. Granola Cruncher.

T: Excuse me?

G: Like I said before, by the time this guy does this interview he is deeply trapped in language. A pathetic mess. I don’t see how he is in anyway reliable. I need to show that.

T: OK.

G: His voice is preoccupied with the relationship between his own image and reality; this further prevents him from recognizing his hideousness. He claims a similar transcendence—he dares to call it love and sadness—as the same kind the girl experiences. I don’t see it. I think he is simply a monster whom Wallace uses as one of his many surrogates to express deep fears for hypocrisy and post-modernist traps. Loud and clear is the message “None of this is to be trusted!” So why shouldn’t the audience know that?

T: And how do you plan to reveal it?

G: His hideousness is rather self-explanatory. I'm not worried once this character opens his mouth. Now I’ll see if I can find footage of the author reading this story himself. Maybe I’ll insert clips of Wallace doing that interview with Charlie Rose… Perhaps some audition clips for the characters, where I also ask actors to fill in the blank “Q”s themselves. Maybe I’ll do this one in 3D, too, explore more editing software with Fabrice Aragno… Or maybe, with your permission of course, I’ll include this conversation we’re having—I put a camera in the corner of this room when I walked in.

T: Oh… there it is. Okay… But how is any of this related to the story?

G: I’ll do scenes from the story, too, probably. If the audience is curious about the plot they can just go buy the book. Look, I don’t deny the story’s values as literature. It’s beautifully constructed. Almost too beautiful. But eventually we’re talking about its cinematic value, which to me seems very little. It piles images together but only for the purpose to destroy them. So what’s to be filmed? Everything that should be done has already been done. Besides, at this point I’m also no longer interested in the representational properties of image. It’s more of a disclosing event than an aesthetic for me. Wallace expresses a large concern for solipsism; his ideal is that language is and must be dependent on interpersonal relationships, dependent on, excuse me, “how to being a fucking human being”. That’s his message and it’s great. I’d film that. and I trust the viewer to recognize the differentiation between images to be a tableau rusting silently in its place. Let them investigate the causation themselves.

T: So you think showing how this film is made is a stronger message to send than presenting the porosity within the story?

G: You can put it that way. Earlier you mentioned gaze a lot, but I think it’s time to destroy the gaze instead of analyzing it to death. I think true porosity lies rather in these conversations, our responses to the dissolvement of narrative boarders, and I think this is how Wallace would have wanted it in the first place. I used this Monet quote in Adieu au Langage, and I will end with it, “Paint not what we see, for we see nothing, but paint that we don’t see.”

1 note · View note

sweepingupgibs-blog · 6 years ago

Note

Hello, sorry to come to you like this but I am unable to find your rules. When I click the link it doesn't take me to them as I assume it should. I've looked up different tags on your blog but I could find nothing, if it's not too much to ask could you repost your rules?

((Huh, link works just fine for me, dunno why it wouldn’t for anyone else. But you can find them HERE on desktop and for the mobile app, I’ll put them under a cut on this post. It’s probably good to have them anyway, since Tom has some stuff that folks should be aware of that my other muses don’t.))

WHAT I WILL RP:

Smut (Including a lot of the stranger kinks)

Gore

Dark themes

Combat

Whatever as long as it’s not on my Will Not list

WHAT I WILL NOT RP:

Smut with a minor; Mun or Character (I am 24. You will be blocked immediately if I’m lied to about age.)

Rape

Incest

Of course every RP is at my discretion and if an RP gets into a territory I previously thought I was comfortable with but turned out not to be, I will let my partner know and likely ask to stop or deescalate the situation. Not sure about something? Ask.

PASSWORDS:

If you have a rules password, don’t worry, I see it, I read everyone’s rules. However, I will send said password after a mutual follow because I follow people because I like their muse and want to see if their interested. If we’re mutually interested in RPing, I’ll send your password to you, but it makes me anxious to send a password to someone who I don’t even know if they’re interested.

ENGAGEMENT:

I’m open to cold calling from my ask box, however I am less likely to answer a cold call unless the sent prompt really grabs me (for reference, cold calling is when someone I’m not following who I’ve never RPed with before comes into my box. Mutuals are always welcome in my asks.) I am more likely to respond to replies to open prompts over cold calling.

Open prompts are for everyone but be aware that it’s up to me to decide who I want to RP with. I tend to favor highly descriptive roleplaying with longer responses (though it’s all about reading the situation). I generally won’t respond to one-line responses on things I’ve written a paragraph or two on since they don’t give me much to work with.

Also don’t godmod or assume things my character hasn’t told you unless it’s reasonable for your character to know these things (like an Mann Co. administrator or a nosy spy, but even then I’d prefer you’d ask).

SHIPPING AND VERSES: SEMI-SINGLESHIP/SINGLEVERSE OTHERWISE AU ONLY

I bring this up cuz I notice a bunch of folks these days are multiship and/or multiverse, which is a fine thing to be, it’s all about preference, my preference is just not to be, except under a few conditions.

WHAT BEING SEMI-SINGLESHIP AND SINGLEVERSE DOES MEAN FOR ME:

That my muse has one main timeline and will interact with all muses within that same timeline. If someone makes them feel a certain way, it may affect how they interact with the next muse they talk to.

As such, any relationships they have can affect how they interact with another muse too.

I’m a slut for IC drama and find it amusing to make muses work out cheating, arguments and what have you within their story.

I have a hard time keeping track of who is or isn’t dating who and who my muse can’t talk to about their S/O because the person their talking to is dating them in an alternate universe or something like that.

If my muse ends up with a solid long-term partner, it’s probably not gonna be someone who’s multiship/multiverse. It’s just not really fair for my character to only devote their time and emotions to one (or more if poly) muse and not have it returned. It gets into OOC drama about favorites and I’d like to avoid that. If my muse gets into a steady relationship, it’s gonna be with someone with a similar policy.

The only instances that this is not the case is strictly specified AUs, like a Modern AU or a Post-Apocalypse AU. Everything there is entirely separate and usually only between one other mun and myself. All relationships within those are contained and don’t effect the main timeline.

WHAT BEING SEMI-SINGLESHIP AND SINGLEVERSE DOESN’T MEAN:

That I don’t want to interact with your muse if they’re multiship. There’s more interactions between muses than just shipping.

That I’ll completely exempt multishippers from shipping as long as it’s talked about. Communication is everything. However, relationships with multiship muses in the main timeline are more likely to be things like flings, one night stands, a case of one-way affection, or something similar.

Alternately a specified AU can be constructed where the muses are together or get together. I’m not above creating an one-shot AU specifically for smut too if you’re into that. Sometimes you just want your muses to bang, y’know?

That we can’t talk about it if they’re mutliverse. I do have a really hard time figuring out who I can and can’t talk to about other characters, but if we talk one on one about it, I might have an easier time.

That my muses can’t have multiple relationships at once, they’re just all in the same timeline and are either poly, open or cheating. Some of my muses just be like that. Tom in particular is poly and has difficulty with commitment in general.

That my muse can’t be flirted with or come onto by or develop feelings for them and vice verse by a multiship muse. It makes for interesting character development to be turned down.

TAGGING:

Despite what I won’t RP, I don’t actually have any triggers, but I’ll tag any basic ones on my RPs such as NSFW and gore. If there’s anything you need me to tag, just ask.

IMPORTANT: There maybe be a mention of a past suicide attempt and self harm from this character in some RPs. I will definitely be tagging these with “TW Suicide Mention" and “TW Self Harm”. If we come to interacting regularly, I will definitely ask before it’s brought up. If you are not comfortable with this topic, PLEASE let me know and I will insure that it does not come up between our characters. This is not a topic that will just come out of the blue as the character doesn’t like talking about it anyway and if I think a conversation might be headed that way, I will ask first.

#OOC #Rules #Anonymous

0 notes

caredogstips · 7 years ago

Text

6 Iconic Works Of Art With Brutal Insults Hidden In Them

We all take our inessential little revenges where we can. If someone cuts you off in commerce, you give them the thumb. If one of your co-workers ingest your lunch, you pee in the coffee maker. If someone talks at the movies, you follow them residence, dress like a comedian, and shriek “their childrens” awake each night for the rest of “peoples lives”. But not everyone stops events so reasonable. Here are masters who held onto enmities so long and so hard that their petty avenge became commemorated in their work.

# 6. Harry Potter Is Full Of J.K. Rowling’s Secret Insults

We’re at a culture time where anyone who needs Harry Potter explained to them is clearly a robot trying to gain sentience. So we’re hop-skip the purpose of explaining who Harry Potter is. Better luck next time, robot. For the rest of you, it turns out that J.K. Rowling realise it a habit to turn real beings from her life into attributes in her works, and for shifting those personas into avenge. For instance, when Stephen Fry was hired to narrate the first audio journal, he was told that a sequel was already in the works. Fry commended this Rowling person whom he’d only met with, “Good for you.” She took it as an offend and never forgot it. It got petty.

When registering the book, Fry had fus adding the words “pocketed it.” Through a bizarre lecture hindrance, it always came out as “pocketeded it.” So he called her up and would like to know whether he could change it. Rowling afforded a hard no. And then, through sheer coincidence , the phrase “pocketed it, ” appeared in the next four Harry Potter notebooks. That’s how ridiculous “womens issues” was willing to get for the tiniest quantity of revenge.

Which introduces us to the character of Gilderoy Lockhart, the blowhard educator from Chamber Of Secrets . He was based on a humanity Rowling knew and reviled, who was constantly bragging about acts that almost certainly never happened. So she made him a persona in her work who virtually facilitates Magic Hitler rise to power and get his psyche mopped. Then, after publicly announcing that this shithead was based on a real guy, Rowling responded, “Don’t annoy … he will never in a million years dream that he is Gilderoy Lockhart.” So everyone who has ever gratified J.K. Rowling, take note: There’s a decent hazard she thinks you’re a stupid asshole.

Based on a real stupid asshole .

Another character, Harry’s vile Aunt Marge, was based on one of Rowling’s family members who “liked dogs more than people.” But there’s one character who rises above all others in the annals of hated Harry Potter Characters. The one character whom every fan agrees is the most evil and disliked. No , not Voldemort. Not Lockhart. Not even the sniveling Wormtail.

It’s Dolores Umbridge. Her identify literally signifies “annoyance and offense.”

You goddamn bitch .

If you watched the movies, you might recollect Umbridge as the short one dressed in all-pink who realise Harry write with a pencil that carves characters into his tissue. Seemed a little bit much, right? Well, she was based on a educator Rowling knew whom she described as someone she “disliked deeply on sight.” The impression was mutual, and Rowling described her style as being “appropriate to a girl of three.”

Imagine you’re a coach trying the very best to fertilize young judgments. One of your students( though not your favourite) has already become the most successful writer since God. Excited, you open one of her volumes and find someone who’s clearly you, written as a dimwitted maid of immoralities garmented for a children’s tea party. Oh well, you predict she never forgave you for those imprisonments …

“That was just the once, you crybaby.”

… and then later in the book, your reputation is dragged into the woods by centaurs — a scene which we’re almost certain implies that they then raped her.( That centaurs abuse human girls is an essential part of the lore around them. For speciman, the centaur Nessus was killed while trying to rape a human lady .) Yeah, that’s how freaking nighttime this gets. J.K. Rowling didn’t get along with one of her coaches, so she had the teach get( apparently) sexually contravened by horse-men in a children’s volume. Then she announces to the world that this sorceres get bayoneted in every flaw by centaur rooster is based on a real party. “Not to * wink !* name any refers, but it was one of my teachers, and here’s job descriptions! “

“Does she have teenagers? They just watched Stand-In Mommy lose all hope and glory. Oh glee! ”

So if you ever had an proof with J.K. Rowling, give the books another speak. There’s a good chance a goblin based on you has been torn apart by unicorns for the amusement of children.

# 5. Muslim Street Artists Bash Homeland … On Homeland

Homeland is a testify with so many absurd constructions that it’s more of a practical joke on the observer than a floor. But that’s not why it’s contentious. It’s about CIA agents contending Islamic terrorism, and it’s been called everything from insulting and humiliating to borderline racist. Basically, the appearance treats controversial issues the same way Donald Trump might list his favorite Mexicans — it’s not quite “bigoted, ” but it’s definitely uncomfortable.

So some of Homeland ‘s detractors decided to speak out against the reveal from inside the show itself. One occurrence took place in a Syrian refugee camp. Because the writers are all lily-white Americans with little-to-no Syrian refugee camp suffer, they decided to let some individuals who knew Arabic embellish the laid with graffiti. You possibly discover where this is going. They wrote smart-ass words everywhere.

This suggests ” Homeland is watermelon, ” which is meaner than it resonates in Arabic .

The three masters hired were Don Karl, Heba Amin, and Caram Kapp, and they felt that the establish reached Arabs and Muslims feel disliked and helped shape negative minds. So they said so, in Arabic, right in front of the producers’ non-Arabic-speaking faces.

“This show does not represent the view of the artists.”

The entire place seems a bit obvious in hindsight. Homeland is no other indicate on Tv that hires Middle-Eastern performers, and most of them either play-act suicide bombers or regular grinders. So when the same evidence hires Middle-Eastern set designers and tells them to make it super Arab-y , no one should be surprised if they respond by trolling you.

Actual translation: ” Homeland is racist.” Oh, and “NO MICKEY MOUSE.”

# 4. The God-We-Wish-It-Were-True Story Of “The Cask Of Amontillado”

“The Cask Of Amontillado” is one of Edgar Allan Poe’s most well known toils. It’s about a being who gets retaliate on a acquaintance by pulling him underground with wine and then entombing him alive. He leaves “the mens” chained to a wall to die, mocking the man’s shriekings for blessing. A few vague details are given, but it’s never become clear to the reader what injustice invigorated the assassination. Even for Poe, it was a bit dark.

“Once you’re dead, I’m giving your body the teabagging of Amontillado.”

And it all started because another novelist was sort of a douche.

Like all scribes, Edgar Allan Poe had a wonderful sexuality life, great “hairs-breadth”, all the money in “the worlds”, and countless antagonists. One of them was a scribe mentioned Thomas Dunn English. The two detested one another, and Thomas wrote a parody of Poe into one of his tales: a reference appointed Marmaduke Hammerhead who writes a legend called “The Black Crow, ” acts crazy, and is drunk all the time.

Poe didn’t think it was cute. He registered a suit against the working paper English worked for, and acquired. Still unsatisfied, Poe decided to placed him into a narrative. And in that legend, he garmented “the mens” like a jester, walled him up in a dungeon, and tell madness and famine race to destroy him. In … in fiction! Exclusively in fiction.

This was his response to being announced crazy .

As you might have approximated, the poorest of the poor drink dumb “whos got” lay alive in “The Cask Of Amontillado” was based on English. So if you had to read the tale in high school and none of you could figure out what the hell the guy did to deserve such a dark fate , now you know. He gently taunted Edgar Allan Poe. When Poe kills you in a legend, he dresses you like a buffoon and lets you whimper for their own lives alone in the blackness. As opposed to doing you in with the whimsy of a centaur penis.

# 3. Willow Swerved Multiple Movie Critics Into Villains

Though you put your heart and soul into a work of art, there will always be a critic there to tell you it sucks. It happens no matter how great your artistry happens to be, but it happens a lot if your prowes — like Willow — kind of sucks.

Maybe in a preemptive strike against their inevitable offenses, or maybe as revenge for past commentaries, George Lucas mentioned two of the villains in Willow after film reviewers. The first was General Kael, a skull-headed warlord reputation after Pauline Kael, who had called Star Wars an tired circus with no psychological clutch. Well fuck you, Pauline, you’re an evil skeleton now. In Willow .

“You look hopelessly cool and impossibly badass. Aren’t you ashamed? ”

And this wasn’t the only period this happened to Kael. The same year Willow “re coming out”, an analog of her also appeared in the Dirty Harry movie The Dead Pool . Apparently, the filmmakers still hadn’t forgiven her for calling Dirty Harry “fascist, pro-violence, pro-gun, republican nuttery scrap.” So they based a reputation on her, and then had that character get brutally jabbed to demise. That’ll picture her who’s pro-violence!

“I know what you’re deliberation: six gaping spurting curves, or only five? ”

You might believe that George Lucas was outdone, since his insult was simply appointing some guy “Kael, ” while Dirty Harry exited all-out and killer her. Perhaps you’re right. But wait until you hear about the other reviewers who took a smack in Willow . This one is brutal .

At the end of Willow , a two-headed fire-breathing dragon shows. George knew the dragon could be more than a fantastic culminating to history’s greatest film — it was his chance to get revenge for every mean happen Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert had ever said about his movies. Those guys would rue the day they traversed the artistic juggernaut of George Lucas!

He identified the dragon Eborsisk.

“We grant it two deformed-looking whale dicks up.”

Oh, shit! Can you envisage what Siskel and Ebert must have visualized when they received information that !? With one reputation( which is never even pronounce aloud ), Lucas killed them both and plummeted the mic. Eborsisk! That’s like both their reputations in one! It was the snap discover of all the countries … Eborsisk. The instant some supplementary information revealed that the dragon’s reputation was Eborsisk, “the worlds” knew never to doubt George Lucas’ filmmaking abilities again.

# 2. The Symbolic Middle Finger In The Adventures Of Huckleberry Finn

The writer Sir Walter Scott isn’t exactly a household name, but there’s a respectable opportunity you’re familiar with some of his effort, like Ivanhoe and Rob Roy . Regrettably for him, the most famous journal in which his name sounds is The Adventures Of Huckleberry Finn . And that’s because Mark Twain goddamn detested Walter Scott.

Even more than he hates you for misrepresenting him on Facebook .

Twain thought that Scott’s writing romanticized battle, and was worried that young men were reading about the magnificences of engagement and ranging off to combat. He felt that Scott’s novels were to blame for much of the “windy humbuggeries” of the South, which gave rise to concepts like duels or even the Civil War itself. He felt that Scott’s novels continued the delusion that Southerners were noble heroes and gentlemen, despite their participation in brutal frontier justice and the owning of other humans. So Twain are determined to immortalize his antagonism of Sir Walter Scott in art.

If you don’t recall the patch of Huck Finn , it’s about a runaway boy and an escaped slave traveling down the Mississippi River, and the language hasn’t aged well. What you may have never observed was an aesthetic offend to Scott encoded into their passage. In the tale, Twain named a steamboat after the object of his condescension; the Walter Scott is carried away by a strong present and wrecked against some rocks.

“The regained wood was then turned into an outhouse which was consistently full of shit.”

It was meant to symbolize the path the Old South rode along on Scott’s strong back toward an out-of-control catastrophe( the Civil War ). It’s a little bit more subtle than embed someone alive or probing them with a centaur, but it translates to the same act: “Fuck you, Sir Walter Scott.”

# 1. DC And Marvel Piss On Their Movie

In its very first trailer, Man Of Steel boasted a quote from Grant Morrison’s All-Star Superman . This was strange chiefly because All-Star Superman is considered one of the greatest Superman floors ever told, and Man Of Steel was a 150 -minute tantrum hurled by stupid room juveniles. Besides having a laser-eyed alien as the prime reference, they could not be more different. In Man Of Steel , Superman clicks cervixes and watches fathers succumb. In All-Star Superman , he is infallible and benevolent. He’s nearly drew as God.

It’s not even that subtle about it .

Morrison shovels the idea of Superman being a perfect compounding of every human ideal. So he was understandably ticked off that the matter is “gritty” movie in which Superman is a petty thug exploited a quotation from his duty. But since he wrote Action Comics , Superman’s flagship title, it was likely wasn’t appropriate for him to come out and publicly talk shit about the movie. Instead, he carefully knit all that shit-talking into a Superman story.

In a long, mind-bending narration that obligates Memento look like Blue’s Clues , Morrison acquainted a soul called Super-Doomsday.

We’re sure that swastika-looking “S” was purely coincidental .

It’s created by scientists attempting to make a pure and inspirational person, but in their hopelessnes, they sold him off to “owners corporations” which moved him into “a violent, disturbed, faceless anti-hero … a global marketing icon .“

Sound familiar?

“Oh, I get it. You’re like a metapho-AARRRGH! LASER BEAMS !!! ”

Superman eventually uncovers him and uncover a distorted half-Superman/ half-Doomsday — which is eerily same to the form of Doomsday’s origin in the upcoming Batman v. Superman .

“Ugh. Doomsday is some Kryptonian DNA with demon shit attached? What deplorable monster would green-light that project !? ”

Morrison got extremely heavy-handed as he wrote. The commercialized Superman is powered by “a simple corporate directive: kill the competition.” And if that wasn’t obvious enough, the large-scale bad behind Super-Doomsday( an imp from the fifth facet) find right out and explains it TAGEND Able to pinch limitless account in a single body …

“There’s blood on your princely pinnacle. A stain that can never come out. The mark of betrayal and exploitation … Your “S” a dollar sign! ” It almost sounds like he’s referencing a very concrete occurrence. Hmm … wonder what it could be?

“Hkk! This … testifies a fundamental misinterpret … hkk! … of 80 years of reference developing! ”

While on the subject of literary superhero retaliation, Marvel had a similar rebuttal to a bad movie in the sheets of Fantastic Four . In one issue, groupings of people birthing a strong resemblance to the stars of the appalling, frightful Fantastic Four reboot be standing talking about a movie that they worked on with a director referred “Trang.” “Its probably” a including references to FF chairman Josh Trank, but it’s so deeply unclever that it virtually seems impossible.

Turning that “4” on his shirt into four middle fingers would’ve been wittier . And then this happens TAGEND

“We had to level the whole metropoli in case they wanted to threw a reboot.”

That’s it — over the course of three boards, Marvel wordlessly explosion them. It’s the kind of hamfisted theme that makes you long for the intricacy of a fifth-dimensional pixie appearing to explain the laugh. Or, of course, the sophisticated nuance of J.K. Rowling’s unwanted centaur cocks.

Always be category, because you never know when you’ll end up a laugh in someone else’s innovation. Witness more of that in 6 Brilliant Insults Hidden In Video Games As Easter Eggs and 6 Famous Works Of Art You Didn’t Know Were Vicious Insults .