#yeah same goes for these poets and their medium

[thoughtofadumbteenprotagonist]

My hot literature take is that all the shit insta poetry you see would actually make great slam poetry the authors are just cowards

[vowled]

Kill Your Darlings: An Analysis of its Twists and Themes

A few days ago, I watched Kill Your Darlings, and needless to say, I became completely mesmerized by it. Naturally credible characters with well-crafted backstories portraying a true story of Love, Obsession and Murder, it's everything a person could ask for in a movie. The colour palette of the movie radiates comfort and the sound track takes you back in time when these two bright young men were falling in love. Right from the start it was apparent that there were many themes in the undercurrent of the movie, and these were such that required some amount of thoughtful contemplation. And I was incredibly sorry to not find any post or review which critically discussed the themes of the movie and did it justice- so after doing some reading and digging up as much as I could, here I am making an attempt to analyze the twists and themes of the story.

The Crucial Plot-twist

The Night In Question- why the movie's recounting of the events is fictitious:

When faced with the prospect of writing the deposition for Lucian, Allen tried his best to gather information about the events that led to David's murder. However, it proved to be a difficult feat as Lucien himself would not speak much about it clearly. So he pieced together what he could from the bits of information he got. However, we see Lucian vehemently opposing the deposition written by Allen and claiming it to be false. After some thought, I find that I believe Lucian's claims. Most of the following arguments are rooted in the fact that Lucien's relationship with David was an abusive one, where David basically groomed Lucian and was a sexual predator. I suggest reading my post here to gain more insight about how the abuse affected him.

"You weren't there, you don't know what happened." These words right here- they're the words of a victim. Being subjected to a form of sexual abuse myself, I found these words hitting me like a brick ton. These are words coming from a pained soul that refuses to recount traumatic incidents. He's practically saying that the abuse was so bad he had to kill his abuser to be free from it.

Even after Allen saw first-hand what a total creep David could be, even after knowing the man had stalked Lucian across multiple cities, he had to ask Lucian why the latter killed David when he "could have run". This tells me he couldn't exactly relate to Lucian's situation and wasn't very keen on believing him. Although he displayed a moment of intimate affection, there's still a lingering feeling of yeah but he broke my heart inside him. After learning how Lucian drowned David, he even begins questioning if he should help him at all. At this point, Allen doesn't trust Lucian enough to actually care how accurate the story is. So he wrote what he could, what he felt right. But even he couldn't condemn his friend/first love to such a fate as prison, so eventually he submitted it as his final paper. In all honesty, I thought that turning it in was a brilliant move, and one which also further proved that the "once you loved him too" version was mostly fanciful fiction.

Throughout the movie, sequences have been played in reverse frames (and I found this so pleasing) and from the nitrogen-inhaling scene, we know that these sequences designated memories playing out in Allen's head or his subconscious creating dreamscapes. And here's the catch- the entire scene of Lucian taking a walk with David and eventually killing him began with frames played in reverse order. This gives the absolute proof that the movie's depiction of the events were fictitious.

Allen's P.O.V. of the events mainly relied on the argument that at some point, Lucian genuinely loved and needed David. This couldn't be further away from the truth. When you're 14 and and being groomed and coaxed by an older guy, a lot many things could feel like love because you haven't experienced them before; but in reality, it's never love, it just is another form of violence.

Themes running through the movie

"There can be no Creation before Imitation"

We see Professor Steves saying this at the beginning of the movie, hinting that it would be a theme in the story. This statement is reflected throughout Allen's progression and development as a poet:

In the beginning, we see him being hugely influenced by his father's works and possibly trying to imitate him through poetic devices such as consonance.

Next, we see him imitating Professor Stevens' style of writing in his poem "the rose that scents the evening air, grows from by beloved's hair" which Lucian outright criticizes.

It is only with the poem Allen recites to Lucian on the boat that he starts developing some sort of originality. That poem in particular is directly drawn from his personal experiences and delivers splendidly.

This development continues as he proceeds to write "The Night In Question" wherein he brilliantly describes his opinion of how things went down. It was this streak that would eventually propel him to write his most celebrated poem, "Howl".

The Circle of Life and How Allen Breaks it

We see Lucian telling Allen how "Life is only interesting if it is wide" and about Yeats' "Circle of Life". As displayed by the linked document, turns out the circle of life is quite complex a thing, and the movie displays a lay-man's version of it. As Lucian tells about it to Allen, unbeknownst to them both, Allen also enters the circle and changes the turn of events:

It is obvious that at the party at David's, Allen was a misfit. David even goes so far as to literally call him out and point how unremarkable he was, but says how given the correct circumstances, even Allen could change things. And what's extraordinary is exactly this happens next: the liquor runs out in David's party and Allen suggests they should change the venue of the party- hence hijacking David's party!

We see Allen's life widen as he becomes closer to Lucian and starts doing things he'd never done before. At the same time, he also plays an important role in changing Lucian's life as well. It's Allen who suggests at first that Lucian should break up with David and stop taking his help. Later in the movie, after learning about David's obsessive behaviour, it's again Allen that said "we should get rid of him". Again, here we see some foreshadowing. Allen could have worded it in any probable way, and yet he suggested getting rid of David which subtly implied killing him. I do believe that this happened to become a subliminal suggestion to Lucian and furthered his murderous intent.

Hence, although Lucian radically changes Allen's life, the latter does so too in unlikely and unexpected ways.

Sacrifices (and Rituals?)

Since the beginning of the movie, we know that the characters are all extraordinary men and that they are capable of something revolutionary. But it was apparent that all of them would need a catalyst to set things in motion- a sacrifice of some sort which would help them break their moulds and free their inner poet. Allen's love for Lucian and his wish to impress him did make him work toward become better at writing. It was the fear of completely losing Lucian to Jack that made Allen put all his effort into writing, and made him come up with his best work yet - here, the fear acted as the catalyst.

However, the most significant thing in connection to this happened in this scene where Lucian cuts both of their palms and holds them up together - this can be considered a Blood Ritual.

"A blood ritual is any ritual that involves the intentional release of blood. Blood rituals often involve a symbolic death and rebirth, as literal bodily birth involves bleeding. Basic to both animal and human sacrifice is the recognition of blood as the sacred life force in man and beast. The participants may regard the release of blood as producing energy useful as a sexual, healing, or mental stimulus. In other cases, blood is a primary component as the sacrifice, or material component for a spell."

The fact that this event took place inside Allen's head during a trippy session outlines how Allen had subconsciously taken a blood oath with Lucian to further The New Vision. This process of developing their revolutionary ideas would successfully progress for the rest of the movie; however, before its completion, the oath demanded a sacrifice- and the murder of David became this blood sacrifice.

"With Death comes Rebirth"

In the first half of the movie we see the initiation of this theme; after they've agreed upon to bring up something revolutionary, Allen talks about how rebirth comes only after death, and in their naivety, they play out a pseudo-suicide scene to imitate death. Little did they know greater sacrifices would have to be made. Eventually as events play out, we come to realise that it is David's death that became the cause and medium for their rebirth- both academic and intra-personal. Jack and Bill co-wrote the book "And the Hippos Were Boiled in Their Tanks" about the murder of David Kammerer, and eventually rose to fame, while Allen became popular with "Howl and Other Poems", none of which could have been initiated/inspired without David's death. As for their personal growth, none of them were the same as they were before the affair. I like to think all of them changed for the better. Lucian must have finally felt a sense of relief after getting rid of his abuser, while Allen finally took-off his rose-coloured glasses, saw Lucian under a more critical light, and developed a sense of self-esteem.

A Study in Violence (I was unsure whether to include this point in this analysis or not due to the violent nature of it. But I figure this analysis would remain incomplete should I leave it out. So here it goes..) The sequence from 1:10:00 to 1:12:00 was an in-depth survey of Violence and how it can occur in different forms. In particular, it focused on how any form of penetration is intimately violating.

We see a lonely Allen being so lost that he's about to have sex with a complete stranger. This itself is very unlike him, who in the beginning of the movie was shying away from Lucian kissing an unknown girl. A few sequences later we see how he wasn't very comfortable with this idea (he wanted to turn off the lights but the other guy turned them on) and yet he was made to shift into a position he did not prefer and hence was made to have rough sex.

We see Bill looking very solemn and injecting drugs into his hands.

We see the violent altercation between Lucian and David. We see David forcing himself on Lucian and eventually being stabbed by him.

We see Jack recieving the news of the death of his friend.

In this way, we see every member of the group being exposed to some form of violence, be it sex, drugs, physical altercations or death.

First Love and its aftermath First love is also an important theme of the movie as it shows how one's first love has the capacity to radically change a person from within:

Allen's first love changed him from the shy, people-pleasing always-upright persona to the bold, radical, critical and unafraid person he became at the end of the movie.

Allen's discovery of his own style of writing can also be majorly attributed to Lucian's criticism of his rhyme-schemes.

All in all, it was his love for Lucian that drove him to become a more out-going person and ignited the mischief in his spirit, while the heartbreak of realising Lucian didn't feel the same for him also lent him invaluable insight and allowed him to develop confidence and a sense of self-esteem, which would play a significant role in him eventually becoming his own person.

While Allen's first love furnished him with the overall better things in life, the same could not be said for Lucian, sadly. Lucian's first love reminded us how oppressive love can become if the other person isn't suited-well for us; it showed us how sometimes love and obsession are separated by a thin line, and how dangerous it becomes when the line is crossed.

Lucian's story also showed us how sometimes a relationship can be more abuse than love, and when that happened, how easy it became to confuse violence with love.

The most significant message that the theme of first-love portrays is that there will always be consequences.

With this, I bring my arguments and analyses to a close. I hope a future (or even past) lover of the movie happens to stumble upon this someday and learn something fascinating about the movie (or reignite their love for it). Thank you for reading this far!

[P.S. an uplifting fact: in real life, Lucian, Allen, Jack and Bill each got the type of life they wished for, and remained friends for the rest of their lives :) ]

[secondhandnewsradio]

SHN INTERVIEW: Sleep Walking Animals

by Claire Silverman

Sleep Walking Animals, comprised of Tom, Jack, Joe, Alex, and Nuwan, are an indie folk/rock band from Manchester, England. They are releasing their debut single "Aengus' Fool" on February 14th. Their expansive and layered sound paired with their poetic lyrics will leave you hungry for more, but don’t worry: it’s coming.

CS: First off, I just want to say congratulations on releasing your debut single "Aengus’ Fool." How are you all feeling?

Tom: It’s all really exciting, it’s been a long time coming. We’ve had this song for maybe a year and a half now, going through quite a laborious process to get it made, get it recorded and mixed and mastered, but we’re here now, and it seems like a good time to be releasing music. It seems like people kind of need it at this point, so, yeah, it’s come at a good time.

CS: So how did you guys choose this as your first song to release, what was that process?

Jack: I think it was the first song we all wrote as a new band. Tom and Joe had written stuff together, and then I came aboard, Alex and Nuwan came aboad and we kind of all wrote this together. It’s got that weight to it, and we love playing it, so it was kind of a no-brainer. It encapsulates our sound quite nicely.

CS: What was the process of writing this song, did you start with the melody or the lyrics?

Tom: This one started with lyrics. I’d had this idea for this song for a little while and I was trying to find a way to encapsulate all these ideas that I had and to condense them into one song. The lyrics came after a couple of months of reading different material and listening to different artists and getting inspiration from different sources. And then once we had the lyrics, we all put our heads together and just started coming up with different motifs and then once we had those we started trying different harmonies, layering different parts. We’re quite lucky in the sense that everyone in this band can sing, so to layer harmonies is really not that difficult. It’s great because everyone can chip in.

CS: I wanted to ask specifically about the line “sifting through poems for phrases to keep.” I love that line, who came up with that?

Tom: Yeah, that was mine, yeah. Glad you like it. It came to me because I have done that. I’ve been that person.

Jack: I think we all have.

CS: Did the pandemic impact the release of this song and what you guys were doing?

Tom: If anything, it helped us. It gave us a bit more time to get things in place. We didn’t want to rush it. We wanted to have the artwork in place, we wanted to have a bit of hype on social media about when it was going to drop and have people anticipate it, and with this added time that we’ve had with the world on pause, it’s allowed us a bit of playing room, and we’ve tried to utilize that as best as possible.

Jack: It’s been our busiest year even though we’ve only seen each other three or four times. We played one gig last year, and then the rest of it has just been on Whatsapp and we’ve managed to record a whole EP.

CS: I wanted to ask about the single cover art because it’s beautiful. I actually recognized it from a photo on your Instagram, Tom.

Tom: It’s a picture that I took on New Year’s Day this year on Hay Bluff, which is part of the Black Mountains. We just loved the picture, the way the light sat on the snow, where the mountain finished and the sky began.

Jack: I made an etching of Tom's epic photo of Hay Bluff and printed it in ink, and my dad did the graphic design. We wanted it to have an element of the surreal so I added this abandoned bed which sits alone in the cold landscape. Kinda Dali-esque.

Tom: We fell in love with that idea. There’s something about a mountain as well, there’s a line in the song “I’ll shout from the mountains like Aengus’ fool” and we just wanted that kind of epic, anthemic feel to the strength of the sound that we’re making, this percussive triumphant feeling, and we thought the mountain did that.

CS: So how did you all come together as a band?

Joe: I’ve known Tom since we were very young, and in about 2017, Tom had been writing on his own, and I’d been sort of trying to on my own, and then I went to see him in New York and we did a bit of writing together. Then when I came back, we were doing it over Whatsapp like we’ve been doing it this past year, sending song ideas and lyrics. I was living with Jack at the time and tried getting him on board once Tom had come back from New York, I wanted Jack because he had just bought a double bass for some reason, so we were like “yeah go on, we’ll get some of that in,” and he didn’t want to at first—

Jack: Now, well, I can’t remember this, you’ve said this a few times, and I can’t remember ever not wanting to be in the band.

Joe [laughing]: You didn’t want to.

Jack: I want it on record now, I’ve always wanted to be in the band. That’s all I’ve ever wanted to do.

Joe: There was some persuading, and then once we had our first rehearsal, you were like “this is the best thing I’ve ever done in my life.” So we got Jack on board, and then I’d done a show with Alex—

Alex: Yeah we were in Cilla together, I was George and Joe was Paul.

Joe: So that’s how we met. We were the Beatles and just every night we’d sort of been gigging and it was fun, so I was like “yeah let’s get Alex on board because he can play guitar.” And then I’d known Nuwan for ages, I went to uni, drama school with Nuwan and we used to go busking together on the streets of Guildford trying to get some extra cash and we needed a drummer as well so there we go.

Tom: It was just a case of finding what we didn’t have and working towards panning out the sound. For a little while we had Joe on acoustic guitar and kicking the crap out of a bass drum at the same time and it wasn’t ideal.

Joe: Like Dick Van Dyke, innit.

Tom: Yeah, like Dick Van Dyke, one man band. Luckily, we found the dream team.

CS: Do you all have other artists or people that inspire your music?

Tom: Yeah, definitely. I for one wouldn’t be a songwriter without a number of artists who’ve inspired me over the years. Guy Garvey, Hozier, Robin Pecknold, the list goes on. It’s finding different mediums too, not just musicians and songwriters, it’s poets and novelists and painters.

Joe: Damien Rice, his songs were very influential.

Jack: And Paul McCartney is a big one for me, because my dad used to just play his solo stuff over and over.

Nuwan: Billy Joel is one for me, one of many.

Alex: I think that’s a good thing with our band, because we all have collectively such a wide range of influences and the way we all individually bring them in and mix them together, I think the combination of everything just—I feel like we’re starting to really get our sound as well because of the style that everyone’s bringing in when we’re in rehearsals and writing. It’s really nice, especially with all the recording we’ve started to do, it feels like we’re really gauging what what we’re going for, and we’re able to find it easier and we have a clearer path.

CS: Earlier you said that you have an EP in the works, do you know when we can expect more music from you guys?

Tom: Yeah, at the moment the idea is we’re going to release five singles, spread those releases out over weeks and months and then eventually once those are out, we are going to collate them onto one vinyl. That’ll include behind-the-scenes photographs and lyric sheets and little messages from the band, so that’ll be a good way to have a first taste of Sleep Walking Animals and preempt our inevitable album.

CS: Thank you so much for sitting down to chat with me about your debut single, "Aengus’ Fool." I really love the song and I’m excited to see what you guys do in the future!

[This interview has been lightly edited for clarity.]

FOLLOW THE BAND:

INSTAGRAM: @SLEEPWALKINGANIMALS

TWITTER:@SWALKINGANIMALS

FACEBOOK: @SLEEPWALKINGANIMALS

YOUTUBE: SLEEP WALKING ANIMALS

WWW.SLEEPWALKINGANIMALS.COM

Originally published on Instagram @shnradio on February 14, 2021

[angrylizardjacket]

self-same mettle

Summary: "I love my sister more than anything in this life; I will choose her happiness over mine every time."

A/N: BIG WARNING; August Reid, who you may remember from the main story, child groom tw, though nothing comes of it he's still creepy and predatory. Okay so I just wanted to write a little something from Oscar's perspective in the High School AU. Let me know what you think!!

{AYDTD}

----

Oscar's always been a romantic at heart, always wanted to be the star of his own Mills and Boone novel ever since he was sixteen and found his mother's stash while hunting for Christmas presents. It had been painfully straight, right when he'd been discovering the delightful world of loving men, but he was invested enough in the romance that he didn't care.

In 2017, at the tender age of 19, he discovers the author Chuck Tingle, and despite the fact that he's technically now a literature student, this ridiculous, gay erotica makes his heart happy in ways he can't quite articulate.

The point is, he knows August Reid, because he's his dad's drinking buddy and fellow professor, but Oscar doesn't think of him much until he takes the man's class. Ash, who's fifteen and who spends weekends at the local art gallery down the road, has always been far more artistically minded, Oscar's always been more drawn to words, but he takes August's Art History class on a whim.

There's a certain draw to the whole teacher/student fantasy, and August looks kind of like an older Richard Madden, still angular and defined, but greying at the temples, the prelude to an extraordinary silver fox. So Oscar let's himself daydream, and take the follow up class, and look forward to the weekends where his dad's friends would come over to smoke cigars and play cards. August Reid was nothing if not polite, always smiling and kind and happy to see Oscar, answer his questions. Oscar knew he was married, thinks he probably has a kid, and so he was happy to keep his daydreams to himself. He thinks there's something romantic about quietly unrequited love.

However, it takes a year, once Ash has matured more, not a lot, but enough to catch August's interest, for the rose-coloured glasses to be ripped off. August takes an interest in her; when he and the rest of their father's colleagues came over, he would make a point to stop and check in with Ash, encourage her interest in Art, both physical and theoretical, and even suggest research for her, or upcoming exhibits he thought she might like. It's harmless, at first.

Talk of art turns to compliments, her taste in things, her outfits, how she wears her hair, the colour of her eyes. Ash seems to start looking forward to his visits, and something about it doesn't sit right with Oscar.

"He's just, Oz he's so cool," she was smiling, blushing a little; she had a crush, it was plain as the nose on her face, "and he said he could get us tickets to the Renaissance exhibit in Glasgow next month, how awesome is that?"

August starts calling her Miss Ashley, a joke that started since she still had a habit of calling him Mr Reid - because she's a fucking highschooler, it's how she's been taught to address teachers - Ash delights in it, straightens her posture a little when he says it. August makes a habit of petting her head fondly when she does. It makes Oscar's stomach turn just a little. August shouldn't be looking at his little sister like that, she's just a child.

Their father seems blind to it, tells Oscar 'don't be ridiculous, he's just being kind' and when he goes to mum, she just brushes him off, insisting that August is lovely, that he's so in love with his wife, and that Ash is just excited to have someone who understood her.

"A little schoolgirl crush is harmless, Oscar, dear; weren't you singing his praises not too long ago?" It's meant with a wink and a nudge, like perhaps Oscar's jealous, but his mother can be so dense; it's not the same at all. He's an adult, and Ash is a child, and yet he's not the one August is giving leering looks to when he thinks no-one's looking.

It's not that their parents don't love them, it's just that they don't particularly care. They're trapped in a loveless marriage, too self absorbed to care about those that can take care of themselves.

So Oscar takes it upon himself.

Oscar's never understood art like he's understood literature, never been able to make it make sense in the same way, but that doesn't matter. The point is, on Sundays, when his father's colleagues come over for tea and cigars and cards, Oscar's started taking Ash to art galleries across the country.

"But August is-"

"It's the impressionists, Ash," Oscar takes her hand with a grin, practically begging her, "come on they have the Water Lilies," he enthuses, and Ash's expression softens.

"I do love the Water Lilies."

Because he can't tell her what he's really doing, because she's sixteen and thinks she knows everything and the idea of telling her that August has any sort of feelings towards her, even if he explains why that's creepy and wrong, is probably the worst thing he can do to discourage her. So he distracts her, and is careful to never mention him if he can help it, or steer the conversation away if she brings him up.

She's his best friend. She's always been his best friend, but in an abstract, sibling sort of way, but it doesn't take long for the two of them to become legitimate best friends. He listens to all the drama of her highschool career, and her ideas for sculptures, and anything else she wants to talk about, and in turn he tells her about whatever he's reading that week, whatever poetry ideas he's been riffing with lately, and complains about pretty straight boys in his lectures.

Oscar may be a poet, but neither he nor Ash could hold a tune to save their lives, and so of course they sing along to Ash's Spotify playlists at the top of their lungs whenever they're driving. There's three weeks where she plays the Hamilton cast recording on repeat, and Oscar finds himself muttering it under his breath in class.

He works nights, and Saturdays, to afford all these day trips, and his family think he's so diligent, studying and working so hard, and on his day off he spends it with Ash. He keeps local for a few weeks, a few months actually, and surprises her with a trip to the West End for Christmas.

She talks about August less and less as time goes on. Though she does ask about it, in a roundabout way.

"Why're you spending so much time with me?"

They're having lunch in the park across from a gallery somewhere in Ireland. Oscar packed jam sandwiches.

"I don't understand this art shit like you do, but it's good to find inspiration from all mediums, you know?" Oscar smiles, takes a big bite of his sandwich, and watches Ash wrinkle her nose.

"You sound so pretentious," she snorted, shaking her head, "but whatever, I'm not gonna complain, you're the one paying."

"And I like spending time with you, biscuit." His voice turned overly sappy, as did his grin, "I love you." Oscar reached out and ruffled her hair, and Ash squawked, batting his hand away.

"I love you too, ya muppet, but if you wanna hang out we can just do something lowkey, or like, close to home."

She takes him at his word, which is good because he's being honest, but she seems content with their routine. Sometimes they go bowling, or to the library, sometimes they go op shopping, or to the movies, but they never miss a week.

She's his cheerleader at poetry readings, his tour guide at art galleries, and his favourite person at all times. His father's a literature professor who stopped truly engaging with her about her love of art once he stopped understanding her, and his mother was a Type A accountant who was just disappointed she wasn't interested in something employable. So Oscar was her cheerleader at art competitors, her enthusiastic student at art galleries, and ends up being her best friend and quietly, her favourite family member.

August asks about her, according to their father, but Ash's brief infatuation with him seems to have died down.

"Do you have a problem with me, Oscar?" August asks almost a month after Oscar's started spending Sundays with Ash, and maybe their father's told August what's happening, maybe he's noticed Oscar glaring at him whenever he saw the professor, but either way, he's so painfully kind when he asks that it's a dead giveaway; August knows something's wrong.

"Stay the fuck away from my sister," Oscar, kind-faced, bright eyed Oscar, snarls. He's 6'3" and never more thankful for his height as he towers over August.

"I'm simply showing an interest in her, she's an art enthusiast, I'm an art professor, don't worry-"

"I don't give a shit; look like the innocent flower but be the fucking serpent under it, right?"

"I don't understand what you mean? Does your father know you feel this way? Does Ash?" And it doesn't sound like a threat, it sounds like a very genuine question, but Oscar wants nothing more than to punch him in his stupid, angular nose.

"Does your wife know you spend weekends ogling underage girls?" Oscar fires back, and August's expression sours considerably, his mouth closed in a tight, humourless line. "Yeah, dad knows, not that he gives a shit," Oscar sneered, "but if you go near my sixteen year old sister again, you smarmy creepy -" his voice dropped very low, expression dark, his hands balling into fists by his side.

"If your father's not bothered by it I don't see why you should be, I haven't done anything wrong, but you're throwing around some serious implications here," August gives a blithe smile, "Ash is an incredible young woman I'm simply encouraging her passion."

"August Reid, I need you to know that I'm not threatening you," Oscar said calmly, "I'm promising you; I'll fucking kill you."

And maybe he doesn't believe Oscar would legitimately harm him, but he sees it's not a fight he's going to win. August leaves Ash well enough alone after that.

At the start of their Summer break, before Ash is due to start her second last year of high school, their father gets a job in England, their mother gets an excuse to leave her loveless marriage, and Ash and Oscar get a choice. Oscar knows without even having to ask that Ash will stick with him. He also knows that in two years, if she's still here, she'll end up studying under August and his father's other creepily complicit friends. Oscar's playing the long game to keep his sister safe when he announces he'll be going to England with their dad.

He lies, says he doesn't mind transferring courses and maybe retaking some classes at this new university, makes sure he's nothing but positive when he talks about the move, and Ash, add expected, joins him. It hurts to leave the life he's building himself, but he knows it's what's best for Ash.

Adjusting to a new life is difficult, and some weeks they don't end up spending Sunday together. Oscar let's himself relax, takes time for himself, and starts to build new relationships, new connections in this new situation he's found himself in.

Here, he didn't have to worry about Ash so much. She was still his best friend, but now she could just be a teenager without a creepy professor leering at her and grooming her. Though quietly, Oscar was just glad she still wanted to spend time with him; she still goes to his poetry readings, still wants to go on day trips with him, and she's starting to get to know his new friends little by little.

Meeting Freddie is like getting hit by a freight train; they're both taking a Creative Industries subject as an elective, and they get partnered together. Freddie is intense and warm in equal measure, a lover of cats judging by the pins on his bag, he's always drawing or doodling something on his notebook, and he writes songs. Oscar adores him from the moment he meets him. He's always busy, always on the move or at band practice, but he seems to like Oscar well enough, so the two of them start having lunch together a few times a week.

Freddie thinks Oscar's selfless when he learns about everything that had happened back in Scotland.

"Picking up and moving your whole life just to make sure she's safe," Freddie shakes his head, "you're a Saint, you know that?"

"She's my sister, I couldn't not do it," Oscar laughs a little self consciously, but Freddie just seemed endeared.

They're messaging almost every day. Freddie sends draft song lyrics and selfies with his cats and Oscar will send bits of poems and shitty angled selfies or photos taken by Ash. They both live busy lives, but they keep up with each other without even trying.

[I've got a cat named Oscar, you know?]

[I didn't actually. You really like me well enough to name a cat after me 😂😜]

[har har I've known the cat longer. sorry to disappoint. 😘]

He's so caught up in his new life and his new friends, and Ash seems so happy with her new school, especially their art program, that it takes Oscar a while to realise how painfully lonely Ash was. She's always been introverted, always focused more on her projects than on the people around her, but when Oscar realises that person she talks most about is her physics tutor, it hits him that she doesn't actually have any friends her own age here. She likes his friends well enough, one even got her a fake ID if she might ever need it, but she had none of her own.

"How was school?" They've been here for about three months, and finally things have maybe started to look up.

"Fine; we're starting sculpture making in art," Ash said offhandedly, rolling her eyes; she already spent time outside of school making sculptures, the idea of being graded on it now seemed trivial, "this one dumbass spent like twenty minutes negotiating with a teacher about whether he can also make a second sculpture for fun." Ash's voice was flat, unimpressed.

"Sounds like someone you'd get along with-"

"He wants to make a dick."

Dick Sculpture Guy turns to Fucking Roger, and Oscar starts to hear more about him, because Roger's always seemingly causing a scene and Ash is endlessly annoyed with him, though she once let it slip that she thinks he's rather hot, and Oscar, though he's never brought it up, will never forget it.

Until he gets a call on Friday afternoon, from Ash, in tears, asking him to come to the school.

She's surrounded by the pieces of her broken major work when he arrives, and there's a tall, dark haired guy checking up on her. This is Brian, the tutor he's heard so much about. He's thankful, but comforting Ash is his first priority.

Brian leaves, and together the siblings piece together her work. The school gets locked at five, and they're there until the very last minutes. Once the bust is sitting up on one of the desks at the edge of the room, Ash sniffles only a little bit.

"I'll paint the cracks gold."

"Kintsugi," Oscar adds, nodding sagely and Ash actually beams at him, "see, I listen to you, biscuit."

He suggests they go to Freddie's gig to take her mind off of it, though it's also because she's been asking to meet Freddie for a while now, but he's always been busy. However, things don't go as planned when not only is Ash's tutor part of the band, but Fucking Roger is too. Fucking Roger who's sculpture exploding made Ash cry.

Ash is adamant she's going to kill him. Oscar doesn't stop her. She disappears around the end of the bar after Roger, while the rest of the band - Freddie, Brian, and some kid called John - hang back.

Ash decidedly doesn't kill Roger, and actually ends up enjoying her night, which Oscar's glad for. That being said, he's a little bit distracted; he's quickly discovering that Brian might be the loveliest person he'd ever met. Brian's an astrophysics student, a guitarist, a tutor, and he took the time to check up on Ash; Oscar hasn't been seriously romantically interested in anyone since high school, and he's only met Brian today, but damn if there wasn't definitely a crush forming.

They play good music, and Ash seems to have a good time, and he tells himself that that's all that matters.

Days go by, weeks go by, the siblings keep going to Queen's gig's, and Fucking Roger turns to just Roger. Oscar messages Brian and Freddie that Ash might have a crush and Freddie sends back a wheezed voice message saying that Roger probably does too, but that he's stubborn as hell and would never be the first to admit it. Something warms in Oscar's heart at that. Slowly but surely, between Roger and John, Ash is finally making friends her own age.

Ash deserves a normal-ish crush on a normal-ish boy, and Oscar will do anything to encourage that crush. So they go to gigs, and Oscar wiggles his eyebrows at her when Roger's got an arm around her between sets, and Ash turns as red as her hair. But Brian's got a hand on his thigh where they're sitting near the door, and it feels weirdly normal, and kind of the best.

To see Ash smiling and happy, everything was worth it. It's all worked out, though he knows he'll never stop worrying about her, not that he'd want to.

[dictionarywrites]

      Know Your Jeffs: A Guide To Goldblum’s Characters

This isn’t an exhaustive list, and I will be updating it as I watch more Goldblum movies, adding in the characters as I pick them up! Everything is below the cut so that I can just update as I take more stuff in. 

The descriptions of movies and characters are very much not impartial, but they should give you an idea of what you’re in for if you want to look the film up. I’m only including stuff I’ve already seen, plus Raines, which I feel like I’m never gonna be able to get hold of, and am heartbroken about.

Movies are listed in CHRONOLOGICAL order, but if you CTRL+F, you can search for a particular character name, date, or movie/TV title. This is very much under construction. There are currently 40 Jeffs on the list. 

1978 - Invasion Of The Bodysnatchers, dir. Philip Kaufman - IMDb

Invasion Of The Bodysnatchers is a film about a kind of alien who comes to Earth and steals people’s bodies - effectively, they make up their own pod-versions of them, and then turn the original to dust.

Jack Bellicec is a poet in New York City, who owns a bathhouse with his wife, Nancy. This film is a sci-fi horror, and Jack is earnest but antsy throughout - he’s a real cutie, and every much a good guy. He’s just the sweetest, and is generally in a state of complete and utter terror, whilst still trying to keep grounded and keep thinking forward.

1980 - The Legend Of Sleepy Hollow, dir. Henning Schellerup, IMDb

Okay, so, for a stupid TV movie from the 80s, this is actually really cute It loosely follows the plot of the short story, but generally with a happier ending and a lot more fun antics from Ichabod Crane, and it’s just great fun. A schoolteacher comes to the valley of Sleepy Hollow, and finds himself facing down the silly ghost stories continuously thrown forward by the locals.

Ichabod Crane is the cutest - he’s soft and sweet with the children, like he is in the short story, on top of being lanky and clumsy and a little stupid; he lacks a lot of his arrogance that he has in the short story, and instead he’s much less of a dick when he criticizes the ghost stories and stuff. He’s lovely, I adore him. 

1980 - Tenspeed and Brownshoe, TV Series - IMDb

Tenspeed and Brownshoe is a delight - it’s a detective TV series with a very light-hearted tone, and it’s very comfortable to just settle back and watch casually. 

Lionel Whitney is... a trip. A chartered accountant turned gumshoe, Lionel starts his own detective agency in L.A. after breaking up with his fiancée and meeting the charming (and duplicitous) E.L. Turner, a conman and scam artist. E.L. is his partner in the business, and the two combine strengths - Lionel with his idolisation of and knowledge of the 40s pulp fictional detective, Mark Savage, as well as his black belt in karate; E.L. with his thousands of accumulated skills, including being a master of disguise, a smooth-talker, and a winner at sleight of hand. 

Lionel is a dote: he’s just the sweetest, and he really gives off Bertie Wooster vibes, but with an air of genuine competence Mr Wooster never had. He’s truly incredible, and all the episodes of Tenspeed and Brownshoe are up on YouTube, so it’s really worth watching!

1981 - Threshold, dir. Richard Pearce - IMDb

Okay, so Threshold... Big old snooze fest. Not a very engaging movie, not an especially good movie - I forgot a good deal of the movie after I finished watching it. It was uninspiring and a bit bland. The concept is basically that a pioneer in mechanical science re: bio-engineering comes up with a heart valve to replace a little girl’s heart - the pioneer being Jeff Goldblum’s character - and a doctor puts it in the little girl, but it’s a very unpopular decision, because it’s not organic. Obviously, in the 80s, that was a much bigger deal than it is now. 

Aldo Gehring is just... Adorable. Too earnest, a little bit arrogant, and he’s just far too baby-faced for the age he’s textually said to be to be believable, but like... You know! It’s a dull movie either way, and Aldo isn’t a huge part of it. 

1983 - The Big Chill, dir. Lawrence Kasdan - IMDb

The Big Chill is a film about a group of college friends that meet up for the first time in like, a decade after one of their closest friends commits suicide. They all come for the funeral, and spend a few days together in the aftermath.

A lot of people seem to dislike Michael Gold, but like, he’s kind of one of the most tragic of the figures in the movie - a lot of their friends don’t remember him initially, and he really isn’t good at doing anything other than compartmentalising and shoving down his emotions. He’s brittle and a little sharp, and maybe a bit too honest for his own good, but I really love him, and I totally rec him if you can handle the subject matter, which is obviously very grim and very sad.

1984 - The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai, dir. W.D. Richter - IMDb

Buckaroo Banzai is a guy who’s basically, like, any eight-year-old’s Mary Sue - he’s a cowboy, a neurosurgeon, an expert test pilot, a rockstar, etc... And they play it completely straight. Leading his band of hypercompetent pretty boys, The Hong-Kong Cavaliers, he saves the world, if not the universe, on the regular. 

Doctor Sidney Zweibel, a.k.a. New Jersey, is a new addition to the team in The Adventures, and he’s a neurosurgeon who went to med school with Buckaroo. He’s a would-be cowboy, complete with boots, hat and chaps, and he’s just the cutest thing in the world, a sweet and pure boy. 10/10 Goldblums for Sid Zweibel.

1985 - Silverado, dir. Lawrence Kasdan - IMDb

Mmm, Silverado is one of the worst movies I’ve ever seen, and it has little to no plot. Even for a Western, I found it incredibly dry and disjointed, and I can’t in good fatih recommend it to anybody, even though John Cleese is inexplicably a sheriff midway through.

However. Slick (whose actual name is Calvin Stanhope) is really fucking hot, and so you should watch his scenes on YouTube, even if you don’t watch the movie (which you shouldn’t). Slick’s screentime tocks up to around 15-20 minutes, out of a movie that’s genuinely like, two and a half hours long.

Slick is like, a casino man with a knife in his boot; he wears furs; he’s terrible. He’s so great, I adore him. 

1985 - Into The Night, dir. John Landis - IMDb

Into The Night is... a little hard to describe. It’s like, a crime thriller movie with Jeff Goldblum and Michelle Pfeiffer, and with a cameo from David Bowie, as well as about 700 other Hollywood lads who Landis knew. I think the plot is... loose, and the film itself isn’t the greatest, but the main characters are pretty great.

Ed Okin is an astrophysicist dissatisfied with his job and his life in general, who abruptly becomes plagued by this inescapable insomnia, and subsequently becomes embroiled in this whole crime plot across from Pfeiffer. I really love Ed - because of the insomnia, he tends to underreact to most of the situations around him, and he’s very likable.

1985 - Transylvania 6-5000, dir. Ruby de Luca - IMDb

Is TR 6-5000 a good movie? No, absolutely not. But should you watch it? Oh, yes. 

This is like, a comedy/absurdist horror/pastiche, lots... It’s lots of stuff. Basically, these two reporters who do a Weekly World News style thing go to Transylvania to report on Frankenstein, and also meet some Igors, a werewolf, a vampire, etc.

Jack Harrison is such a great character - he’s pretty much eternally looking after his hapless partner, Gil, but both of them are as ridiculous as the other, each of them stumbling into bizarre situations. Definitely don’t take the movie too seriously, but it really is a fun thing, and it’s certainly worth watching for the goofy trip it is. Jack is a real sweetheart, and he’s so lovable - Gil certainly thinks so. ;)

1986 - The Fly, dir. David Cronenburg - IMDb

So, fair warning, I nearly vomited like, several times watching The Fly, and was on the verge of just turning it off a few times. It’s nearly forty years old, but the body horror of the effects really stands up, and it’s very gory toward the end.  Despite its well-earned rep as such a gory film, though, The Fly is actually a heartbreaking tragedy, so definitely don’t expect it to be lacking in the feels department if you can stomach it.

Seth Brundle (yeah, poor guy, what a name) is a really impressive engineer and scientist, and he invents a machine that should enable him to teleport objects from one electronic pod to another. Unfortunately, when teleporting himself, he becomes melded with an intruder to the pod - a fly - and begins a horrifying transition into something other than human.

Seth at the start is... He’s a genius, but he’s naive, arrogant, and a little too trusting in how earnest he is. As time goes on, and he begins the change into Brundlefly, he becomes much more erratic, and his personality changes a lot. I totally rec Seth, honestly. 

1988 - Vibes, dir. Ken Kwapis - IMDB

Vibes is a fucking trip. It’s a movie about two psychics - Jeff Goldblum’s character, Nick Deezy, who can tell the history of an object by touching it, and Cyndi Lauper’s character, Sylvia Pickel, who is a medium. Yes, you read that right. Cyndi Lauper. It’s incredible.

Vibes is actually a much better movie than I expected - it’s a genuinely funny comedy, it’s ridiculous and cartoonish and stupid, but it’s fun. Cyndi Lauper and Goldblum have a tango scene at one point, and the height differential is so extreme that she’s literally wrapped around his waist and he’s just carrying her around.

Nick Deezy himself is a really interesting character - he’s kinda used to being used and pushed around because of his psychic powers, but he’s a guy with such a lot of courage and genuine empathy for others, and I just think he’s so sweet. 

1988 - Earth Girls Are Easy,  dir. Julien Temple - IMDb

So... Earth Girls Are Easy is in the same vein as Vibes for me - it’s a fun romp, and so long as you don’t take it too seriously, it’s a really enjoyable movie. It’s about these three furry aliens that drop down to Earth, and are trying to pick up the language and have a good time. It’s good banter, and it’s also a musical, because-- It was 1988, okay? 

Mac is like, probably one of the most genuinely sweet characters out of the ones on this list - he’s very caring, and he’s doing his best to do good whilst not really being able to navigate the world around him very easily. He’s wonderful, and I can’t rec Earth Girls enough.

He’s also a big, furry, blue guy in his underwear for the first part of the movie, if that helps.

1989 - The Tall Guy, dir. Mel Smith - IMDb

So, disclaimer. This film is written by Richard Curtis, so like... It’s snappy, it’s clever, but it’s also a little insufferable and kinda misogynistic the whole way through, with the classic Curtis obsession with infidelity, where characters cheat on one another whether it makes sense or not.

That aside, I really enjoyed the first two acts of this movie, and while the third one falls very flat, I still think it’s worth watching. Goldblum’s character, Dexter King, plays the straight man in Rowan Atkinson’s comedy sketch act, but goes on to have a romantic relationship with Emma Thompson, and those links are just... So cute.

I think Dexter is kind of a dick, but by no means does that make him unlikable, and I’d still rec The Tall Guy! I’m not sure how long Goldblum was in the UK for - there’s a nude sex scene with Goldblum and Thompson, and I was really thrown, because he’s super pale in this film, compared to similar nude scenes in like, The Fly. So there’s your fun tidbit for the day lmao.

1990 - Mister Frost, dir. Philippe Setbon - IMDb

This film is... Odd. As a thriller, it’s fine - you know, it’s average. It isn’t so terrible, but it’s not great either. But as like, a film, there are aspects where it’s just inexplicably terrible - some of the lines are dubbed over, for some reason, and the sound quality is so off in random moments; there are odd moments where the camera is just too close to the actors’ faces, even for a close-up; technically, this film just has some bizarre and glaring... errors.

The plot is interesting, though, and I did enjoy it for that aspect - Mister Frost is a serial killer institutionalized in an attempt to cure him of his murderous tendencies, and he then professes to be Lucifer himself. 

Mister Frost is a funny guy. He’s snide, clever, self-obsessed and sharp - I really liked him, and I totally think he’s worth a watch.

1992 - Fathers & Sons, dir. Paul Mones - IMDb

[icon to be added if I can ever get a decent fucking picture or screencap or something of this film]

This film was bad. I didn’t care for it. Fathers & Sons is, however, like... Very human, I guess. Max, Goldblum’s character, runs a bookstore on the coast and is having trouble communicating with his son, Ed; there’s a lot of tension between them based off the death of Ed’s mother and Max’s own character flaws, as well as Max’s temper. There’s fucking voiceover in the film, which is used clumsily and just comes across as terrible, but there aren’t any glaring technical issues throughout like there are with Mister Frost.

Max himself is not, in my opinion, a very likable character? He’s certainly relatively sympathetic, and you can see where he’s coming from, but he’s got a terrible temper and the tension with Ed is very much his own doing in a lot of respects - despite my personal dislikes, however, Goldblum is as ever a marvel, and you really do feel that Max is a whole, complete person.

1992 - Shooting Elizabeth, dr. Baz Taylor - IMDb

This film was a fucking trip and a half. The premise is that this guy, Howard, really hates his wife, and decides he hates her so much that he’s gonna kill her, but when she goes missing, he is arrested for her murder even though he never got around to it. It’s a generically confused movie which neither really meets its labelled genres of comedy or thriller, but wouldn’t do well under drama or romance either. It’s odd.

Howard Pigeon, as a character, is deeply unstable. A lot of the moments in the movie that I think are meant to be comedic just end up being tragic, because you can see how upset he is, how freaked out he is, and how disconnected from reality and rational thought he is. He’s also just... A really fucking bad person, but to be honest, so is his wife, so like... Hey. It is what it is, I guess. 

1992 - Deep Cover, dir. Bill Duke - IMDb

Deep Cover is fucking incredible. It’s easily one of my favourite movies now, and I just die over it, to be honest. Playing across from Laurence Fishburne (then billed as Larry), David Jason (Elias in the script, and I don’t know why they changed it, maybe to make his name less blatantly Jewish, but I assume none of them had ever heard of Only Fools and Horses) is a low-down cocaine mogul trying to break out on his own from the local boss. 

He’s a fascinating character, and I just adore him - the film itself is a very gritty noir that really considers lines of racial intersection and prejudice within both the police force and the drug trade, and David himself is constantly suffering from antisemitism and a lot of very targeted homophobic remarks, and it’s heavily implied he wants to fuck John, Laurence Fishburne’s character. David is erratic, sharp, and extremely brittle with a very short temper: he and John kinda balance each other out, because John’s a much cooler, calmer guy, and I just love their dynamic.

David’s my son. I love him. I will cry over him forever. 

1993 - Jurassic Park, dir. Steven Spielberg - IMDB        ↪1997 - Jurassic Park: The Lost World, dir. Steven Spielberg - IMDb        ↪2018 - Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom, dir. J.A. Bayona - IMDb

So, like, I’m sure you know the basic concept of Jurassic Park. A crazed Walt Disney parody in white linen with seemingly unlimited money decides to clone a bunch of fucking dinosaurs and put them into a theme park, and it goes horribly wrong. These films are genuinely great sci-fi, raising some wonderful philosophical questions about ownership, ethics, and our place in the universe, and the voice of that philosophy usually belongs to Doctor Ian Malcolm, a mathematician who specialises in chaos theory.

Ian Malcolm... I just adore him, I really do. You know, I’ve read the book of course, as well as the seen all the Jurassic Park and Jurassic World movies, and Ian is just a delight - he’s bright, he’s sarcastic, but he’s genuinely full of feeling and so eager to talk to other people, to connect with them, etc. I just find him fascinating, and even if sci-fi isn’t your thing, you’ll love Jurassic Park for him alone.

He reprises his role in the latest Jurassic World movie - I can’t, in all good conscience, really recommend the Jurassic World movies, but... He is a silver fox. 

1995 - Hideaway, dir. Brett Leonard - IMDb

Hideaway is a supernatural thriller based around the concept of demonic possession, and an antiques dealer - Hatch Harrison - finds he has visions of a local serial killer after being revived from being dead for several minutes. Using those visions to thwart the killer, he and his family realise the cause is supernatural. 

Hatch is a really cool dude, and I like him a lot - he’s got the strongest dad energies, and he’s so, so caring. Even grieving and tense, like, he’s just doing his best, and he’s such a good guy, I really adore him. 

1995 - Nine Months, dir. Chris Columbus - IMDb

Nine Months is a terrible movie thick with a deeply unsettling ideology re: the whole “everybody really wants kids and must have them”, and I honestly despised it throughout. It’s just a terrible movie, and Columbus always ranges from “this guy is a vaguely bad director” to “this guy is a fucking twat”, and there is nothing vague about the badness of this movie.

That aside, however, Goldblum’s character is kind of a delight. Sean Fletcher is a painter (of paintings, not houses) and like... Layabout? He’s a little erratic, he changes his mind about stuff constantly, but he’s a really sound guy, and he cares a lot about Hugh Grant’s character, who is the protagonist. He’s really fun in a movie that’s just garbage the way through. 

1995 - Powder, dir. Victor Salva - IMDb

Powder is a very sad movie, to be honest. It’s about this lad who’s like, an albino with telekinetic powers, and when his parents die, he ends up having to go into the public school system, where he’s bullied an awful lot. It’s extremely brutal about a lot of the bullying stuff, and it does come across very accurately; just as a general warning, there’s... an uncomfortable tone to it, although nothing directly or graphically terrible, especially re: sexuality, which I noticed even before looked Salva up and realised he was that paedophile that did Jeepers Creepers. It’s just something to be aware of.

Jeff’s character is... a delight, however. Donald Ripley is a high school teacher who’s genuinely really passionate about teaching, has no small amount of sympathy for all of his students, and is just-- He’s really sweet, and I love him. Despite the uncomfortable gaze of the film, he retains a paternal air, and I love it.  

1996 - Independence Day, dir. Roland Emmerich - IMDb          ↪2016 - Independence Day: Resurgence, dir. Roland Emmerich - IMDb

Independence Day, honestly, I expected to be like, bad sci-fi dreck, and it genuinely isn’t. While I think the premise is inherently stupid (the whole evil aliens invade thing), it’s actually executed so well, and I just love it as a flick - Judaism saves the day in many aspects, and it’s so nice to have that positive thing mixed up in it.

David Levinson is such a sweet guy - he’s arrogant and a little bit of an ass, but like, he’s so caring: he constantly worries about his dad, he’s so loyal to his ex-wife without being creepy or weird about it after like, three years; he fucking recycles and uses his bike to get around the city... Like, he’s an underachiever initially, but he’s a genuinely nice guy despite his abrasive personality at times, you know?

I just love him.  

And he reprises the role in the new movie, which isn’t as good as the first one, but is still worth a watch for Julius Levinson’s antics, picking up grandchildren as he drives across America. 

1998 - Holy Man, dir. Stephen Herek - IMDb

My full review of Holy Man is here.

Holy Man is not a good film. It’s about an exec who runs a TV shopping channel, but is like, really shit at it, and he ends up getting G., a homeless guru played by Eddie Murphy, to sell stuff for him. Nonsensical and odd although the film is, it’s actually surprisingly sweet and wholesome, and I really enjoyed a lot of the humour. 

Ricky is a pretty bad guy at the beginning, but he’s slick and fun and good-humoured - he’s mostly just selfish more than outright evil, and he actually ends up becoming a lot less selfish toward the end of the film. He’s a sweetheart, in some respects. 

2001 - Cats & Dogs, dir. Lawrence Guterman - IMDb

God, this movie is so bad, and so much more racist than I remembered? There’s this whole racist sequence with some ninja cats, complete with the chopsticks-style music playing in the background, and that’s... Awful. 

But Charles Brody is actually really funny, to be honest. Goldblum somehow makes him feel really human - earnest and work-obsessed, but still desperate to be a good father despite not being naturally inclined, and that’s... Honestly, I hate it when he does this. He takes the stupidest character in the stupidest movie and makes them feel like a real person, and I hate him for it.

Brody is cute. 

2002 - Igby Goes Down, dir. Burr Steers - IMDb

Igby Goes Down is... Hm. What best to call it? Insipid teenage horseshit. The whole film is just fucking terrible, honestly - it centres around the Culkin that isn’t Kevin in Home Alone, and he’s some unbearable little New York teenager who thinks the world revolves around him and is upset at the prospect that perhaps he should go to school and/or get a job. 

Anyway, Goldblum is at his least moral and most hot, he is revolting, and he is so sexy. There’s a weird thing where he’s the family friend of a family that’s pretty anti-semitic, but they play it straight, as if Jeff Goldblum’s face isn’t one of the most Jewish faces anybody’s ever seen, but that aside, he’s really sexy. Sociopathic, abruptly violent, and infrequently undressed, but it’s not worth watching the rest of the film for, to be honest. 

2003 - Spinning Boris, dir. Roger Spottiswoode - IMDb

Spinning Boris. What a film.

Here, listen, we just watched this, me and @annethecatdetective, and it was absolutely nothing that I expected,or could expect. It’s a heavily fictionalised “based on a true story” film about three Rpublicans who went to work on the Boris Yeltsin campaign in ‘96. We, apparently, are once again meant to believe Jeff Goldblum as a goyische Republican, which--

I mean, what can I tell you? He does it so well. George Gorton’s fictionalised counterpart is charismatic, charming and funny, but so is most of the movie - the Republican trio are all morons, but that actually lends to their likability in the end, and Gorton is the most lovable of the three, taking the foreground. This movie was like, actually really good.  

2004 - The Life Aquatic With Steve Zissou, dir. Wes Anderson - IMDb

I hated this film, and had to fast-forward a lot of it. I’m not a fan of Anderson at all, much as Goldblum is always singing his praises - I just don’t get it, I guess. Anderson is a master of visual spectacle, but he’s one of the worst writers out there, and pithy lines don’t make up for the complete lack of character that any of his films have.

Alistair Hennessy is no exception. He’s pithy, vaguely (comedically?) sociopathic, and is kinda DTF... And that’s about it. Even Goldblum can’t really add that much depth to this guy, because there’s no depth in other characters for him to play off. 

2006 - Man of the Year, dir. Barry Levinson - IMDb

Mmm, so, Man of the Year surprised me. 

It’s definitely quite weak, when it comes to plot and writing - the jokes aren’t at their strongest; it can’t really decide whether it wants to be a comedy or a political thriller; some of the jokes and commentary are very off-colour and have not aged well; it seeks to set out a political moral without making any particular targets. Nonetheless, I rather enjoyed it - it doesn’t pretend to be a higher art than it is, and I think it’s still enjoyable. The primary drawback is probably that the premise of a comedian being elected president of the USA is much less hilariously unbelievable in the wake of the Trump campaign, and that colours my perception a little - some of the protag’s comments about immigration or women, the way he responds to other candidates in debate, Hell, even Robin Williams’ wearing of a red baseball cap at one point... All of those elements kinda take the humour out of it a bit because of the Trump election, but hey, it was 2006 - how could they possibly know?

Goldblum’s character in this, Mr Stewart, is the lawyer and primed attack dog of a corrupt company that produces the electronic voting machines responsible for Williams’ character being elected. He isn’t at his most Goldblum-esque in this, I have to say - he’s sharp, nasty, and very business-focused, but he doesn’t get that much time on screen, and his on-screen moments don’t lean very much into his usual charm and humour. Stewart is actually a very dull, run-of-the-mill evil corporate type, and he was a pretty boring character. 

2007 - Raines, TV Series - IMDb

I will write whatever you want if you can get me a download link for this, or somewhere where I can just buy the fucking series, from Ireland. I am desperate to watch it, because it looks fucking awful. Michael Raines is a detective who hallucinates that his victims help him solve the crimes.

Doesn’t that sound so bad? I need it. 

2009-2010 - Law & Order: Criminal Intent, TV Series - IMDb

So like, you know the shtick with Law & Order. It’s a gory, stupid crime procedural that’s just really stupid. This one, Criminal Intent, is about major crimes, but honestly, I have little to no idea exactly what a major crime is, even having watched the two seasons in which Zach Nichols is a marauding force. 

Zach Nichols himself is... Fascinating. So, you know how there’s this fucking trend of just, mean detective who everyone lets be mean because he’s a ~genius~ or whatever, and everyone is always like “ugh, he fucking sucks, but we gotta let him do that”? That is not the case with Zach Nichols. Zach Nichols is nothing short of a genuine sociopath, continuously manipulative, randomly and without provocation is he cruel to victims, witnesses and criminals alike. At no point does anybody call him out for being terrible, or even admitting he’s being terrible. It’s like no one registers the cruelty of his behaviour, or cares.

Honestly, I expect it’s quite accurate as to the New York police system, and in the mean time, it’s really fucking hot. He’s my favourite of all of Goldblum’s characters, and he disgusts me on literally every level. 

2010 - Morning Glory, dir. Roger Michell - IMDb

Morning Glory is... It starts out very bland and uninspiring, but it does grow on you more as it goes on. In my opinion, it would have been better if they’d just tried to bill it genuinely, as a comedy-drama, which is what it is - instead, they tried to shoehorn in a very ugly actor I forget the name of as a love interest for Rachel McAdams, I presume in desperate hope of earning that rom-com dollar. Nonetheless, it’s a cute enough concept - TV journalist gets her dream job running a news studio, and has to get bully and asshole anchor Harrison Ford to be fun and wholesome for the morning show. It’s cute, and I do think it’s worth watching despite some of the issues with it.

Jerry is like... He’s so fucking great. Jerry is just an ass. He’s rude, he’s biting, he’s constantly telling McAdams’ character to make stuff that is impossible work, and he very much eats, breathes, and sleeps his job, while packing in time to jog and to fuck an extremely stupid girl, Lisa, he put in the newsroom, who believes in shit like past lives and angels, and is literally the best character in the movie. 

Jerry and Lisa are the fucking greatest, everyone else can go home. 

According to the IMDb credits, he has a wife who is unnamed, but like... I have no memory of her even being in the movie, honestly. It’s not the greatest of cinematic works.

2010 - The Switch, dir. Josh Gordan & Will Speck - IMDb

The Switch? Bad concept. It’s about Jason Bateman’s character stealing the sperm donation that Jennifer Aniston was going to use to get pregnant, and then replacing it with his own. So like, off the bat, the whole reproductive rape, grievious sexual assault thing, that the movie... Kinda expects you to view as romantic? Somehow? I don’t.... get it. Apparently it’s okay because their characters are “friends”.

Anyway, moving onto the important part, Leonard, Jeff’s character, is great. He’s go the BDE going on; at one point he’s walking on the treadmill while eating a candy bar, and mocks Jason Bateman for not doing the same; he’s sarcastic, eccentric, and a massive THOT that lets women handfeed him; and, inexplicably, despite being Jason Bateman’s boss, him and Bateman are best friends. 10 out of 10 Goldblums for Leonard, who they didn’t bother to give a last name to. 

2012 - Zambezia, dir. Wayne Thornley - IMDb

Egh. Like, even for a kid’s movie this one was pretty bland? The actual design and animation is pretty beautiful - I love the designs of all the wildlife, which is the main focus of it, and that’s really well-done throughout; there’s also a star-studded cast of voice actors. The story is pretty dull, and the script ain’t great, but hey. It’s a kid’s movie, and I think it does what it means to do. 

Ajax, Goldblum’s character, is pretty cute - he’s like, a busybody, like the fucking... Toucan or whatever he is in the Lion King. He’s the advisor to the bird king or whatever. That’s... I mean, that’s pretty much it. There’s very little to say here. 

2013 - Le Week-end, dir. Roger Michell - IMDb

Le Week-end is fucking adorable. It’s about this struggling middle-aged couple who go to Paris for a weekend to try to rekindle their marriage, and they run around committing shenanigans, arguing, and generally being a little bit adorable. 

They meet Morgan, who is an old schoolfriend of Jim Broadbent’s character, and is now like, a best-selling writer in economics, and he invites them for a really stupid dinner party full of really impressive people, which makes both of them feel very inadequate. Jim Broadbent spends a lot of the party with Morgan’s weird teenage son, chatting about how Morgan is kind of a dick, but honestly, Morgan is just... Not self-aware. He’s pretty much in love with Jim Broadbent the entire time, and sings everybody’s praises, then comes to rescue them both at the end.

He’s very cute, kinda selfish, kind of disconnected from reality, and I have a lot of affection for him. 

2014 - The Grand Budapest Hotel, dir. Wes Anderson - IMDb

The Grand Budapest Hotel is like... It’s a Wes Anderson film. Egh. 

Deputy Kovacs is probably the least Goldblum-y character in any Goldblum role. He doesn’t have many of the verbal tics, and to be honest, he doesn’t even move his hands in the typical Goldblum fashion - if you look at the dinner scene, you can see his fingers twitching as he tries to keep his hand still. 

Kovacs has some good lines, but like any Anderson character, doesn’t really have a character. 

2015 - Mortdecai, dir. David Koepp - IMDb

Mortdecai is a terrible fucking film, and I despised it. It was just awful, it really was, and Johnny Depp and Gwyneth Paltrow’s characters were each fucking insufferable. It’s about this posh cunt who sells art, and then lots of people try to kill him because he’s posh, and a cunt.

Jeff’s character, Milton Krampf, is the father of Olivia Munn’s character, and Olivia Munn is a nymphomaniac who wants to fuck Johnny Depp. Milton gets like, 5 minutes of screentime, and is weirdly on board with his daughter banging Johnny Depp, but that’s it. If you ask my opinion, they should have had Milton try to bang Depp, and let Olivia Munn be in charge, but like... It was a bad movie. There was no thinking outside the box. 

2017 - Thor: Ragnarok, dir. Taika Waititi - IMDb

I mean, what do I even say? 

Thor: Ragnarok is like, my least favourite Thor film, but not because it’s not great. Thor: Ragnarok is so much better than most of the other Marvel films put together - it’s fun, it’s snappy, it’s beautifully shot, it has a vision, etc. etc. Taika Waititi’s humour mostly isn’t my thing, but his comedy is so well-ranging and so well-done that like, even if it isn’t your thing, you still get laughs out of his movies. Ragnarok is a great movie - it’s not my favourite for like, Loki’s characterisation, but... Honestly, when you’re watching it, that stuff just falls away. It’s so entertaining and so well done, even if I don’t agree with some of the characterization and story choices. 

And the GM, God, he’s... Just terrible. I adore him. You know I adore him, this whole blog is just GM fanfiction. He’s an Eldritch being with unlimited power who forces people to fight in an intergalactic alien arena while shtupping Loki Laufeyson and being too lazy to properly rule a planet. What’s not to love?

2018 - Seth Rogen’s Hilarity for Charity, dir. Ryan Polito - IMDb

Hilarity for Charity was not funny, and was generally very painful to watch. I would recommend you skip through all of the “comedy�� except for Tiffany Kaddish and John Mulaney. 

At the end of the special, Jeff Goldblum plays the human face of the Netflix Algorithm, and playfully talks about destroying all human life. It’s pretty cute. 

2018 - Isle of Dogs, dir. Wes Anderson - IMDb

I fell asleep during this. Like, within a half hour, I fell asleep. 

Goldblum is underutilised, but to be honest, so are a lot of the characters - Isle of Dogs is a very weird movie, and I’m a little unclear as to some of the choices Anderson made with it, but visually, it’s a very strong movie, and it’s more enjoyable than most. 

I still fell asleep. 

Goldblum’s character, Duke, is like, a husky with a cheerful attitude, and he’s constantly gossiping and making shit up. His lines are good fun.  

2018 - Hotel Artemis, dir. Drew Pearce - IMDb

Now, Hotel Artemis, not a great movie. The plot is very lacking, the characters mostly cardboard archetypes instead of developed individuals... I think the film has a lot of issues with telling the audience the stuff that could be shown much more artfully, but like, egh.

Despite those issues, Orian Franklin - Niagara - is a very interesting character. He’s in the movie for a very short amount of time (barely twenty-five minutes of screentime, if that) but he’s a really interesting enigma, and I really loved what little they bothered to do with him.

He’s one of those characters that’s much more interesting in fanfic than in the canon. 

[feuilletoniste]

@byrons hat gesagt: I see we’re on the same wavelength tonight… That post represents A Mindset but what annoys me is applying that Mindset to poetry translation. Just like that, with no regard to grammar or stylistic devices in either language, no text analysis by the translator, nothing. Sorry for the rant, it just frustrates me to no end that so much good poetry remains untranslated because of people (often professional translators, too!) who don’t take it seriously.

Absolutely no need to apologize! I completely agree. I think there’s definitely value in reading poetry for the Vibes, so to speak -- not everything has to be about the Deeper Meaning of Art -- and on its own the post is... fine. I don’t like it, but it’s fine. But it’s just one more example of the mentality of Metaphors And Subtext Are For Cowards that people on here like to pretend is somehow better than paying attention to detail... When we say there are no neutral choices in art, that’s not to imply that every single aspect of a work was intentional or has some deeper meaning behind it, but its inclusion was a choice, and it can tell us something about the art and, potentially, the artist. Maybe the author didn’t make the curtains blue as a shorthand for sadness, but mentioning the color of the curtains was a decision, and there’s merit in acknowledging that! So yeah, obviously you don’t need to know the nitty-gritty building blocks in order to appreciate poetry, the same way you don’t need to major in architecture to appreciate a pretty building, or be a professional culinary expert in order to have a favorite food. But saying that there’s no value in the technical ability that goes into good poetry does a disservice not only to your own intelligence, but also to the amount of work good poets have put in to improve their craft.

I’ve always kind of thought that reading poetry in translation is a horrible way to understand poetry in general, given the vast amount of linguistic variation -- there’s that whole debate between aesthetic versus utilitarian translation -- and I can’t imagine what it would be like to read a poem translated without including annotations and footnotes. Poetry is a skill! It takes effort and time to get good at it! Going back to the architecture metaphor, you can’t apply the same techniques from one medium (such as adobe) to an entirely different medium (such as steel) and expect the finished construction to function the same way, much less inspire the same emotions in observers.

This post pisses me off. No, it’s not necessary to know every single technical element to poetry in order to have a genuine reaction to it, but we don’t learn the methodology of poetry for no reason; understanding the building blocks will help you to appreciate the technical ability of the craft – you can’t just throw words together and expect it to be lauded as genius – not to mention gain a deeper understanding of why you feel the way you do after reading poetry.

This sort of anti-intellectual attitude towards analysing art belongs to what I generally think of as the Dead Poets Society school of thought – the idea that the way art makes you feel is more important than why, and that it’s not worth it to study and analyse the details. Why are the curtains blue? Because fuck your English teacher, that’s why. What’s the difference between a spondee and a trochee? Who gives a shit as long as it sounds nice. If it’s not fun, it’s not worth doing, right?

Weiterlesen

[hide-the-cutlery]

Dear *****,

We are literary soulmates.

I don’t know you, and I know I never will. It goes both ways — you don’t know me either.

And I’m not a poet, I don’t write songs, but I am a writer. And when I read your words, I feel we are so connected in the way we feel. You’ve laid your emotions out there, so you can’t blame someone for taking them and holding them and relating to them. And not in a creepy, obsessive way; when you find someone in the world who thinks, feels, and expresses the same way you do, well, I think that’s something — notable, at the least.

You’re so raw. Well so am I.

And then you put your music to it, and it’s — unbelievable. That feels like a cheap word, but it’s all I can say. (Guess I’m a shit writer.)

Unfathomable how someone could be so purely talented to take art and throw it out to other people in multiple mediums to consume; that is more than someone like me could ever expect or hope to do.

But I’m just.. a fan. An admirer. You move me, inspire so many, and you know it. And you’re not cocky. It makes it so much better — simultaneously so unreal. I want to know your faults, your flaws, just to bring you back to this mundane, earthly level.

So I pose this random question to you, that you will never see: how do you help an addict? I think you’ve known at least one closely and have done it. Fuck it, I know you have; it’d be pretty hard to deny. Sucks being in the public eye, right? I’d think so. But... how do you aid someone who’s so low? How’d you lift them up? Cause, fuck, I need that. Someone amazing to help. Where does a lonely loser like me even begin to look?

Final note — you are gorgeous. People accuse me for liking you for your looks, but if you read my words above, I think you’ll see that’s not true. It doesn’t change the fact that you are just— ugh. Talented, inspirational, and stupidly attractive. Fuck you.

Signed, just a fan. An insane fan that you’ll never know; lord knows you’re stuffed to the brim with them, and at what point do you ever reach annoyance? Or just bland apathy.

Let me try that again.

— Just a fan.

Yeah, that’s probably enough.

[brkfstclubnyc]

Armory Live

The Armory Show March 8-11, 2017 Piers 92 & 94 711 12th Avenue at 55th Street, NYC https://www.thearmoryshow.com/

List of other art fairs that we went: Moving Image NY, Volta NY, Scope NY, Independent, ADAA, NADA NY, and Spring/Break Art Show.

We attended Armory's VIP preview and events called, Armory Live this year. Saturday’s Armory Live happened to be discussing 🌱Fresh Mediums✨ (our March theme), so here is a brief report highlighting our theme:

First event - on collecting fresh Digital Art

Second event - what makes Painting fresh today

1. Conversations on Collecting | Collecting Digital: Art, Technology, Preservation and Posterity

Chrissie Iles is a Whitney Curator who presented on digital art (above). Illes stated in her lecture that, “fluidity and ephemerality are something that people have a hard time with in terms of art.” She explained that exhibiting experimental films and videos at an institution like the Whitney Museum challenges curators because many works cannot be displayed in the exactly same manner due to technological advancements and/or the artists’ intention to create a different environment every time work is shown.

Some of the Artists she discussed from the viewpoint of presenting and re-presenting work: Sharon Hayes, Oskar Fischinger, Oskar Schlemmer, Andy Warhol, Bruce Conner, Anthony McCall, Ian Cheng, Ivana Bašić, etc.

2. Artist Talk | David Salle | The Painting Life

PARTICIPANTS: Joe Bradley, Artist, New York; Alex Katz, Artist, New York; Dana Schutz, Artist, New York; Chris Martin, Artist, New York MODERATOR: David Salle, Artist, New York

I personally think that this talk was one of the best panel events happened during the Armory week this year.

The format of this second panel event was that David Salle (middle in the photo below) asks four renowned painters questions based on his question list and the painters have an option of passing or answering, briefly. Four curious questions and each painter’s answers are below:

1. How much do you think about the audience when you paint?

Chris: The first audience is myself, my daughter and my wife, and anyone on this panel here (i.e. he considers a small group of ‘honest’ people whom he personally knows as the audience).

Dana: I agree.... My staff is the primary audience... (i.e. she values comments from people whom she has a sense of how they work, so in her words, “anything outside of that is too general and weird”).

Joe: I agree. The similar situation... a handful of friends and colleagues that you sort of trust their opinions. The “audience” is an abstract idea... taking it for granted that some people respond to what you are doing and [I know that] lots of people won’t be able to find anything. lol

Alex: Paintings have 5 different audiences. They [all] see the pictures, differently. The first audience is the general public. They come to see a painting and say, “I like it.” The next ones are my friends, painters, and poets. They see an entirely different painting. Then...deal with...the critics they see something different. And comes the institutions they see something, so they’re all looking at the same painting. There’re collectors, too...(i.e. he has attempted to think about 5 or 6 different audiences at once when painting and deemed that impossible; thus, he shifts his thinking from one audience to another).

2. What’s the difference between painting and illustration?

Chris: I think the goal of illustration is to show you an image like a sign; you see it and get it. For me to make a painting, is to really embody a kind of reality. If something is illustrating something, it’s less engaging for me than the possibility or content is actually there.

Dana: I agree.... There’s also, to paint them, there’s this physical-ness of painting, the third element that you depict something, but there’s a physical thing that happens in painting that gives the other information. Maybe that’s the reality that comes in.

Joe: A good painting should never resolve in “illustration”... the idea like that a successful illustration [delivers] the message loud and clear... and that’s that. You stand in front of a painting, too, and it’s a very different experience than looking at The New Yorker.

Alex: I think illustration is a big part of the American culture. Actually, 50-60 years ago, illustration was considered fine art. The big difference between illustration and painting is that an illustration “shows” you and a painting is more like, really “feels“ like it. Somehow on the edges, we have painters who are illustrators and it gets into a murky division. These two points of view are over-complicated.

3. How important is originality for a painter or an artist?

Alex: Originality? well... you know, I don’t think originality is important really... what’s important is to make something that looks new.

David: Could you tell us... what’re the differences? Could you tell us what the distinction is? What’s the difference between new and original?

Alex: I think a lot of... any number of artists try something that they have never seen before. They aren’t interesting to most people. That falls into the category of the original art.

David: The original is more like an experiment and new is the edgy quality.

Alex: New means... it’s new but relation to more things.

Joe: Yeah, I think I know what you mean... a notion that you should invent a painting that’s like... you show something and this can be mixed with this and some kind of a reheated version... came from other paintings, right? I kind of take it for granted... you strike out to be the original, but l try to be... like, keep your intention pure.

Dana: You know, I agree. The “original” sort of feels like it’s divorced from everything else and it’s impossible in painting. I do feel new or interesting is something hard to predict how you could do that... something like a combination of things that should be together.

Chris: If I [were] in my studio thinking, “I gotta make something original,” that would be really tough, but I wanna make something that I haven’t seen before, to make it fresh, that is where the edges are for me.

4. Do you think people who write about painting should be required to demonstrate a basic proficiency of the medium?

All: (laugh)

Chris: (jokingly) absolutely!

Alex: I think once you paint a picture, it’s a fair game.... A picture should eventually make a monkey out of the critic.

David: A proficiency test for critics?

Dana: No....

Chris: I think [it] is a great idea, actually.... I mean, I think that you know, some of the great critics are some of your friends who are poets. They’re fantastic critics to talk about paintings and they have a sense of creative process. So I feel that better critics and writers about art have some sense of what it means to create something. It might mean create a poem, or create a novel or whatever... but I think it’s very helpful. And I think also that the experience of actually making something with your hand... if you haven’t had that, I think there’re other work writers who really feel it’s your hand that artists gain an idea and then you make it. And actually... that area between the idea and the making that’s where it’s all happening and I feel, ‘yeah, can we just’... every art writer should just make one painting in the next few weeks and see how it goes. I think it’s very helpful.

Dana: I thought it’d be helpful for non-artists to see art...

David: To be able to understand art?

Dana: At some point, yeah.

David: People ask how they should approach. How should they come to understand a painting. I sometimes say, go to an art supply store, buy some canvas, some brushes, buy some paint, and go make a painting or try to make a painting. Then you think about and look at the painting. You know just... if you do it, you have some idea about what you’re looking at, in terms of what a painting is doing in front of you.

Alex: In general, art historians look at slides, not the paintings. That’s where lots of problems were discovered. The craft of painting is pretty much ignored.

David: Right, which is fine, but it’s interesting if you think about it comparing to... somebody who loves dance, somebody who loves music... that could be like someone who writes about music doesn’t read music, or not.

Alex: Do you really think... which are the art critics worse than music critics?

David: Maybe not or maybe writings are writings (laugh)

Alex: But dancers...? (laugh)

David: I only took one art history class in my life, from Max Kozloff who was an editor of ArtForum in the 60′s. Max made pretty credible, Cezanne-y type landscape paintings, which I never attended a show, never ever saw them, but he did it so that he would know a little bit of what we’ve been talking about... Painting. He thought it was a good idea.

Joe: I went to [a concert by] Nick Cave recently and there was umm... some guy, a couple of rows back, who was just shouting the whole time, you know, and you have these incredible athletes who were running around for an hour and this guy, you know... and I was like, that’s art criticism.

All: (laugh)

reported by Nozomi Kato 2017

afterduchamp at gmail.com

[serialreblogger]

ok but like this is universal. I majored in English, studying the Romantic poets and Shakespeare (who, for the record, historically alternates between being hailed as the Greatest English Writer Ever and a total hack job), and i guarantee from experience: how people feel about even what’s typically hailed as “great art” varies wildly. 

And i think a lot of that is because art is such a primarily emotional medium, and it’s so hard to predict all the millions of factors that go into people’s daily moods. sometimes they just aren’t gonna enjoy your work because they’re not in the mood for it and that’s just how art goes. But i do think that also goes double for writers, and triple for poets; because language is entirely contextual. You learn words by associating them with sensations--sights and sounds and emotions--and the associations you have are very rarely perfectly identical to someone else. 

Language is approximate, and that has its effect on poetry--when you use the word “lovely,” for instance, maybe you’re picturing an exquisite rose, but i’m picturing a simple heart shape. That’ll have a huge effect on the emotional responses people have to your poetry, because poetry is all about the juxtaposition of ideas within the complex and careful positioning of words. If a reader doesn’t associate the same ideas with the words you’re using, there’s not much you can do about that, especially if the positioning of the words themselves is technically superb.

So i guess what i’m saying (TL;DR:) is, yeah, i wouldn’t spend too much energy worrying about the people who don’t get as much out of your poetry. Art, after all, is not created for its marketability. Just by the nature of poetry, not everyone is going to get it, and honestly i think (unless we somehow develop some kind of universal psychic language that doesn’t rely solely on learned context) that’s probably never gonna change. 

Don’t divest your poetry of the emotions it evokes, just to make it more digestible for the people that aren’t feeling it.

It’s impossible to escape the artificiality of environments like poetry workshops where people are reading your stuff like

I had a poem that I liked but that overall got a lukewarm response from my fellow classmates and I was thinking of it as a kind of mediocre poem from then on but then my friend who was in the class and behind on the workshopping read it and LOVED it and now I don’t know what to think because if my poem touched one person in exactly the way they needed, is it “good,” is it “bad?” What should the goal of revising even be...to make the poem appeal to as many people as possible? Or is it okay even if just one person really *gets* it?