#is forced to Enter Into and like Embody a different persona... very much has the danger of taking over him whole | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

sebastianshaw · 5 years ago

Text

I'M HERE TO YELL ABOUT THE WEREMOLES AGAIN THEY'RE REALLY AMAZING AND INTERESTING AND UNIQUE AND I LOVE THEM

-While a lot of the other Changing Breeds all dislike each other for one reason or another, or at best just don't interact, the moldwarps actually had it in their laws to aid their cousins in their respective duties for which Gaia created each of them, but -- "Killing Sceatha with the Garou, allowing Ratkin to travel to Run’s End, or showing the Moldwarp Burrows to other Breeds’ Kinfolk all fall outside of the realms of acceptable aid." CLEARLY THE RATKIN DID SOMETHING LIKE I HAVE NO DOUBT THERE IS GOOD REASON FOR THAT RULE (the wererats are chaos incarnate and I love them) -k so there is basically a trinity of spirits in this setting, the Triat---the Wyld, the Weaver, the Wyrm. Generally speaking, everyone is fighting the Wyrm and sometimes also the Weaver. But the moldwarps seek true balance between all three. And there's a small group of them called Apes Redeemers who want to basically exorcise the Weaver AND Wyrm out of human beings--- "Redeemers take humans in direct service to the Weaver, or with strong behavioural traits in its favour, and attempt to cleanse them through a mixture of psychological abuse, isolation, and repurposed rites. Freethinking Moldwarps shun this Hill’s ideals as quite beyond the pale, but Redeemers hold up examples of humans who have been forced into bestial states of primitive regression, the Weaver’s hold utterly stripped away, as evidence that their methods are in fact effective." (The Weaver is like...organization, society, technology, tools, etc. Normal humans are very much Weaver creatures.) - AW BUT THERE ARE ALSO PLAGUE DOCTOR MOLDWARPS WHO GO TO DISEASE RIDDEN AREAS TO TREAT PEOPLE - In addition to being the jailers of Gaia, they are also the undertakers, burying the dead of other creatures - There are different “Warrens” or types of weremole, based on their role in weremole society and the jobs they have. Most notable to me are the Cleansers and the Wardens. Cleansers “strive to emulate the motherly aspect of Gaia in all that they do. Calm and considerate, their lot is to cure the fallen, correcting their spiritual bearing and keeping them healthy during their stay in the Den. Sadly, despite their caring natures, Cleansers make for arguably the worst weremoles to act as the face of a Sett while interacting with other Fera. Speaking of tainted beings as patients needing treatment wins few friends in the wider shapeshifter community, and Cleansers find it difficult to adjust to the more punitive mindset broadly shared by most Fera.” “ They act as their communities’ confidants and carers, conduits for the worries, stresses, and strains which would otherwise hinder important work” “ Passionate and creative both in conflict and at peace, Cleansers tend to the Burrows’ feeding, nursing, and childrearing tasks outside of their main duties” “ Most Cleansers adopt a calm and measured persona following their Vision Crawl, and are incredibly difficult to infuriate.” Whereas the Wardens are “the closest thing a Burrow has to a standing force of warriors” and “the least empathic of all Warrens. Where Cleansers are the good cops, the Wardens are their counterparts, expected to keep Sceatha in line by any means necessary for them to be successfully rehabilitated. They embody force, conviction, and authority, and are granted Gifts which reflect such qualities in order to contain and recover the corrupted.” “ these Moles are tough, courageous, and stoic. These qualities are much called upon, for it is their burden to contain, monitor, and protect Sceatha held in captivity” “ Wardens embody intimidation, conviction, and authority in every action they take. This can sometimes be expressed with the exciting encouragement of an elder sibling, the sternness of a loving parent, or the detached professional attitudes of their human namesakes.” There are others, like Trackers and Diggers and Architects, but those are more concerned with burrowing tunnels or simply finding/retrieving Sceatha (Wyrm-tainted or otherwise corrupt creatures in need of healing/rehabilitation) rather than actually guarding and treating them, so they’re of less interest to me. The Diggers do also make tunnels in the Umbra, which is the spirit world, which is a pretty cool concept. - Their Homid (human) forms are as wonderfully unglamorous as moles themselves-- “ usually naturally heavy, with excessive body hair and poor eyesight. Their hands and feet are often disproportionately large compared to their small stature and otherwise short limbs, but for these physical shortfalls they make up with greater levels of strength, health, smell, hearing, and directional coordination” A far cry from the ridiculously sexy werewolf boyfriends of paranormal romance fiction. Love it. They also typically have jobs in sanitation or rehabilitation-- “ These individuals find employment as city planners, prison guards and wardens, subway and sewer maintenance operatives, and similar jobs focused around organisation, rehabilitation, and the conservation of resources both material and human. It’s a rare occurrence that an up-and-coming track athlete or singer enters the Vision Crawl.” Again, love it. - Their Crinos form (the hybrid form or “war form”) is HORRIFYING-- “ a large amalgamation of mole and human standing at 7 feet tall and over 80 stone in weight, a hunched monster which could never exist in the natural order of the surface world [. . .] twisted faces and sightless eyes [. . .] Knife-like teeth protrude along the length of their muzzles and shovelling claws grow from each clubbed hand” - Most wereanimals are weak to silver. Some varieties are weak to gold. But weremoles are weak to obsidian and other black gems. - Unlike most wereanimals, moldwarps can become vampires, and these unfortunate creatures are called The Baogane, also known as Bugbears. They are the saddest things I have ever heard of. “ The existence of a Baogane poses burning questions to her Sett. Should she receive an honourable Final Death and be given over to Gaia? Should she be put through arduous cleansing in the small hope it works? Or, more dubiously, should she be allowed to serve the Burrow eternally? Setts who are unfortunate enough to lose one of their own to a Leech make their own decisions on what to do with their fallen kin.” “ Baoganes look similar to how they did in life, save for their fangs being unnaturally long even for vampires. In Crinos form, these fangs splay out either side of their face to resemble the curved tusks of a boar, and sometimes punch through the flesh of their gums and lips. The fur of all forms - even Homid hair - becomes permanently sharp, coarse, and patchy, again similar to that of a boar.” “ Soil does not merely cling to the fur and skin of a Bugbear as it would to any other subterranean creature, but latches on with supernatural power, reflecting the earth’s desire to see such a monster dead and buried. Over the space of but a few nights, the Moldwarp may become so covered in filth and earthen debris that her size and shape cannot be discerned.” “ Baoganes often spend their unlives trapped within cleansing chambers, awaiting rehabilitation that may never come without their much-sought-after destruction. Many are granted the Thing of Salvation, though some willing penitents are denied even that.” The “Thing of Salvation” of course, is final death. The weremoles call very important ceremonies or celebrations, Things. Thing of Deliverance, Thing of the Hill, etc. - I honestly can’t overstate how new and crazy it is they wish to rehabilitate the Wyrm-tainted and save the Wyrm itself. For DECADES the entire point of this game has been FUCK UP THE WYRM’S SHIT. The Wyrm has always been the ultimate evil, even more so than the Weaver who is technically the one at fault for it going crazy, and EVERY wereanimal has had “destroy the Wyrm’s servants” in their own laws. And yet in the weremole’s laws, you’re NOT allowed to kill Sceatha unless your own life is threatened---” Sceatha are not of sound mind and so do not deserve unnecessary harm, irrespective of their most vile actions; only once they are cured are they to be judged as independent beings by the rest of the world. If that judgment is death, then they must be returned to Gaia without delay. Destroying befouled artefacts out of hand, meanwhile, is wasteful and disrespectful of their already-violated spirits.” Like this is just...so out of line from EVERY OTHER WERECREATURE it’s WILD, and it’s no wonder all the other critters are distrustful of them AT BEST. - So, Run’s End, that place they don’t ever let the Ratkin go? It sounds AMAZING, like so beautiful and spooky. It’s this realm “where death and decay occur, but peacefully and purely. This peace, however, is maintained only by the avid cleansing of its space by high-ranking Moldwarps, making it a nigh-impenetrable refuge of solemn deathliness suspended between zones of total corruption. Only by travelling along the Run, or traversing the turbulent dimensions held up by Run’s End to eventually find a border between worlds, may a being enter this place of pure, tranquil death. All is not quite as it should be, of course, for vicious battles constantly rage at the borders of Run’s End” “ The geography of Run’s End is reminiscent of an ancient Mayan jungle, at the heart of which stands a colossal obsidian temple to the Balance Wyrm, the structure in which the Lord of the Run resides beside his High Scrivein, Sanctus, and Thegn. This temple, the Body of Death, plays host to any great debate waged by high-Ranking Moldwarps, including each and every Althing. Around the Body of Death stretches the Fungal Forest, with mycelial growths a hundred metres tall stretching as far as the eye can see, generating natural luminescences of deep purple, dark red, and ochre green. From the unseen roof of the realm slowly descend all manner of remains - of humans, animals, plants, and even concepts, hopes, and dreams long forgotten - like snowflakes, landing gently atop the fungal canopy to be slowly digested. A fine film of red, brown, and green covers the undergrowth, having seeped down from the mushroom caps high above. Amongst these fungi are found equally decomposed but animate carrion beasts of all varieties lapping up the rotting fluids: insects, corvids, and Consumer Worms as long and thick as oak trunks winding amongst the mushroom stumps, soaking in the decay Despite its dire aspect, the fear of death for any being present in the Fungal Forest is simply absent; the fact that death comes for all is readily apparent, but comes as a comfort. Though not part of the Underworld proper, the Forest is a manifestation of final rest. From the gentle dripping of corpse-fluid to the slow undulation of the Consumer Worms, there is no violation or undue destruction in this Forest, only the equalising end of all things. Indeed, all beings who enter Run’s End begin decaying almost immediately; only those with some form of supernatural regeneration, or whose protection has been specifically petitioned for, may withstand it. Equally, the Body of Death allows only full-blooded Moldwarps to enter, with instant death and rapid decomposition coming to all others. At the Obsidian Reach, young and old Moldwarps alike dig to find something that they believe will bring them renown and acclaim, with no actual promise that anything lies beneath. The Obsidian Reach was actually discovered by the Gazers of the Deep during their very first visit. The Reach is infinitely high and wide and consists of solid obsidian, which naturally is almost unbreakable by Moldwarp standards. The stone itself bears the scratch marks and gouges of generations of claws trying to breach its shell. Beyond the stone’s infinite blackness, it has been told, are beings swept up in a storm mocking those who try to reach them, lands of shining cyclopean architecture, and even the resting bodies of mighty but unborn giants. Such claims are overlooked by all but the Gazers, but this does not prevent adventurers from ceaselessly trying to breach this inky vault.” LIKE THIS IS SO EERIE AND UNNERVING AND YET STRANGELY LOVELY AND SOOTHING TO ME? I AM REALLY LOVING MOLDWARP LORE

#owod #werewolf the apocalypse #wta #world of darkness #moldwarps #weremoles #out of shirt #this has basically become a wod fanblog on the side

7 notes · View notes

silyabeeodess · 5 years ago

Text

Thoughts on Frisk, Chara, and the Player

Besides what I’ve covered briefly in the description of a comic a few years back, this is long overdue; however, since I might make something focusing on Chara in the future, I decided to go ahead and put down my two cents on these two characters. Since this is effectively a long essay, I’ll have everything below the cut:

One of the most longstanding debates among Undertale fans is the morality of these characters and their relation to the Player. Some see Frisk and Chara as effectively polar embodiments of good and evil following the Pacifist and Genocide routes while others see the Player alone as the individual in control of all choices with the two characters bowing to that control. The truth might be somewhere in the middle.

Let’s cover the most basic thing first. The Player is you. Yes, it’s your decisions that take the story in different directions, but you are not a character. You are not a part of the world of Undertale. You’re an intruder, an outsider, an anomaly--something that the people in Undertale only seem to have a vague understanding of. Characters like Flowey will break the 4th wall by calling you out for your actions, but it’s often from the idea that you’re still Chara--even if Chara’s own story played out long before you came in. Chara will ask for your SOUL, but you personally don’t actually sacrifice anything: Even as far as the game’s story goes with the “Soulless Pacifist” route, the most you lose is the time is takes to reinstall the game and play it as you normally would. You can cheat them out of “your SOUL” easily. They think you’re Frisk.

Most glaringly, however, is that both Frisk and Chara will fight against some of your decisions. For Chara, you have them not giving you much of a choice with how you end the Genocide route and declaring that you were never in control, amongst other actions like killing Asgore and Flowey. Most people might not notice Frisk’s refusal beyond the fact that we don’t pick their name like we can Chara’s; however, the point where this becomes most clear is during our interactions with Undyne on a Pacifist Run. When we try to become Undyne’s friend and she insists on fighting anyway after her house catches fire, we have the choice to fight back. Doing so though results in a weak attack, which Undyne declares as being the result of a lack of will to hurt her. That isn’t the Player’s decision, and it effectively forces us to spare her whether we want to or not.

This relationship parallels what we also see in Deltarune, with the Player there also exhibiting control over Kris, but Kris fighting back. Kris isn’t an empty vessel or puppet for the Player to manipulate, and the same can be said for Frisk and Chara in Undertale. It’s a form of temporary possession, where we--an otherworldly being--take over a host for as long a period as the game’s designers allow. It means that we can’t pin our actions on either Frisk or Chara. Let’s go back to that second paragraph though. The other characters don’t really know this, making Frisk/Chara/Kris suffer as a result.

From a gameplay perspective, this is an awesome idea to tackle. From a story perspective, meanwhile, things get a little complicated.

Here’s the thing about handling it simply as a story: The Player often has to be ripped out of the equation. Again, you aren’t a character, and the only way the Player can really be present in the world of Undertale is as an OC or persona based on the independent choices of each creator. Keeping them out means leaving the choices we would normally make 100% up to Frisk/Chara. Ergo, stop attacking artists and writers for their portrayals of those two when creators have to give them qualities that are entirely up to each individuals ideas and experiences to try and fill in a bunch of blanks. Beyond Chara’s backstory giving us some information on who they were, which is mostly told to us through other characters, there is no perfectly in-character portrayal of either of them.

Which I guess brings us to the part where I try explaining my idea of them. So let’s start with Chara, since again, they have the most background info.

What are some canon points we can cover with Chara?

Asriel describes them as “not the greatest person,” but still cared for them deeply as his best friend. From the recordings in the True Lab, we see they had a good friendship, even if Chara often took a more leading role.

Also according to Asriel, Chara “hated humanity” and had an unhappy reason for climbing the mountain.

It was Chara’s plan to commit suicide, have Asriel take their SOUL, and try to kill humans to break the barrier.

Chara laughed after poisoning Asgore with buttercups. It’s presumed by Asriel to have been an accident, but we don’t know Chara’s knowledge on the situation.

An extended monologue from Asgore has him describe Frisk and Chara as having “the same look of hope in their eyes.”

Asgore considered Chara “the future of humans and monsters.”

They refer to themselves as “the demon who comes when people call its name.”

As of the Genocide route, their goal is the complete destruction of Undertale’s world to join the Player and move on to another. They pin the Player’s actions on their newfound “purpose” to attain power.

Narration in the game is different depending on the route, speaking commonly from a 2nd-person POV on Pacifist and Neutral runs, but 1st-person on a Genocide run. This alludes that Chara is always with us during gameplay.

Chara’s dialogue mimics Toriel’s, hinting to a close relationship following the concepts of mimicry being a form of flattery and a child’s desire to be like a positive adult figure in their lives.

So here’s what I think. Chara’s hatred toward humanity is supported not only by Asriel’s confession, but also in their actions. If Chara took control as Asriel described after crossing the Barrier to kill humans and take their SOULS, that willingness to commit murder along with their own suicide indicates not only that general disdain, but also a hefty amount of self-loathing simply for being human. Whatever happened to them prior to entering the Underground, that hatred was likely only nursed further by knowledge and ideas fed to them from monsterkind: Humans hurt monsters too and monsters are supposedly “made of compassion” while “humans don’t need any.” (They may have even been bullied or faced prejudice for being human, even if it wasn’t from the Dreemurrs, just like how Frisk was constantly attacked on-site.) This likely led to a monster-centric worldview where all of humanity--and even themselves, to a point--was the enemy.

I imagine the “Mr. Dad Guy” sweater we find was made by Chara rather than Asriel because of the inclusion of “guy” at the end, since this seems like something more of an adopted child would do than a biological one, maybe not entirely comfortable with the idea yet of calling Toriel and Asgore “Mom” and “Dad.” I truly do think Chara loved their newfound family and never meant to hurt Asgore: The laugh, while it can’t be confirmed, seemed to be a mark of mental instability rather than something of true malice. With the pressure of being called “the future of humans and monsters” as well, they probably felt like they had to be responsible for humanity’s actions as a whole even if they personally did nothing wrong. From that perspective, their life--and any other human’s--mattered less than a monster’s, because they had to atone for the crimes of others. Humanity itself had to atone. This is why they would be so willing to sacrifice themselves and kill for the sake of breaking the Barrier.

So what happens when the monsters Chara placed on a pedestal start breaking their script? Asriel stopping Chara from committing murder is one thing: That seemed to be one part of the plan that Chara didn’t tell him about, probably because they knew he wouldn’t agree to it. Beyond that though? What happens when monsters stop showing that legendary compassion? Asriel started playing with lives and killed for fun as Flowey. Asgore declared war against humanity and started killing children. Toriel left her position as queen and couldn’t protect anyone. Not only was their happy family broken, but monsters started acting like the humans they claimed to be better than through their own “weaknesses” and desire to kill. They were supposed to be above humanity’s choices, above even Chara’s choices. Vengeance isn’t an excuse anymore: It’s all the same, and it feels like the ultimate betrayal.

They’re all the same. Monsters, humans, it doesn’t matter. It’s an ugly world where only the strong and terrible reign, and it deserves to be destroyed. There’s nothing left. There’s no good left. There’s no hope left...

Unless, maybe, someone new enters the game. Can they rekindle that hope or will they only prove those dark thoughts right?

In comes Frisk, who we really only know as a blank slate. We don’t know their history or their desires except to leave the Underground one way or another. We can’t really say much, so this is where it really is entirely up in the air how we portray them.

A personal headcanon of mine is that they were a bit of a little thief, “frisking” things off of others--which is why we can get G even without killing in the game. A very morally grey character, fitting the multiple routes Undertale’s story can go and Sans description of them “maybe not being a saint” even if they play as a Pacifist. Maybe they don’t really know what the right choice always is, but they desire to do their best when possible.

I can’t say much here because, as I’ve said several times now, it’s up to everyone. Me? I like a Pacifist Frisk, even if they struggling and suffer before reaching their happy ending. Some might have them go through a Genocide route on their own or by Chara’s possession. Some have them with guilt-riddled consciences and others treat them as the purest of souls. Some pick different endings.

So enjoy your interpretations, your characterizations, and your AUs. You don’t have to agree with my ideas or anyone else’s: Just don’t bash others for theirs. Undertale’s gameplay opens things to everyone’s personal experience and should be enjoyed as such.

#undertale #ut #analysis #thoughts #chara #frisk #the player #video games #artists #writers #ut fandom

15 notes · View notes

xoruffitup · 6 years ago

Text

The Report & Marriage Story: Adam Driver at TIFF

(If you just want to skip down to one/both of the film recaps, scroll on down to The Report and Marriage Story bolded headings. :)) There are some pics and vids down there too!)

So my friend Sarah and I spent just over 24 hours in Toronto, and it’s no exaggeration to say that during those 24 hours Adam made us feel the entire spectrum of every single possible human emotion. The Report was a nerve-wracking, intelligent, quick-witted political drama set at a break-neck pace of horrific headline after shuddering truth after sickening revelation. Marriage Story was nothing short of a masterpiece - delivering laughs, heartbreak, emotional turmoil, tears, and aching poignancy. I’m not usually one for romantic or real-life dramas like Marriage Story, but damn if that film wasn’t literally one of the most moving and powerful pieces of cinema I’ve seen in recent memory. The Report rises to the same standards, but for completely different reasons.

The films themselves are so incredibly well made in terms of writing and production, but seeing Adam in two major leading roles back to back that couldn’t have been more utterly different in tone or persona was nothing short of flooring. I know this, and of course most of you reading this also know, but GOD it isn’t even possible to fully describe the breadth and sheer force of Adam’s talent. The performances were light years apart, and yet both seared with completely unique energy that just radiated off the screen. I’ve watched almost everything Adam has appeared in, I know he’s the best actor of his generation, and yet he still manages to completely stun me with his seemingly never-ending ability to reveal an entirely different way of being in a new role. Beyond simply an accent or posture, Adam has this unparalleled ability to not only embody a completely novel persona each time, but to then completely naturally reveal that persona’s deepest, truest essence with the smallest facial twitch, turn of his head, or break in his voice. Watching him in a fresh role is literally like discovering a new facet of the human experience.

Watching these superb films in a setting like this massive film festival, where the audience was riveted and excited to engage with the content, elevated both of the viewing experiences to monumental heights. THEN, there was the fact that before and after each screening, Adam and the rest of the main cast members would come on stage with the director to speak about the film and answer questions. This of course meant – being me – that even the slightest glimpse of him would send me into silent fits of glee and awe. So combine being in Adam’s presence repeatedly and for rather long stretches of time with the emotional hurricane powerhouse of not just one but two film epics, ANNND yup it was a recipe for Biggest Emotional Rollercoaster Trainwreck Ever Known To Man. :’)

I did (somehow) manage to keep myself together! Enough so that I asked Adam a question during the Marriage Story Q&A! ;_____; (Sarah was trying to film covertly so needed a second to achieve that zoom action!)

vimeo

I couldn’t even tell you how it’s possible to string two coherent words together while speaking to 6’2” of well-dressed Talented Babe who’s fucking radiant in person, because it’s literally like an out-of-body experience where some alter ego screaming ‘TALK! TO! HIM!’ just takes over my body while the rest of me is floating off into the stratosphere!!!! (Skip on down to the Marriage Story movie analysis for more info on what I was asking about.)

Okay so let me back up and go through the day chronologically so I have SOME organization for my fangirl thoughts!

I got into Toronto from a 14-hour bus ride at 8:30 AM; Sarah got in on a flight at 9:30. We met up at our hotel and went straight to the theatre where the premium screenings would be taking place. We were able to get front barrier spots along the street and who soon arrived but none other than….!

Our lord and savior Rian Johnson, all hail! He directed the movie Knives Out that was playing at 11 AM in the same theatre. We took turns grabbing coffees because brrrr the Toronto morning was a bit nippy. The Report screening was scheduled to start at 1:45, but none of the cast had shown up yet as of 1:00. Shortly after, big cars started to pull up and Annette Bening and Jon Hamm arrived! We started nail-biting a bit at this point, because we needed to get into the theater 15 minutes before the movie started otherwise they might give our tickets away to people in the Rush Ticket line, but Adam hadn’t arrived yet and there was a chance he would sign for the barricade when he did. But once it started ticking below 15 minutes and still no sign of Adam (tension was real – the whole crowd would go quiet every time a car pulled up, then all sigh in disappointment when someone other than Adam got out), we called it and went to join the Ticketholder line to enter theatre.

WELL, good thing we did! Turns out Adam arrived late and had to rush inside right away, and we had the very serendipitous timing of walking past the secret elevator entrance up into the theater RIGHT when the elevator doors opened and Adam appeared, walking out and into the theater auditorium!! My heart slapped me in the face a bit (a lot) when we caught that glimpse of him so close up. I know there are plenty of pics now but he looked sO striking and sleek in that understated, classic blue suit. He’s SO taLL and still so massive when he’s a few feet away, don’t worry guys he looked plenty healthy even if without the Kylo Ren bulk <333 IT WAS GREAT. I COULD CRY ABOUT JUST THAT MOMENT. God help me with everything that would follow :’’’’’)

Before The Report started, Director Scott Z Burns came on stage to give a brief introduction. This was the first time the film was screening outside of the US and he was very much looking forward to the response and a wider dialogue about the issues raised in the film. He introduced the cast, and was joined on stage by the producer, Jon Hamm (who came on stage in a very silly fashion – see vid below), Annette Bening, and then Adam. And damn if that man didn’t look even MORE drop dead beautiful up there in stage lights. Be still, my heart.

…fat chance of that happening, because my heart was about to rev up into breakneck pace for the following 2.5 hours of the film.

The Report (We’re about to get very spoilery, fair warning!)

Movies are often called “important.” This one is more than that; it is imperative. The tragedy that will plague this film is that much like the staffers of the Senate and CIA that bicker back and forth throughout the decade chronicled in this movie; unproductive bickering will continue between those who appreciate a difficult truth-seeking film like this, and those that will disparage it knowing only the bare minimum of its premise. The latter will do so because of their unswerving understanding of American Patriotism to mean that America comes first, that there’s no justification more ironclad and unquestionable than national security, and America wins no matter the cost.

But. If by some miracle, the people of that latter group could be corralled into watching this film, it just might change their minds.

This movie is difficult. It is horrifying, at times nauseating. It challenges you as the investigations and counter-investigations build over each other, as the conflicting characterizations of the Enhanced Interrogation Techniques (EIT) program multiply, and yet even for all that, its takeaway hits you with clarity that is both sobering and impartial.

“National security” rationales were a chimera for barbarisms that achieved nothing. The US government tortured, degraded, and murdered prisoners at its mercy for no demonstrable reason or result. One of the most on-the-nose scenes where all the many moving parts of this complex, dirty history come together is when Dan meets with a New York Times journalist in his car towards the end, as he debates giving his report to the press to release when he fears government red tape will never let it see the light of day. The reporter asks him something like, “Why did the CIA keep doing it, if it wasn’t working?”

After two head-spinning, sickening, revelatory two hours, Dan compresses it all down to something like: “After 9/11 everyone was scared, and the CIA used that fear to act with impunity. They resorted to illegal means to try to keep some control of the situation. They knew it was wrong, and they knew it wasn’t working, so they became more desperate for results to justify it. And it was easy, because the detainees looked different than us. They spoke a different language than us, with different values.”

And so it spiraled to darker and darker depths, in which one failure to produce information by dubious means was taken to justify the next escalation in interrogation techniques.

This is where I need to warn everyone that this is not easy viewing. This film doesn’t let you shy away from what these interrogation techniques really meant. It doesn’t sanitize. You will see waterboarding happening. You will see people naked and chained in cells. You will see glimpses of even worse depravities. And then you will see the psychologist contractors who came to the black sites and claimed with utterly clueless, infuriating impunity that no, they’d never interrogated a terrorist before; no, they didn’t know anything about international law or the rights to trial and legal counsel. (“You think he’s getting a trial?” one said skeptically when his techniques were questioned.) But what they did know was the human brain and how to break it down. Then, you will see the CIA top brass back in DC who never saw with their own eyes even an instant of the abuses they were blithely and sanctimoniously sanctioning.

This film poses the question of how one defines American Patriotism. Chances are, you’re not going to be much moved by the CIA staff’s understanding - who say in defense of their tactics, “It’s only illegal if it doesn’t work.” Then when it doesn’t work, who go on to baselessly credit their EIT program with the intelligence that led to Bin Laden’s capture.

Then, we have Dan Jones/Adam. Dan Jones, who spent literally five years of his life in a basement bunker researching and scraping details together about a program the CIA did everything they could to keep under lock and key. He persevered when the CIA refused to provide any documents, communications, or witnesses; when the CIA denied that they themselves internally questioned the effectiveness of the program; even when they accused him of stealing the documents he finally managed to get his hands on. When the real Dan Jones was brought on stage after the film ended, he received a minutes-long standing ovation that couldn’t have been more deserved.

Most of the audience would probably find it difficult to identify with that understanding of patriotism that claims “It’s only illegal if it doesn’t work” and “Shouldn’t we be grateful just for the fact that we live in a country where a report like this can be written?” (claimed by Jon Hamm as Obama’s Chief of Staff, when pressed by Bening’s Diane Feinstein about releasing the report before the mid-term shift of the Senate going Republican.) What’s much more moving is Feinstein’s rejoinder that “I want to live in a country that publishes this report.” Or the coup-de-grace scene towards the film’s end that incorporates real footage of John McCain’s speech on the Senate floor against the EIT program, when he introduced the McCain-Feinstein bill that would ban the practice. When McCain called on the US to be better than its enemies, and to maintain a standard of honor worth defending.

Dan puts it painfully aptly in the full monologue teased in the trailer: “They say they saved lives but what they really did was make it impossible to prosecute a mass murderer, because if what we did to him ever comes out in a court of law, the case is over. The guy planned 9/11… (continued from memory) … but instead of spending the rest of his life in jail, we turned him into the strongest recruiting tool for our enemies.”

These moments of Dan’s desperation to make others see the truth so glaringly, shamefully obvious to him are when he delivers his most biting rejoinders. As he questions John Yoo’s legal justification in the Torture Memo of the interrogations not amounting to torture so long as they don’t cause “lasting harm”, Dan points to the detainee who died under the conditions of his confinement and demands, “So how long is he going to be dead?!”

Okay so FINALLY, here’s where I turn to Adam’s oh so stellar performance. Adam mentioned in both the Q&A after this screening and in a previous interview that he had to learn the appropriate sense of “decorum” from Dan Jones that would befit a Senate staffer. Adam nailed it. He was playing a relatively low-ranking staffer, grappling with issues of abuse and mismanagement that would have incriminated all manner of public figures miles above him. He had no real power to do anything about the horrific truths he was unearthing, and yet there were too many moments when he seemed to be the only one who truly understood or cared for the truth. Adam played this tight-knit, occasionally fraying sense of necessary professionalism with just the right amount of restraint and understatement. His performance was never boisterous nor melodramatic. And yet, the ever more desperate edge to his dedication couldn’t have been more palpable. Adam’s performance delivered every bit of impact commensurate to the towering gravity of Dan Jones’ investigation.

And yet, for every bit that Adam’s performance remained appropriately understated (it never felt like anything but a true-to-life depiction; hardly ever making you aware you’re watching a dramatization), the depth and nuance in its subtlety was nothing short of masterful. His brief but singeing moments of frustration are short-lived but strike deeply. What really struck me though were two particularly powerful #King of Microexpressions moments.

When the threat of criminal charges for hacking into CIA records is raised against him and he sees a lawyer for the first time to assess his options. After he has to face the fact that this is more complicated than his repeated assertion that “I didn’t do it. I didn’t do it.” He’s quiet for a moment, then asks in a soft, defeated voice, “How long could I go away?” The camera zooms close on Adam’s face when the lawyer responds “twenty years.” Adam’s face barely changes, and yet you can see that number settling into him with pained horror alongside incomprehension. It’s one of those moments where without saying anything, without barely even a gesture, Adam renders his character so desperately empathetic. As the viewer, you realize at that moment you’ve been building an irresistible and compelling emotional connection to him since the second you saw him the first time, and he didn’t even make you aware he was doing it.

The shot in the trailer of him sitting at a desk between the two giant stacks of his report papers. This is when the Senate Intelligence Committee is taking a vote whether to recommend the investigation for further action. I’m pretty sure Adam didn’t say a single line in this scene. Senator Feinstein called the Committee to vote, and as the voices around the table chime “aye” or “nay,” the camera does a slow pan on Dan sitting there, listening with his hands folded. You can barely trace the shifts in his expression. You can barely see anything discernible in his face, and yet simply by the way his shoulders move, the way his jaw shifts every so slightly, and the way he blinks – you’re right there on the edge of your seat with him. You can feel in your very soul his repressed, barely-controlled sense of desperation as the report that’s become his life’s work is put to a vote of either life or death.

Guys, just in case you didn’t realize this by now… Adam is a wonder and it simply defies my understanding how everyone in the whole world hasn’t come to consensus by now that he invented acting and everyone else can just go home and let him play every role ever.

Okay now the one kind of amusing bit in the film! Sadly most audience members won’t get the same kick out of this that we will, but Joanne is in the film playing a CIA staffer. She and Adam share one scene, in which she walks up to him and says, “Your face and your report are bullshit.”

INCREDIBLE. Roast your man, Joanne.

Although the movie tries to tie things up with the McCain-Feinstein anti-torture amendment that ended the EIT program and shows a quote by George Washington before the credits (in what to me seemed a bit of a forced attempt to put a comforting lid on everything) what left me feeling most helpless and frustrated was seeing how partisan politics repeatedly derailed meaningful action against the EIT program throughout the entire span of the film, and knowing full well that that’s exactly how DC still operates. There’s a scene where the timing of publishing the report is being debated. (“If we push this now, the Republicans will pull gun control. What if they pull healthcare?”) And to me, the most infuriating part is seeing the ethics by which our government runs constantly reduced to mere bargaining chips.

It seems there are no absolute lines of the permissible and impermissible. As we see, the CIA got away with torturing unarmed prisoners for years because they disguised it behind code words, wrapped it in nonsensical legal jargon to authorize it, engaged in some serious doublethink and called it a day. Constant debates that twist and manipulate the issues at stake can reduce every law to subjective application. Fallacies in logic and gruesome vengeance disguised as national security measures are defended without shame. The same modes of thinking that started the EIT program and sustained it for year upon shameful, unsuccessful year continue spinning the wheels of today’s destructive and shortsighted policies of self-interest and American exceptionalism.

OKAY, I’m off my soapbox now. Promise.

But last thing. Think about this for a crazy minute: Dan Jones’s report in full was some 7,000 pages. The only version that was ever published was heavily redacted down to a few hundred. What an incredible feat of scriptwriting that a five-year investigation that produced 7,000 pages worth of text was condensed down into a 2 hour movie.

((Also – I kept thinking at regular interviews during the film that holy shit this is giving me such strong vibes of my Presidential staffer Ben in my modern politics AU and I LOVED IT. I’m so extra inspired to press on writing!!))

End Spoilers: The Q&A afterwards! After the audience spent a few minutes giving Daniel Jones his much-deserved minutes of applause, the panel moderator started with a few questions, and here Jon Hamm and Annette Bening immediately started messing with Adam. (It’s clear they’re all buddies who love each other and I appreciate it so much :3) Whenever questions were posed generally to the cast, they would both immediately start passing the microphones down the line towards Adam, knowing full well that he wouldn’t want to talk but nudging him to do so anyway >:)) At one point he wound up with two microphones at the same time and started desperately shoving one back at Annette! For one question, before the microphones could be thrust upon him, as soon as Jon looked over towards him Adam sidestepped back behind the group and turned to start feeling the screen like he was looking for a way out. Lskdjflaskj DORK <3 Annette immediately teased him like “There’s no door, Adam!” and then on a later question that was also posed to “the cast,” Jon and Adam both started pretending to look for a door together. :’)

When responding to a question about what drew him to the role, Adam made a really interesting comment about Dan as a character who “gets the instructions for something to build, and it turns out he was building his own gallows.” (Video below!) He also spoke a bit as to the fact that he was intrigued to create a clear depiction of the internal effort to fact-find and implement accountability about such a contested, tangled issue for which a whole PR campaign existed to defend, even with misinformation.

vimeo

Have I mentioned how GOOD he looked in that suit?! Somehow he looked extra tall, I thought. And again, I know people are concerned about how thin he is right now, but he really looked fine!! His face is definitely a bit thinner, but his face shape has often changed along with his physique whenever he’s buffed up or down. He still looked plenty solid and very very damn pretty. >:3

Being the adoring fangirls we are, we’re well familiar with Adam’s ~discomfort or stiffness when he’s forced to be in public and speak at things like this. (We love one (1) awkward antisocial man.) During this panel, even though his answers had his usual introspection and self-deprecating, unconscious charm, he seemed to have an extra air of seriousness/attentiveness to him when listening to others’ comments or to audience questions. While he was giving the serious topic every bit the gravity it deserved, he also seemed to be conscious of not seeming partisan to any particular political outlook? I mean, the audience would often clap when someone on the panel said something about how the takeaways from the film are still relevant to the dysfunction and hypocrisy in today’s political climate. Adam would join in the clapping, but something I’ve always respected about him is that he never infuses his persona opinions – whatever they may be – with discussion of his work or his approach to it. I think it takes a lot of hubris and self-awareness to maintain that distinction, and resist the temptation to use a public platform to advance your own opinions. But he never seems remotely interested in any such thing. AITAF advocacy is maybe the closest, but even in that context he remains very restrained.

Did I mention he looked Beautiful like a damn vision? ;____;

Okay so leaving the theatre, my and Sarah’s heads were reeling. There was SO much to process and discuss from the film, we were grabbing onto our favorite lines and moments to recall, which launched us into discussion about political affairs today, interspersed with the occasional “Can you BELIEVE Adam’s Power in that one scene?!” and basically it was my absolute favorite kind of impassioned conversation ever. <333

Time was ticking though, and just before 5 we needed to head back to the theater entrance before Marriage Story started at 5:30. Okay and here – as if we hadn’t already endured enough emotional walloping today – came two massive emotional rollercoasters right after the other! With how little time we had between the films, it was difficult for us to get into the red carpet crowd just beforehand. But as we turned the corner, we heard shouts of his name and !!!!!! there he was outside signing!! Bless his heart, he was across the street from the theatre signing for the long line of people on the other side who I hadn’t seen anyone go over to that morning. :’) Sarah and I ran over to try to join the end of the line and he almooooost got down to us, but it was a little too dicey with the line being kind of chaotic where the barrier ended. But WE WERE SO CLOSE TO HIM. HE WAS RADIANT EVEN WHILE LOOKING ADORABLY SLIGHTLY GRUMPY WHILE HE UNCOMPLAININGLY TOOK PHOTOS AND HE’S THE BEST AND MOST EXQUISITE EVER

I can just imagine in his head like halfway down that line: “oh god this was a mistake. Adam what did you do.” <3333

Emotional rollercoaster moment #2: Because Adam and ScarJo were both out signing, the sidewalk right in front of the theater had been barricaded off. This meant that we weren’t allowed to enter the theater until they both went inside, which only left us a few minutes to spare! We rushed to the entrance, but alas there was a problem with scanning our tickets, so we were told to go to the Box Office to get them reprinted. We’re already on edge, afraid we’re going to miss the beginning of the film, when the woman at the Box Office tells us she can’t reprint the tickets because the name on them doesn’t match ours. (We bought them from a resale site so of course it didn’t…)

Even after showing her every email we had documenting payment and that the tickets were transferred through an official sale site, she remained adamant it was policy that she couldn’t print the tickets. Clearly, we were kind of devastated for a moment there, thinking we’d just paid way over face value for these tickets that weren’t even going to work. But Sarah, bless her soul, had the idea to leave, then go back in through a different door with a different ticket scanner person. The tickets still didn’t scan correctly, but we told the woman scanning that we’d already ambiguously “checked” with the box office, and honestly I think she was just a very nice person and could sense our Desperation, so SHE LET US IN. Woman – wherever you are right now, know that we love you and are forever indebted to you. ;___;

By the time we got to our seats, Noah Baumbach was already on stage introducing the film. But luckily we were in our seats, we had caught our breath and clutched each other in rejoicing relief before Noah introduced the cast and brought Adam and Scarlett on stage. Queue lots of enthusiastic applause! Someone in the audience yelled, “We love you Scarlett!” There were some whoops through the theater, then someone else yelled, “And we love you too, Adam!” and he did an adorable awk wave of appreciation and have I meNtiOnED this giant of a man is the softest and most precious being to ever grace this world????? And I’m not sure if it’s come up yet or if maybe I haven’t mentioned? But I really really really love him? ;____;

Thank gosh Sarah caught it! Painfully presh video of our painfully presh man!

Marriage Story: (Again, there will be spoilers)

Oh god, okay. This one was a beast of massively epic proportions that I was not nearly prepared for. It takes you on an intense fucking ride that spans every possible angle of passion between two people, ranging from love to hatred. To be entirely honest, I had gone into the day more excited for The Report because the subject matter was of such interest to me, and because I’m not usually one to really enjoy real-life dramas all that much.

But this fucking movie was Exquisite from the very first shot. The film opens with the “What I love about Nicole / What I love about Charlie” voice overs, and within the span of mere minutes you already feel deeply for these characters. You already feel as if they’ve been your close friends all your life, and instead of just entering your awareness abruptly – they’ve lived entire lives with ups and downs, mistakes and successes for as long as you can remember.

The movie is a sweeping epic, and yet remains achingly resonant and relatable. Charlie and Nicole’s relationship is passionate, fiery, and riddled with both miscommunications and repressed resentments. You rarely see a (doomed) love study played out with such complexity and fireworks. And yet, their frustrations, desires, and victories/losses both large and small are completely credible. Relationships are messy, and this film doesn’t shy away from their absolute darkest and even cruelest corners - even while maintaining sparkling moments of human connection that somehow survive alongside even the most difficult challenges.

The film is a brilliant study of contradictions. As Charlie and Nicole move through the divorce process, their control over it and the very narrative of their own lives becomes appropriated by their respective lawyers. The beginning of the film showed us the tenderness and deep understanding that exists between these characters, so the stories the legal teams spin seem ridiculously far afield from reality. The beginning of the film brought us into a rich world between these characters that was natural and so effortlessly believable (long, uncut monologues of dialogue; characters wandering from room to room as they talk – It’s masterfully and deceptively purposeful filmmaking that completely hides all trace of itself). Then later, listening to the lawyers concoct disingenuous legal narratives to “win” rather than tell any truth of reality is a towering contrast. The lawyers seize on the smallest tiny things Nicole or Charlie did in previous scenes (Nicole finishing a bottle of wine in one night with her family; Charlie forgetting to strap in their son’s car seat once) to paint them as habitual alcoholics or neglectful, absent parents. As the divorce proceedings escalate, things become distorted past recognition – twisted into abstracted and even absurd depictions of these two characters, between which we simply can’t decide whom we feel more sympathy for.

And then, following a gloves-off divorce hearing couched in legalese where neither side gives any quarter, you have a scene that’s quiet and effortlessly heartwarming. Nicole calls Charlie because the power’s out at her house and could he try to fix the power box in the front yard? He comes over, he works on the box, they pass their sleeping son between them (“Maybe he should just sleep here?” “But it’s my night.”), and then they both have to manually pull the gate on the driveway closed from either side – Nicole inside, Charlie outside. They look at each other as they pull the gate, perfectly in sync and their gazes locked, until the gate slides closed in the inches just between their faces. The movie is littered with these tiny gorgeous moments that just tear at your heart.

Or, the moment in the middle of negotiations between their lawyers when everyone decides to pause and order lunch. Charlie is handed the menu and he simply stares at it helplessly, uncomprehending because he’s still trying to work through the shock of their new reality that was just being argued over by the lawyers with such casual cruelty. Everyone stares at him for a long minute, until Nicole gently takes the menu from his hands and says, “I’ll order for him.” She knows just what to order – a salad with a specific type of dressing – and he quietly, almost absently agrees, “Yes, I’ll have that.”

The film takes pains to be even in presenting both sides of the story, and giving Nicole and Charlie equal screen time. I spent the entirety of the movie switching my sympathies back and forth between the two of them. By the film’s end, I understood both of their positions and experiences completely, as well as how much their perspectives on all they shared had come to oppose each other. Even though it’s impossible for either us or the characters to understand how they developed such divergent perspectives on their marriage, all parties involved have to face just how irreconcilable their grievances have become and how differently they each view the fundamental shortcomings of their marriage.

Being the annoying feminist viewer that I am, I was completely absorbed by Nicole’s monologue early on, the first time she meets with her lawyer (Laura Dern). She comes clean with the whole account of how she feels no control over her own life, and the longer she spent with Charlie and living in Charlie’s world, the “smaller” she was becoming. She felt that he didn’t respect her interests or her undertakings, when they weren’t connected to his theatre company. In essence, she feels she never got to be anything other than what he made her.

With that background of her position, I absolutely wanted Nicole to build her own life apart from him and find her own sense of personhood. One where she makes her own decisions and follows her own passions. In her recounting, she keeps saying that she’s used to part of her feeling “dead inside,” in terms of not feeling truly engaged with or in control of what she’s doing with her life. Taking a television acting job in California – separate from Charlie’s theatre company where she was the star under his direction, where he called the shots and she supported “his genius” – was the first time she did something bold for herself. This was also after repeatedly expressing to Charlie that she wanted to spend more time in California (where her family live), and Charlie never seeming to seriously consider the idea. Nicole felt she didn’t really have a voice, living shrouded in Charlie’s shadow.

But also being the annoying Adam fangirl I am, I was drawn in by Charlie’s charisma, by his effortless and guileless charm. I may have “sided” with Nicole towards the beginning of the story, resenting the small ways we could see that Charlie might have unconsciously been controlling (“Did you change your hair? I like it better long.”), but as the story progresses, so does Charlie’s unraveling. His world begins to crumble and fall apart before his very eyes, and even though he tries his best, he’s unable to do a single thing to stop it. Once Nicole gets her high-powered, cutthroat lawyer involved, things escalate beyond all control at breakneck pace. Suddenly he finds himself having to hire lawyers he can’t afford just to prevent the possibility that their 8 year old son Henry might move permanently to California with Nicole and Charlie might not get any custody; or that Nicole will take most of their shared assets and he’ll have nothing left to fund his theatre company with.

Neither of them mean for the negotiations to reach some vindictive heights, but suddenly they both find themselves fighting just to be able to live the life they each think is theirs.

Charlie finds himself having to move temporarily to California and rent an apartment so he can see his son and so Nicole’s lawyers can’t try to depict him as neglectful. We know he’s anything but. The first scenes in the film showed him being so patient and good with Henry that we could just about cry at the injustice.

(There’s the most darling scene at the beginning where little Henry comes into their bedroom, pokes Charlie saying “Dad? I had a nightmare.” Charlie gets up and comes to lay down in Henry’s bed with him. When he tries to get up, Henry asks him to stay, but there’s not really enough space for both of them in the bed so Charlie shifts to sleep on the floor. Queue a shuffling sequence where Henry goes to sleep on the floor next to his dad, Charlie goes up into the bed when it’s empty, then shortly thereafter Henry climbs up on top of Charlie so they both fit in the bed and fall asleep there. Yeah, MY HEART.)

As the accusations start flying when things are on the line during the divorce proceedings, this huge element of performativity comes into play. In a way it’s fitting, since they both work in theater, but these roles of enemies they suddenly have to perform is also terribly heartbreaking. (Also going back to the contrasts I mentioned earlier between the true essence of their relationship and their easy, ceaseless intimacy; vs the cold-hearted narratives forced on them both through the divorce proceedings.)

But in some ways, they’re not just playing the roles. There are two sides to passion, and just like they once cared about and loved each other so intensely (in some ways, they still do), there is also a shadow side to emotions of that intensity. In a catharsis that is much-needed after the austere, inhumane ways their relationship problems were discussed through their lawyers and absolutely devastating to watch in its destruction, their belated attempt to “talk” escalates into all-out war. “Talking” was the route Charlie first wanted to take – no lawyers involved – but which Nicole spurned. I was frustrated with her throughout the film for never fully communicating with him her expectations regarding their separation, but upon further reflection I understand that she might have feared that if they managed it on their own, it would turn into him managing it and her voice would once again disappear. Something along these lines rushes out during this scene of purging their demons and years of budding resentments and secrets all in one near-fatal blow.

(I’m about to quote a few sporadic lines I remember, but I have to say watching this scene with no idea of the savagery that was coming delivered absolutely lethal power, so I kind of advise not knowing the specific lines? Plus they’re a hundred times more powerful on screen, with these top-tier actors delivering them with every bit of feeling they possess. Skip to after both sets of ///// if you don’t want to know! But quoting here for those who don’t know if/when they’ll see the film ☺ These are definitely not in order and they jump around but whew, every moment when they were screaming these lines is simply unforgettable.)

/////////////////

Charlie: “Oh you just like to play the victim. We were happy. YOU were happy. Until you decided you weren’t anymore.”

Nicole: “You are just like your father!”

Charlie: “Don’t you EVER say that! Don’t you ever compare me to my father. You’re the one just like your mother. And your sister - you’re the worst of all of them combined.”

Nicole: “You slept with Donna!”

Charlie: “One time! Because you stopped having sex with me! For a whole year you shut me out and I didn’t know what to do. And after I gave up so much for you.”

Nicole: “Oh what you gave up?!”

Charlie: “I was in my 20s! I had my first solo work, I was successful, I wanted to fuck everyone but I didn’t. Because I loved you and I didn’t want to lose you. But I- I missed out on so much.”

Nicole: “You are SO selfish, you can’t even separate anything else from your own self-interest! You can’t even see me as something separate from yourself!”

Charlie: “So you hate me! You wish you’d never married me, fine, but god this last year it’s like you hated me!”

Nicole: “And I did! I do! (Screaming helplessly) I can’t believe I have to know you for the rest of my life!!”

Charlie: (Savagely snarling) “Maybe you don’t because I hope you get sick and die. I hope you get hit by a car tomorrow!”

///////////////

This scene escalates and escalates until they’re both in these uncontrollable, violent piques of rage. Charlie punches a hole in the wall, and things simply get uglier and uglier until they are screaming at each other the most horrible things each can think of with every bit of vitriol they can possibly muster. The build up in the scene is masterful, and the performances are simply stellar. You can feel that they are pissed as all hell at each other – that this is literally years of unspoken, repressed feelings all being torn out. But you can also feel that both of them are in such awful pain. Both of them are actively bleeding as the scene progresses, but it’s because both of them still care so much. It’s because there are still feelings there, and there always will be no matter what either of them do. That’s why the emotions are so desperate and searing off the screen.

After Charlie spits the final horrific line in her face, he sinks to the floor and weeps for it. It ends with her comforting him, and him putting his arms around her knees.

And – just fuck me up completely, why don’t you – if you thought that scene was the biggest beating your heart would have to take in this movie, THINK AGAIN BUDDY.

Because. Whew. My god. Words are going to fail me in describing this scene but I’ll do my best to go for it.

Months have passed since their fight, and grab every box of tissues in existence, because here’s the rumored scene where Adam sings “Being Alive” from Company. Now, I had somehow completely forgotten about this going into the film. So when Charlie stands up in the cabaret restaurant with his theatre group back in New York and starts jokingly singing the words when the pianist starts the song, I was just like ‘oh haha he’s singing! Wow!’

Charlie moves to sit back down after the first verse, still mostly fun and games…. But then the words draw him back as the song continues. He gravitates towards the small stage and the microphone, and little by little the joking edge melts away. Emotional gravity rises behind his voice little by little, until suddenly the words are loud and ringing and gorgeous, and there is palpable heartbreak in his eyes as the words begin to take the exact shape of all he has lost.

Now, we’ve heard snippets of Adam singing in Hungry Hearts and Inside Llewyn Davis and even briefly in Burn This. But. People…. You have never heard or seen anything like this. I don’t even mean from Adam. I mean… in your life. I mean: This scene literally stirred such a profound reaction in me; I didn’t know it was possible for an actor to evoke feelings like this. And imagine, this was on-screen performance. The entire theater applauded when the song ended, and I was in tears.

The song encapsulated in truly heartbreaking beauty the revelation Charlie was having of all he once had – every part of love that is both good and bad; cherished and difficult. And in possibly the most tragic contrast of the whole film: He is singing about love making it worthwhile to be alive – of how he’s now essentially left searching for what will now make his life worth living; while across the country Nicole is finally feeling “alive” for the first time, after years of being plagued by the feeling of part of her being dead beyond reach.

Yeah. I could spend thousands of words just trying to describe the devastating power and beauty of this scene, but no matter what words I use or how I phrase it, I’m going to come up short. It’s simply beyond description. Adam is beyond description. You’d think because I literally couldn’t love him more if my life depended on it that I couldn’t be so stunned by new demonstrations of his talent??? But jesus CHRIST. This man is a force that defies comprehension. To my ear, his voice sounded strong but untrained, and that was what made it so heartrendingly magnificent. In the held notes, his voice will crest into the gentlest vibrato as his emotions build, and I couldn’t tell you whether it’s the song that Adam disappears into, or if it’s Adam purposefully weaving every single element at play here into the most moving minutes of performance you’ve ever seen. Either way: The scene will ruin you utterly, and you will love it beyond comprehension.

I know a clip of this scene will certainly hit the internet as soon as the whole film becomes available, but god I almost wish that everyone has to watch it in context with everything that’s come before it. Because knowing every bit that Charlie has suffered along the way, understanding the way his heart is continuously breaking with each of the words-…. God, it’s too much.

Next up on Adam Driver Eviscerates Your Heart And You Thank Him Profusely For It: The scenes where he cries are just as painful as you think they’d be. Probably even more so, because he’s a talented jerk like that who takes no pity on us at all.

The first major crying scene is when he and his lawyer go off into a side room during a break in the first meeting on divorce terms. It’s just dawning on Charlie that Nicole probably has no intent to bring Henry back to New York, and unless Charlie does something serious, Henry might never live there with him again. While the lawyer’s talking, Charlie silently lowers his head, and suddenly the tears just rise up over him. It’s quiet and he only shakes slightly, but god do you feel for him.

The second time is…. lord, yet another moment that’s utterly heartbreaking and yet one of the most beautiful moments of film you’ve ever seen. This is the final scene in the film, and it references back to one of the first, where Charlie and Nicole try to go to a divorce counselor, who requests that they each write down the things they love about the other and then read them aloud. These are the lists each of them voiceover in the trailer and that play at the film’s very beginning. But during this session, Nicole refused to read her list aloud, because she didn’t “like what she wrote.” So Charlie never heard her list about him.

In this final scene, Charlie hears Henry reading something aloud in his bedroom. Henry had been struggling with reading, so Charlie immediately comes in to listen and help him. Charlie sits down on the bed with him, and realizes what it is Henry’s reading. Charlie helps him with the words he can’t pronounce, and then halfway through Henry hands him the list. “You finish reading it, Dad.”

Charlie continues reading the list, and it goes on much longer than the version we heard in Nicole’s voiceover. As Charlie’s reading aloud, Nicole appears in the doorway and begins to listen without Charlie realizing. He manages to read it all relatively evenly… until he reaches the end.

“I fell in love with him…” Charlie stops suddenly, and in an instant his mouth is trembling, the tears are brimming over, and he is fighting desperately to hold back the onslaught of tears in front of his son, even as it overtakes his entire body. Finally, he is able to finish: “I fell in love with him seconds after I saw him, and I’ll always love him. Even if it doesn’t make sense.” In the door, Nicole fights off her own tears.

This film is cinema at its very best. I know this is an incredibly bold statement, but: It just might be Adam’s best role to date.

End Spoilers: Q&A!

I WAS STILL SO STUNNED BY THE SINGING SCENE THAT I ASKED ADAM ABOUT IT AND JUST TO ROUND OUT FROM THE HAND TAKEN VIDEO ABOVE THIS IS THE OFFICIAL ONE AND THAT’S ME YOU CAN JUST BARELY HEAR AT 17:45!!!!!

youtube

CAN YOU BELIEVE THAT HAPPENED??? BECAUSE I CAN’T AND I WAS THERE. BYE I think I’m having an out of body experience taking in the fact that I’m watching this vid of Adam WATCHING ME OMG HE WAS SQUINTING INTO THE AUDIENCE TO SEE ME AND LEANING FORWARD TO HEAR ME SOMEONE HOLD ME I’M WEEPING HE WAS TALKING TO MEASKDFJALKSFJ

Ahem.

From Noah’s comments throughout the panel, it was amazing to hear how much of this movie was truly a collaborative process between him and Adam. In many ways, Noah built this role and film around Adam. He said that he and Adam had focused on the scene of him performing “Being Alive” very early on, and Noah structured the script to work towards that vision. Though he already had the idea of working in themes of performance and theatre, it was Adam’s idea to make Charlie a theatre director. I absolutely love hearing that Noah essentially wanted to make a film where elements of who Adam is in real life or his interests in what he wanted to play in a character were built into the heart of the script.

Someone asked Noah why he likes dysfunctional families so much and he replied “What other kind are there?”

Most of the other things said during the Q&A had already been echoed in other interviews. Plus I sometimes have trouble processing memories while Adam’s talking/standing in front of me because slkdjflsakjfdklsf just taking in the sight of him is a fucking lot to process :’’’’’’’)

“A fucking lot to process” is actually a perfectly apt summary of the day in its entirety! When Sarah and I got back to the hotel, we discovered it had a jacuzzi on the rooftop! That was truly the best soak ever, to soothe away the emotional overload and talk through all of our many, many thoughts on the two stellar films we’d just had the privilege of seeing.

Writing through this entire massive thing was also a huge help to work through all my complex feels about these films. As you might have gathered, I can’t recommend them highly enough. And as you also might suspect – Adam is an absolute force to be reckoned with in both. Seeing two of his most powerful performances ever back to back (and then getting to hear him talk about each in person!) was truly an experience I’ll never forget.

A massive thank you to anyone who persevered through reading all that!! I love writing analyses not only to work through my emotional response to sweeping works like this, but also to remember every bit of the impact. Give it a share if you don’t mind helping a girl out? :) I’m not on twitter at all so it’d be much appreciated!

(...have I mentioned I love Adam and I’m in awe of every single thing he does? Shower this man with Oscars already?!)

#Adam Driver #TIFF #driverdaily #Toronto International Film Festival #The Report #Marriage Story #TIFF 2019

83 notes · View notes

tisthenightofthewitch · 6 years ago

Text

Q & A with Ghost's Tobias Forge

Depending on who you ask, Ghost has been on the hard rock scene since 2006, or for more than half a century, with occult roots stretching back even further. The current frontman, known as Cardinal Copia, is the fourth embodiment of the band to lead the charge at the front of the stage as well as vocally. The band itself has grown, also, with the ranks of the Nameless Ghouls – the masked, black-clad musicians playing and singing behind the Cardinal, has swelled to include new members, including the Ghoulettes, and has occasional appearances by the original band leader, Papa Nihil. No one is quite certain who any of these musicians are, or even if they're the same from show to show, but they put out incredible music and assemble to bring amazing live shows to the stage.

The answer to the questions surrounding the Swedish rockers may be hard to nail down, but the music they make is easy to find. Just in the past year, Ghost's fourth album, “Prequelle,” landed in the number 3 spot on Billboard, has spawned two number one singles, two Grammy nominations, and a live show that's only gotten bigger. Their online following includes over a million fans following them on Facebook, and over 200 million streams of this latest album.

Following last year's “A Pale Tour Named Death” run, primarily in theatres throughout the US, Ghost joined Metallica in the opening slot for that band's WorldWired European run, playing stadiums all across Europe. After captivating audiences across the pond over the last four months, Ghost is ready to invade the US and Canada once again, this time bringing their entire, full-scale production to arenas in every corner of the continent.

Last week, the creative force behind the band, Tobias Forge, took a few minutes out of his schedule to talk about the personas on stage, the new tour, and the future of Ghost.

---------

Mike Sorensen: I know in the past, you've talked about your influences, and anybody can see influences like KISS and Alice Cooper if they just look at the band. But with Ghost, you've taken the mythology side, and taken it to an entirely different level than any of those bands have that I've seen. Was that something that you've done consciously, or has that just felt like something natural as you've continued to build the band?

Tobias Forge: A little bit of both. I mean, it was always intended to be theatrical and have some sort of...I guess, in the beginning, you could call it some sort of vague narrative, because it was supposed to be more clandestine. And then as the public interest seemed to be a little bigger than I had anticipated, it ended up being a little more outlined than I had probably predicted ten years ago. So, you know, you continue working with it as it's grown. But you sort of build where you stand, as well. Fortunately, it sort of grows quite organically, and it sort of ties in. I guess the biggest steps of the narrative is just to be seen, which is kind of exciting, I think!

MS: I know you've been building the stories with the video shots, the rise of Cardinal Copia, or maybe the fall of Papa, depending on how you look at it. Have you, or are you, if you want to tell, considering something closer to a more traditional film? Maybe your “Ghost Meets the Phantom of the Park?”

TF: I hope that what we're doing is slightly better! But I guess in the context of a rock band trying to tell a story, you can't have too high of hopes of it being a blockbuster success! Hahaha! We're still a rock band, and it's there for fun. But yeah, the intention is to, in one way or form, tell that story, and if it becomes a film one day, potentially...but there is definitely other ways to tell the story, as well. And it might come out in paper form.

MS: That's a nice tease, and from a fan point of view, now I'm really excited to see where you're going to go with it!

TF: Good!

MS: Sticking for just one more moment with the mythology part of it, in past interviews, you've said that introducing the Cardinal, you've referred to him as an underdog character that some people may not like. Do you think that's proven to be the case, and do have – it may be like picking a favorite child if you have more than one child – do you have a particular Papa that you've enjoyed more than the others?

TF: No, not really. That would be Cardinal in this case, actually. I think he's the most accomplished so far, also because I see the potential. This album cycle was always meant as a...a sort of a cleansing of the palette, in a way? The Cardinal was meant to be a little bit uphill, and he has been for me, as well, but I definitely see the potential of him, potentially rise to an exalted place where he gets all the attributes of the previous Papas. That is, IF he gets to be Papa!

MS: It's a fun journey, and I'm grateful that you're taking us all along for the ride!

TF: I'm very happy that you guys want to be on the ride!

MS: With the tour just kicking off, you've just wrapped up the stadium run in Europe with Metallica, you've done other headlining tours in the US before, but this is the first full headlining run for arenas in the US. You've had a handful of shows that have started off the tour now, how does feel being out there doing these headlining shows in arenas now?

TF: My main focus has always been that I wanted to take the same production to anyone, regardless if you live in big, metropolitan, hipster cities, or if you live in a slightly more rural town. I didn't want to segregate anyone, and that has taken a long time. Usually bands don't do that because of spite or out of malice, it's just that economically most bands do not have the means to take the same show to everyone. So there's always a little bit of weeding out, which I've always been uncomfortable partaking in! And finally, now, we've come to a point where the opportunity was to take the same full production to everyone, and that's the main focus of this tour. What it meant was that we needed to go into venues that could house our production. And that is predominately arenas, or smaller arenas, that can swallow a full-production show. My main focus now, I'm not trying to think so much about it being arenas, because it's our first steps into it, and the point that I want to prove is for, in this case, the American and the Canadian people, if you go to see a Ghost show, you can count on us giving you the same thing you saw from that clip in New York.

TF: For me that's a great accomplishment, to even be able to try to prove that to people! If we manage to prove that? We'll see, but it feels good, and there's people coming out, the tour just started, it's been going very good so far! We're three shows into it, so we're still getting there, a few kinks, mechanically and technically, you always sort of end up with a little bit of push-and-pull in the beginning. But throughout the tour, we get into a vibe pretty quickly.

MS: Speaking from one of the more rural areas that you spoke about, I can say that I'm glad you're looking at it that way, because that means we get to have those shows where we might normally get a more scaled-down version, so I appreciate that as well.

TF: That's what I was thinking!

MS: With your shows, and with Ghost's music overall, you walk a really fine tight-rope between the darker imagery and the lyrics, but you have a lot of fun and humour in the shows that I think would surprise a lot of people that haven't seen it before. How do you manage to keep that balance without tipping into too dark, or being a parody?

TF: That's hard to answer. I can't exactly tell you how that...you know, you have a hunch, right? You just have to have timing, and I think so far, we've had that. That's also a little bit of trial and error. I think the tour that we did a year ago? [2018's “A Pale Tour Named Death” US Tour] that covered a big portion of America, from a technical standpoint, it was a little annoying, because – since we were doing theaters and arenas – we had to do a little bit of that segregation thing that I told you about before, that we're trying to avoid now. But it was also “An Evening With...” so we did a two-and-a-half-hour long show, out of which a great deal of that was sort of talking! And that was fun, I don't think that did us any harm, but I definitely wanted to do a different show this time around.

So it's way more to the point. We have a support act, which is different, and I wanted it to be more to the point. Scale off a bit of that talking, scale off a few songs that weren't really...I wouldn't say up to snuff, but that took a little more patience, if you want. Where this set is constructed to be a little more overwhelming, a little more for getting, and I like that, as well. I mean, I like the drawn out stuff as well, but I like the quick stuff. This tour is definitely way more to the point.

And also thinking that, when you're playing small clubs, playing to 300-500 people, you're most likely playing to...you're selling Bibles to preachers, because everyone already knows all your songs, and people are really, really into it. You get so many diehards at shows like that. As soon as you, sort of, grow out of the clubs, you will have a lot of people coming that are fans, but that might not know every song that you have, and they're not diehard, know every detail of your band...they're there for the spectacle, to be entertained. And there's nothing wrong with that sort of fandom, it's just that you have to take that into consideration when you're playing. So there is a certain amount of recapping that you have to do, in order to kind of explain to people what you're about. I think that's even more true when you're coming up to arenas or even more so when you're playing stadiums.

We've just done a four-month tour with Metallica, doing stadiums in Europe. You could tell that most people, maybe 25,000 of the 50,000 that was average [show attendance], they knew all the Metallica songs. But 50,000 knew “Enter Sandman.” The people come for the spectacle. They don't know every song! The might have heard them, but they don't know every song. You have to treat it, not like a showcase, but a little. You have to stick with the best thing that you have, and get people to understand. You have to win everyone over every night. You cannot think that all of these people are already 100% sold, you have to win them over.

I think that is very important also in trying to figure out the measurement of slapstick and humour. And in this case, you were talking about the episodes. We cannot assume that 100% of everyone in the hall has seen the episodes. Some people are there because their friend at work told them this is a kick-ass rock show and you should come because you like KISS or whatever, and they haven't seen the episodes. So we cannot assume that everyone has seen it. So the bigger you get, the more you have to be attentive to things like that, I believe.

MS: With the new tour, you've also had the new songs that have just been released, and I've noticed a lot of talk going on with those. Did you have a particular inspiration for those new songs, or a particular sound that you were going for with those new tracks? TF: What? No, those are 50 years old! MS: The newly released tracks!

TF: The newly released tracks, yeah, yeah! Well, I mean, they were written 50 years ago, and I'm only 38, so I can't really say!

MS: So, they were the Ghost of the time, their attempt to try to get on the stage at Woodstock.

TF: I guess, right! They were trying to do the most exciting rock you could do at the time. A little bit like if Phil Spector had produced The Stooges. Something like that.

MS: For this year, you have this tour that's just getting started in the US, and then back to Europe. Do you have plans for what's going to happen next year already?

TF: Yes. There will be very little touring. To be specific, it's going to be absolutely zero touring in 2020. We have one show in February, and that's going be in a country that to the south of the US, and that will be it, that's the only show we're doing, and that's going to be the wrap-up of this tour cycle. The year is going to be spent making a new record, a new record that will come out in 2021, the beginning of 2021, and then we're looking at eighteen months of touring again. Next year is going to be, at least from a touring point of view, off. But there's going to be a lot of other things happening, so be sure that you're going to see plenty from Ghost next year.

MS: Definitely no rest for the wicked!

TF: No rest for the wicked!

MS: Was there anything else you wanted to add before I let you go to get ready for tonight's show?

TF: We're really looking forward to coming to Moline, and I'm very, very happy to be able to tell people that we're coming with all the bells and whistles.

---------

Ghost is one of the most dynamic bands performing around the world right now. From their heavy-grooved, melodic music to their engaging, bombastic live shows, to the mystique surrounding who's under the masks and make-up, they continue to build up steam on the way to complete world domination. If you aren't sure, see for yourself. You can go to ghost-official.com to get your own tickets, then slip up the road a little ways on October the 8th to Moline and join the party.

HERALD-WHIG

#Tobias Forge #Tobias Interview #The Band Ghost #Ghost Band #Cardinal Copia

29 notes · View notes

giuliaratti · 6 years ago

Text

SOME EXCERPTS FROM   Sensual Culture: The Socio-Sensual Practices of Clubbing. Philip Gordon Jackson University College London In Fulfilment of PhD in Social Anthropology Submitted in June 2001  

_core crowd

people become core crowd members by simply becoming regulars and partying hard, so that they get noticed and invited to other nights; they make an effort to add to the party by participating in it to a high degree; they will dress up, dance hard, socialize and play a role in "kneading" the party out of the more reserved clubbers.

over the course of the night, we don't spend a lot of time with each other, because we're circulating and chatting and dancing and trying to get other people to let their hair down and join in, that's the most important job of the core crowd.

The core crowd are the people who produce a party more than they consume it darkness holds an unknown quality about it that is a combination of both promise and threat. It is a time of invisibility or transformation where, shielded from the clarity of Foucault's gaze, people can become slippery in terms of the activities they seek out and the personas they present to the world. Night in the city is time out [...] For people who hold down boring or unsatisfactory jobs, night is the time when they feel they lead their real lives.

"Night is the final frontier because it's the only space and time, in the current system, that can be given over to things that won't necessarily make money. During the day you have to do things that will allow you to survive financially. Whereas the night you don't." (Male 28; 11 years experience.)

anonimity

darkness "covers", "penetrates" and "touches"

"It's hard to dance when a club's too light, you feel too vulnerable; it's like dancing during the daytime I find that a bit odd too, though once I've got going I don't mind as much, but there's something about really dark rooms that makes it easier to dance and go a bit wilder; it feels more natural." (Female 29; 7 years experience.)

Dancing in the dark is easier than dancing in broad daylight where the movements of the dancer are revealed to the world and open to scrutiny. You often see people closing their eyes, when they dance, enveloping themselves in their own darkness and allowing themselves to experience their own body in motion more intensely by cutting out the distraction of the crowd.

Out on the dancefloor, shrouded in this cimmerian world, the tyranny of vision is abandoned in favor of the delights of invisibility and the physical closeness of bodies getting serpentine on the beat. What you can't see you can't judge and can't be judged by. 

Shrouded by the darkness bodies became liquid, emotions rose to the surface, faces were hyper-expressive revealing joy, confusion, contemplation and sheer unadulterated bliss.

Some of these crowds may have difficult lives outside of the club space, others don't, but regardless of where they have come from the experience of clubbing itself adds something they value to their lives. I believe this sense of value arises from this point of sensual tension; it is an emotional and experiential value, rather than an ideological position; clubbing is about creating worlds that feel right.

"I get to be sexy; it seems silly but I really enjoy it, when I'm in a club dancing my whole body feels hot and horny and alive. I can dress up in a way that I could never do on the street or in pubs, because I think in clubs people will accept that you're doing it for yourself; they can watch you and enjoy you, but that's as far as it goes; it's playful rather than serious; It feels safe much safer than other places where it might cause hassle; I feel more in charge of the situation, less threatened by people watching me. You know that some guy might be getting turned on by the way you dance, but m a club that feels less dangerous because you expect the men to not behave like arseholes. If they're just smiling at you and watching you and enjoying or dancing along with you then they understand that It doesn’t necessarily mean you want to fuck them; it's just part of the might, part of the fun of clubbing." (Female 41; 19 years experience.) 

"I was dancing on my own and this group of women were on the floor with me; it was pretty empty, but they kept crowding in on me like there was no room and giving me horrible nasty looks and whispering to each other, then staring at me. It wasn't very nice; they seemed to resent me dancing on my own, like they were threatened by it or something. It hasn't happened very often at all, but when it does you just think, 'Oh you sad bastards just leave me alone and enjoy yourself, that's what we're all here for.' " (Female 42; 5 years experience.)

_The Dynamics of Dance

Stage 1 is the pre-dance stage, where punters begin to embody the practice of clubbing. They congregate at the peripheries of the space, around bars, at the edge of the dancefloor. Standing with their mates, scanning the crowd to see who's there, they drink, giggle, watch. Some are waiting for their drugs to "come on" and at this stage the crowd is still anxious about the night.

Club crowds must be hospitable and welcoming and this is again communicated physically: it is a bodily attitude that is relaxed, passionate and, most importantly, friendly.

Stage 2 is the point where a dancefloor tentatively begins. DJ drops a club favourite or a confident party posse arrives in force. people surreptitiously start to dance at the periphery, move into the visible space and then retire back to the edge.

This is a period where people feel particularly self conscious, by beginning to dance they must move from the safety and anonymity of the crowd, to the visibility of the floor. People at the edges often start dancing, while chatting with friends or facing away from the floor itself, as they attempt to conceal themselves and their movements by pretending that they're not actually dancing, more just moving about while talking.

Stage 3 is a warm-up periodThe temperature rises, muscles warm up, bodies start to relax

You become hyper-aware of your own self within the crowd. The joy of dancing in a club is that there is no wrong way to dance, as long as you're getting otT on it, lapping it up, lovin' it, then you can dance. The only bad dancer is a miserable one.

Stage 4 is the point where the dancefloor reaches a critical mass of bodies; it is the hottest and most intense stage in terms of being amongst others. Full dancefloors can become static, they reduce the range of potential movement, this is the hands in the air stage when you have to focus your movement vertically, rather than horizontally, to avoid collisions. As one informant explained:

"Dancing on a really packed floor, that's really going for it, can feel like leaping into a bucket full of eels; it's great, hot, bodies everywhere, all just squirming and getting sweaty; it's great." (Male)

The sweat which pours from your skin seems to cleanse you, draining out the toxic residue of frustrated plans, niggling worries, stupid arguments and petty insecurities. Nothing matters but the beat, the crowd, the dance.

Glorious. Some clubbers themselves see this experience in terms of escapism, but to the outside eye, it seems so social and physically creative, that it forces you to re-think the meaning of the term escapism itself.

The crowd has worked together to create this moment. They have put time, energy and hard cash into the night, but most importantly they have generated a sense of social camaraderie, within the club, that underpins their ability to cut loose and feel good amongst the people who surround them. The dance is one way in which that sensation manifests itself, in both individuals and groups, by allowing them to possess a different physicality in the world, one that is strong and fervent, relaxed yet powerful, one that has shed, even if only for a night, the physicality of the drudge.

"I was trained as a dancer; I worked as a dancer; I have always danced; I've always enjoyed dancing, but I never really felt like a dancer until I started taking drugs and dancing in clubs. That taught me more about dancing than any other experience of dancing ever has." (Female 41; 19 years experience)

The easiest way to describe it is that it feels like vertical fucking, but this fuck has a sense of humour, it is playful and intense simultaneously.

"I haven't had sex for almost two years and dancing allows me to enter a wonderful sensual place; it's almost as good as sex in terms of making your body feel fabulous" (Female 42; 5 years experience.)

The aches and pains of the week begin to evaporate through movement.

grey flees the building to be replaced by vivid reds, burning oranges, iridescent blues and a slither of topaz. You ain't in Kansas no more. You're on a dancefloor and it is fearsome fine.

You can literally feel these changes deep in the flesh, your posture becomes liquid, you can sense the energy pumping through your veins, as this sensorial realm begins to dominate consciousness. Your kinaesthetic sense is firing on all fronts, all that matters is the dance. The sensual residue of the week, your weaknesses, anxieties and strengths are channelled into the dance and so transmuted into movement, energy and heat. They are not simply forgotten, their form is altered, their shadows are expunged from the flesh. Those knots of tension, that are the physical manifestation of problems at work, the heaviness of depression, the stooped form of anxiety, are all cast-off and replaced with a body in lithe, supple motion.

At times this can feel transcendent; it is a physicality that takes you so far beyond the everyday experience of your own social body, that it felt as a sublime manifestation of self in world.

'I've never felt like that, because I've never moved like that'

the experience of dancing becomes a form of sensual knowledge in itself; it teaches you about your own body, how you can make that body feel and how you can intensify those feelings.

you don't have to look good, when you dance, it is enough to simply dance and express your passion for dancing and this freedom is one of the most important qualities of the club space.

once my body started to loosen up then I could look at people, catch their eyes and smile and feed off their energy, because I had space my dancing could get pretty wild.

“[…] It's not showing off; it's trying to provoke and tempt people to go further. It's not about performance; I don't want people to look at me; I want them to interact with me; to be with me; not stare at me. The display thing is all very silly really; it's a game”

dancing in a crowded room is very different from dancing alone, because you're immersed within and energized by the sociality of the space.

safe social space

What they actually communicate, when they're wrapped within the full force of the dance, is the feeling of being exquisitely and sensually ALIVE, more alive than they feel in many other areas of their lives. That sense of aliveness arises from a repossessing and re- sensualizing your own body through the practice of dancing.

Dressing up is a sensual practice […] it is fun in itself and people enjoy playing with the way they look.

1 note · View note

i-miss-us · 4 years ago

Text

The Fool

If one would use tarot as means of self-fulfillment and spiritual growth they then would traverse the heavenly staircase of major arcana, one by one, and reach enlightenment.

The Fool, then, embarks on a journey and takes through the great mysteries of life.

Persona 2's battle system revolves around each party member being able to utilize personae of different arcana and swap around them at will. This was changed in later installments of the series, where only the main character embodying The Fool is capable of expressing these archetypes at will.

Additionally, Yu's personae become obsolete after a couple of levels (with exceptions late into the game). They evolve slowly and have only a handful of new abilities to acquire, in contrast to the rest of the investigation team whose personae evolve throughout.

There is indeed great power hidden within The Fool, that's obvious to anyone who's done a casual playthrough of the game. Yet should Yu neglect his growth, Izanagi remains by far the weakest implicit persona out of all the cast. The Fool offers potential, but nothing more. Additionally, all of Yu's social stats are set at 0 and begins the game in something similar to a tabula rasa state.

Yu isn't completely devoid of personality, however. Though the game's frequent dialogue options "allow" you to "form" his personality yourself, his personality is more defined by the choices you don't get. He's good with children, level-headed, and just overall painfully earth sign coded. There's an interesting push and pull between the game's limitations and what it's trying to accomplish in its abstract Jungian view. If Yu isn't a complete tabula rasa, then it's easy to interpret him as just a quiet, kind of boring but dependable young man. If interpreted like that, one has to wonder why he's the one to get the privilege of the wild card ability. Perhaps it's Izanami's will at the beginning of the game which set off the events, maybe it's Atlus continuing the trend of keeping the main character special as a vector for players' power fantasies. Maybe it's something else entirely. Interpreted like this, Yu isn't inherently special in any way but is given significant narrative weight through archetypal dominance.

In the same way, the Velvet Room remains exclusive to him and its denizens. This is in stark contrast to Persona 2, where the entire main cast was free to enter and interact with that very special place.

I've found this exaltation of the main character to be directly in conflict with my "truth" since I was 14, and was one of the things that had eroded my interest in the series. Though MC syndrome is everpresent and sometimes a fun distraction, in a game like Persona which seemingly seeks to model something fundamental about humanity it seems more than out of place. Should we accept that everyone but Yu is simply fated and incapable of embodying more than one archetype? You could interpret the arcana, not as representations of the characters themselves, but as lessons they represent to Yu himself. The fact that the rest of the investigation team is limited to only one persona throughout the game suggests otherwise (and not to mention, certain spinoff games implicitly reject this view themselves).

With such an interpretation, it's easy to see a bleak and misanthropic picture painted by the symbols overlaying this story. Yu is the only one capable of reaching enlightenment, and the rest of the cast is fated to experience and embody only a fraction of the full human experience. Basically, if you're not a Taurus you might as well just kill yourself.

This, however, is just an interpretation. Should you disregard the narrative importance of the arcana and personae you're given more space to interpret Yu and the rest of the cast. For a game series as laden as symbolism as it is, I'm not particularly keen on accepting that truth as well.

Should Yu be considered as a standard model for any individual? According to Persona 4, no, he's an exception.

Here's one way out of this ideological hole. Igor mentions responsibility:

This is hammered home throughout the games. Your actions and your decisions are yours to make, and the consequences are yours to resolve. Really, the responsibility in this story falls on your shoulders. Should your choices be less than satisfactory at a crucial point in the game, you fail. Should your direction be mistaken, you've endangered the rest of the cast. This is evident both in gameplay and narrative. Perhaps the wild card is bestowed upon those who're prepared to take responsibility for themselves and their lives. What led Yu to the Velvet Room is a mystery, but he has accepted its terms and received its blessings in turn.

Furthermore, we know that the arcanum is not fixed in place. Should one overcome their trials, they're then ready to begin their spiritual ascent. Aigis has accepted life on her own terms and was granted the wild card herself. One can then interpret The Fool as nothing more than a state of mind, and an openness to experience life and others unobstructed by self-imposed obstacles.

Persona 3 allows for this interpretation more elegantly, as there are no personal shadows to overcome. Persona 4, then, requires more nuance. The shadows they overcome are not triumphs over their trials, just acknowledgments. Seen as such, Persona 4's characterization parses much better. This, then, can be seen as Yu's story and nobody else's. It's a shame then that he's made as a proxy for the player (unsuccessfully, IMO).

Why Yu had no shadow is then trivial. He had no personal trials to overcome himself, hence he's ready to receive the arcana's wisdom. How he achieved that, then, is something only he knows. Maybe he just had a good relationship with his dad.

This, then, brings about assumptions and will put more weight on the game's narrative. Should a personal shadow be overcome, what does that mean for the person? We'll explore this a bit down the line.

If you've read Umineko (and perceived it as I did) you could say this was an exercise in love. I'd disagree. Really, I've forced the game to fit into my internal framework. I've no qualms about doing so, and I'll keep doing it. Unlike a person, a story is written, fixed in place, and frozen. To do this to a person is to compartmentalize them. Like that imp post that said: you're not good at bringing yourself to someone's level, you're good at manipulating people to get on yours.

I think that's the correct way to engage with a story. Keep thinking, and you'll find yourself represented everywhere. I've rejected the simple truth and have found another one. Whichever one was "intended" is something I'll never have the privilege of knowing, hence both hold equal weight. If I spend more time and look further, maybe another truth will be within my grasp.

Anyway. Yosuke, Chie, and Yukiko's social links have opened up. I'll certainly be talking about those down the line. I've nothing much to say about their shadows individually, but maybe as a whole once the game nears its climax.

1 note · View note

mrmichaelchadler · 6 years ago

Text

Miss Bala

In Gerardo Naranjo’s 2012 drama, “Miss Bala,” an aspiring beauty queen is caught in the crosshairs of a cartel strike. She’s kidnapped, raped and forced to work for the gang in the hopes of finding her missing friend. It’s a bleak story, a loose reflection of how cartel violence has ruined the lives of countless innocent bystanders. It was released at a time before cartel violence would reach its fever pitch, or at least, before many Americans knew about its escalation. Seven years later, the Mexican film now has a Hollywood remake, one that adds new elements to the story but is less coherent in its message.

“Twilight” director Catherine Hardwicke’s new version of “Miss Bala” follows Gloria (Gina Rodriguez), a makeup artist who was born in Mexico but moved to the States when she was young. Her hometown connections to Tijuana have grown thin over the years, but she continues to visit her close friend Suzu (Cristina Rodlo) and her son. On the night the two young women go out to a club, a shooting erupts, separating the two friends in the chaos. In trying to find out what happens to Suzu, Gloria falls deeper into the cartel world that has ensnared them both.

Changing the main character of “Miss Bala” from Mexican to Mexican American adds a different kind of complexity to the story, like Gloria’s guilt over her inability to fit in with other Mexicans and when others mock her for being a pocha (a Mexican or someone of Mexican descent who lives in the States and loses their ability to speak Spanish). In Tijuana, the members of the cartel exploit her American passport to do a job for them. And when the American Drug Enforcement Agency arrives, they’re not much help and they assume she’s inherently guilty by cultural association. Gloria becomes a woman without a country or a people, like a drug war version of the phrase “Ni de aqui, ni de alla” or “Neither from here or there.”

There are plenty of plot twists in Gareth Dunnet-Alcocer’s action-packed script to keep things lively, but some new additions to the story may amplify complicated feelings about the film’s subject. There’s no separating either version of “Miss Bala” from its relationship to cartels and violence. Since I have long tired of only seeing Latinos as gun-toting drug runners, I had avoided the original until recently. While I want to cheer for all the Latino talent involved in making this big studio movie, taking home big studio-sized checks and hopefully, getting opportunities most of us would have never thought possible in the entertainment industry unless your name is Sofia Vergara or Jennifer Lopez, I’m still very conflicted that the only way we could get this spotlight is by playing the worst versions of our communities.

Soon after her capture, Gloria meets face-to-face with the cartel’s leader, Lino (Ismael Cruz Córdova), who reveals he was once an undocumented immigrant in Bakersfield, CA., before he was deported and pushed into a life of crime. Lino is the movie’s thorniest character, a sensitive bad guy who warms up to Gloria to gain her trust. His manipulation and control are subtly romanticized, much like how movies have romanticized power-hungry gangsters in the past. Lino is also the best embodiment of how complicated representation can be for Mexicans or Mexican Americans. As a Mexican who lived in America like Gloria, his character absolves the movie from portraying all Mexicans as bad or corrupt. However, his character also plays into current anti-Latino rhetoric that undocumented immigrants are dangerous or capable of heinous crimes.

In a change from her upbeat persona from “Jane the Virgin,” Rodriguez dives into her character’s many emotions and action sequences with ease. She leans into the movie’s twists, moving quickly though Gloria’s shock and onto her quick thinking to escape. Although the plot to enter the main character into the beauty pageant loses much of its poignancy in the 2019 movie, the remake holds onto the visual motif for a dramatic final showdown in which Rodriguez, in a ballgown, reclaims her independence with bullets.

Although the new “Miss Bala” gives its lead character the agency to fight back and outsmart her captors, the film overdoses on its own message of pop feminist empowerment, changing its lead from a survivor to a superhero, as if the only way to liberate herself was by using the same violence that kept her captive. It’s a move that sanitizes the original’s direct and harrowing story, while casually leaving the door open for what looks like a sequel.

from All Content http://bit.ly/2MHbgiG

1 note · View note

pendulumprince · 8 years ago

Note

What would you want the heroine of ygo 6 to be like? Would she have the opposite problem as Yusaku where she wants anyone to notice her and she lives in world that doesn't seem to care to get to know her or even remember her name. And she doesn't have to the prima-donna type and it could show that having low self-esteem or self-worth effects people differently.

Damn, I was trying to save my post on our new girl(s) for when we actually got names and character designs. Darn you, anon! Darn you to heck!

Lol jk you know I love this question.

So I’m going to start this off by saying that I think this idea can work out quite beautifully. But before I can elaborate on why I think that, or how I think it could/should be done, PLEASE TAKE HEED TO MY WARNINGS:

A character like this must be handled with care. This is a delicate character. If she isn’t handled correctly, a lot can go wrong. A discrepancy can arise between how she’s meant to be perceived, and how the audience actually perceives her.

Basically, it’s easy to make a mistake with a character who craves attention. Like you mentioned, one of the first things that comes to mind regarding attention seeking characters is the prima donna stereotype. Is she haughty? Is she delusional? Does she put others down in order to make herself look better? Basically, is she gender bent Shingo?

Or (another pitfall) is she desperate? Is her self worth so cripplingly low that she seeks validation at every turn? This suggests that she’s needy, and that she’ll develop a relationship of dependency on whoever she feels validated by the most. A character like this unlikely to get any development that stems on internal reflection and growth; it’s going to depend on external events, which might work out well in the long run, but it’ll take time. And a lot of people will have already written her off as your typical, badly written YGO girl by that point.

Just as we’re interpreting Yusaku as either timid or stoic based on what info we have of him, if our new girl does turn out to be an attention seeker, these are going to be the most prevalent interpretations of her character before we actually see her. Hell, these interpretations will probably continue well into the first season. This is what viewers have been trained to expect out of characters like this. Even if it isn’t the intensions of the writers, unless they have a specific goal in mind, she’s going to fall into one of these stereotypes.

To reiterate: this idea can work out quite well. But in order for her to be truly great—to be as well rounded as Yuzu or Serena, and to even surpass them—the very point of her character has to be to deconstruct all of the above. She has to defy expectations, on a meta level.

How can this be done? You actually pointed out a potential way: have her low self esteem stem from neglect. Maybe she comes from a home where she’s totally ignored. So she turns to the dueling world in order to get attention. She doesn’t gain much traction there, either. She looks to see what other people do to get attention, and copies them, but all that does is earn her the reputation of a petty copycat. She feels completely isolated, and her attempts at attention become increasingly more dangerous—think criminal activity, or self destructive behavior.

Enter Yusaku, who is the protag and thus, must inadvertently befriend this poor misguided soul. So at this point, you may think: well, Yusaku is going to reform her. He’s going to duel her and in the process, teach her that instead of copying others, it’s much better to just Be Yourself ™.

But going this route is just begging to have our heroine become dependent on Yusaku, as the first person to really acknowledge and see her. She can display gratitude for that, for sure. But instead of becoming dependent—instead of having him save her—why not the other way around?

So like I mentioned, she gets involved in criminal activity. Yusaku, being a young, unassuming nerd who actually wears his blazer the right way, gets attacked by some street thugs. This still being early on, Yusaku isn’t prepared to fight back. Our heroine sees this, and still having her moral compass, goes in to save him. But she tells him not to just stand there—she tells him to pull out his duel disk and fight. She tells him that he can’t be paralyzed by fear. She inspires him to try.

Because at that point, it’ll be clear that she’s been trying all this time to have people notice her. That in her own way, she’s brave. That she doesn’t give up. That she embodies the show’s theme, to take a step forward and TRY, damnit. Try to learn duel monsters. Try to get noticed. Try to step our of your comfort zone. Try to make a friend.

And that will enable Yusaku to be the first person to notice and see her, without him having to be her savior.

Or how about this: she actually comes from a very loving home, and is raised to believe that she’s destined for great things. (And as the heroine she totally is, but that’s besides the point). But she then goes out into the duel world, and finds the competition to be much stronger than she initially anticipated. She falls to the wayside, and because she’s so unused being cast off, her attempts at getting recognized become more and more cheesy and played out. She may or may not start to copy people. People in-universe perceive her to be a drama queen.

And in order not to fall into one of the traps I pointed out earlier, this aspect of her development has to be taken care of early. Like, before episode 10 early. So she’s bombastic and out-there in her attempts to get noticed as a duelist. And one person does notice her, and has for a while—Yusaku.

Duelists in this world are going to be heavily involved in social media, right? So maybe Yusaku has been watching her for a while, and is a lowkey fan of hers. In order for this to really work, he will have needed to be a fan of hers for a while, from before she started acting so outrageously. But maybe, deep down, he wishes he had the type of self esteem she does (from his perspective). He admires her for being so brave, and for being such a skilled duelist (again, from his perspective—whether or not she actually is is another matter entirely).

While this is happening, there’s this strange girl at his school who’s always acting out and getting sent to the principals office. She’s really loud. She says stupid things that really turn people off, Yusaku included. Yusaku dreads the classes he has with her.

And you know what i’m going to say, right? The duelist he loves and that obnoxious girl are the same person. Somehow, he finds out (assuming that duelists being divorced from their online personas is common in-universe). Maybe they get into a situation where they’re forced to duel together irl, and he notices the striking similarities in their dueling styles. He puts two and two together, and the rest is history.

Now, what’s the point of that? How does this advance her character? Because he was her fan from the beginning. Someone, indeed, noticed her and thought she was great, when no one else did. It would mean the world to someone like her.

And how do we avoid the dependency trap? Well, Yusaku admires this duelist. Sure, she’s sort of annoying in real life—but as a duelist, she’s awesome! He’s seen every one of her duel videos, at least ten times! He knows all her strategies, and how to supplement them with his own style. Fighting by her side is sort of his dream.

And so, she inspires him to do his best in their duel together, or any duel that she’s watching. You see where I’m going with this? She develops early on because she realizes that the few people who do notice her really LOVE her, and he develops because she inspires him to further his skill. So she tones it down (being that crazy all the time was sort of exhausting) and he starts to duel more. They ‘take a step forward and try’, together. And of course, down the line they become besties and get ship teased and all that jazz.

I mean, those are just two examples that are never going to happen in canon. The general point is: either she has to save him, or their development has to happen in concert with one another. She also has to have a deep reason for wanting attention so badly—attention for the sake of it can’t sustain a serious character (and it would be fine if she were more comic relief than our other YGO heroines have been, but I still expect her to be a serious character overall).

So what do you think, anon? Please, let me know if I dropped the ball on what you were going for lol

#yugioh vrains #yusaku fujiki #my replies #heroine!anon

22 notes · View notes

gossipnetwork-blog · 8 years ago

Text

'Good Booty': 10 Things We Learned About Sex and Music

New Post has been published on http://gossip.network/good-booty-10-things-we-learned-about-sex-and-music/

'Good Booty': 10 Things We Learned About Sex and Music

Sex has always been an awkward and uneasy subject to broach in normal American conversation. And yet music, on both a physical and emotional level, has served as an effective art form in expressing sexuality and eroticism. Since the dawn of the rock & roll era, popular music and sex have been and continue to be inextricably linked, accompanied by varying degrees of sensationalism and shock.

But according to Good Booty, a new book by NPR music critic Ann Powers, America’s erotic musical history actually dates more than 200 years ago, to the slave era. From there, the book traverses the different historical periods in American history, explaining the evolution of sexually-tinged music – from the 1950s male rockers’ relationships with their female fans, to the groupie culture during the 1970s and punk rock’s conflicting attitudes toward sex.

“I’ve always been interested in how gender relates to music,” Powers, who had the idea for the book a decade ago, tells Rolling Stone. “I’ve written a lot about women in music. But I’ve also always been interested in sexuality and eroticism and how that expresses itself through music and how our various debates about that express themselves through music.”

While there’s no denying the titillation factor in the music and its stars, Good Booty raises larger and important issues, including race, gender, sexism and cultural appropriation. “Historically, music has become this vessel for hidden realities and for expressions of pride and dignity for the most wrongly oppressed in our culture and society,” says Powers. “That’s how, tragically, we treat eroticism as well. We marginalize it, we try to repress it, we pretend it doesn’t exist and we treat it like an evil force. Music has been the place where people who had been treated in that same way can speak.”

From the origins of sex in American music to Beyoncé’s charismatic and confident performances, here are 10 things we learned from Good Booty.

1. The relationship between eroticism and music began in New Orleans in the 1800s. Powers traces the sensual nature of American music and dance back to the lively culture of Nineteenth-century New Orleans, especially in Congo Square. It was an open field where slaves were allowed to dance, a sight that attracted the attention of white spectators. “The heart, soul and libido of American music is New Orleans,” says Powers, who describes the city as historically a place of great pleasure and a capital of nightlife. “There was this mix of enslaved people and free people of color. We always have to think about that through the lens of oppression of inequality and slavery, but the joy of it is the mix and the expressions that came through in spite of hardships.”

“She represents the new era,” says Ann Powers of Florence Mills, pictured here in 1922. John D. Kisch/Separate Cinema Archive/Getty

2. Jazz Age-era singer Florence Mills symbolized the new modern woman Slender with a distinct and boyish-looking appearance the African-American singer and actress Florence Mills, who died in 1927 at the age of 31, was a different kind of star. According to Powers, she represented the transformative possibilities of the Twenties, a period when sexuality in American culture was blossoming. The author writes that Mills, who was famous for her role in the Broadway musical Shuffle Along, had a quality of irresistible naturalness that expressed “overt sexual longing,” which made her relatable to audiences. “She represents the new era,” explains Powers. “She was not vocally the same as previous stars. She had a kind of different physicality, she’s youthful and modern. She was a huge star and she’s almost completely forgotten.”

3. Gospel music conveyed erotic as well as spiritual joy In their voices and performances, gospel artists during the first half of the Twentieth century reconciled spiritual and personal longing, or the sacred and the profane. Power cites various examples of this “spiritualized eroticism”: from composer Thomas Dorsey’s gospel standard “Take My Hand, Precious Lord”; the powerful singing of Dorothy Love Coates; the charismatic, even sexy, performances of male gospel vocal groups. “Gospel music was a secret line of communication not only for erotic expression but crucially for expressions of freedom,” Powers says, “which in the African-American community stemmed from spirituals and carried on the sounds and customs of the African diaspora. It wasn’t shocking to learn that many fundamental expressions of what we’d call sexy – like the way Elvis moved or the way rock bands interacted with their female audiences – could be found in gospel music in that golden age.”

4. Despite their sexual charisma, Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin and Jim Morrison faced resistance within the 1960s counterculture “The erotic breakthroughs of these cultural appointed savior-fools were doubled from the beginning by humiliation, censure, and defeat,” Powers writes of Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin and the Doors’ Jim Morrison, three major rock stars of the late 1960s known for their incendiary live performances. Powers looks at how Hendrix struggled to transcend the racial and sexual stereotypes as he played to mostly white audiences; how Joplin’s excessive personality and lifestyle was too much for people to handle; and how Morrison bought into his own myth as a sex symbol but also deflated it. (“Wielding his penis as a weapon…he always realized how flabby that sword inevitably became,” the author writes of the Doors singer.)

“I think it’s important to challenge the mythologies that have arisen around these key figures of the 1960s,” says Powers, “because there’s a romantic view of the counterculture that it was truly liberating, that if only the Seventies never happened, the hippie flowering would have continued. It’s very important to acknowledge that there was a lot of racism and sexism within the counterculture and there was a lot of machismo. So it was interesting when I looked at these figures at how those realities played out in their own lives or has manifested in their own music.”

“Wielding his penis as a weapon, he realized how flabby that sword inevitably became,” writes Powers of Jim Morrison. Edmund Teske/Michael Ochs Archives/Getty

5. Robert Plant’s performances mirrored the orgasmic sounds of ’70s porn films It is quite apparent that Led Zeppelin singer Robert Plant’s performances on a number of the band’s songs – “Whole Lotta Love,” “Dazed and Confused,” “The Lemon Song” – had an erotic, even orgasmic, quality. “Plant engaged pleasure in ways that resembled porn performance,” Powers writes. “Like a porn star, Plant was playing a role, but also genuinely feeling its effects; there was a sense he couldn’t stop once he was swept up in a song.” His musical “money shots” coincided with the emergence of porn chic – when hardcore films like Deep Throat and Behind the Green Door entered the mainstream. “Already in the Sixties you had explicit [art] films,” says Powers, “but the rise of the porn feature, in particular the sounds of pornography, really affected how average people viewed and heard sexuality in all things.”

6. Soft rock served as a musical ‘how-to’ sex manual The mellow sounds of such soft rock artists as Elton John and James Taylor were the audio equivalent of sexual self-help books – like the best-selling The Joy of Sex – by employing a gentle and assuring hand in addressing relationships. “It was music made for that moment at the end of the day when you’re relaxing with your lady or old man and you’re getting into some intimate stuff,” says Powers. “So here’s music that is very relaxing and that has a soft tone to it but it also pretty much talking directly about having good sex. It’s funny to me, since I grew up in the Seventies, that I was listening to all of these songs, like [Starland Vocal Band’s] “Afternoon Delight,” or [Bread’s] “Make It With You,” and, oh my goodness, the Captain and Tennille. Come on. That’s very dirty stuff.”

7. Against the specter of AIDS in the 1980s, pop stars created erotic fantasies through their music and videos The AIDS epidemic, along with Reagan-era conservatism of the 1980s, “would greatly undermine the openness and sense of liberation that characterized the sexual revolution and its aftermath,” Powers writes in Good Booty. Thus, the groundbreaking music and stylized videos by Madonna, Prince and Michael Jackson provided a space for erotic imagination. “They constructed fantasy worlds in their music that were very free while still acknowledging that it was not reality,” explains Powers. “Madonna is a true embodiment of this. She is a gift of that imaginative freedom, at a time when it was hard to feel that freedom for a lot of people. The way [Prince] dealt with sexuality in every aspect of his music and performance – not just his lyrics but the sound of his music, the way he dressed – presented a vision that we all desperately needed.”

8. Britney Spears was “the first American sweetheart of the Internet” Britney Spears arrived in the late 1990s as a super-human, machine-like version of a pop star – a cyborg of sorts as the country prepared for the turn of the Millennium. With producer Max Martin pumping out catchy pop hits for her, Spears projected a public persona that was somewhere between a “teeny bopper queen and hardcore vixen,” as she is described in Good Booty. “Britney’s emergence and the emergence of the Internet as the central experience of young people’s lives were simultaneous,” Powers says. “On the one hand, you have this more mechanistic approach in creating pop music. On the other hand, you have young people interacting with pop culture in a way so that they could master this mechanistic realm and participate in it and they could become cyborgs themselves.”

Good Booty is out this month.

9. Auto-Tune helped T-Pain blur the lines between romantic reality and fantasy Auto-Tune, the controversial pitch correction software tool, played a role in T-Pain’s 2005 hit, “I’m ‘n Luv (Wit a Stripper).” According to Powers, by electronically manipulating his voice, T-Pain created “a giddy confusion between the flesh and mechanics, calculation and emotion,” Powers writes. The song somewhat foreshadowed how we are able to distort our identities daily through technology, particularly on social media. Power says: “”I’m ‘n Luv (Wit a Stripper)” [is] a pretty deep song: ‘I’m never going to get this girl.’ That’s what [T-Pain’s] voice became…the expression of the tragedy of our inability to transcend our physical and social realities, even when it we feels like we can, because we have so much control over our image.”

10. Beyonce represents a perfect balance between her sexy public persona and stable private life Unlike stars such as Britney Spears and Rihanna, both of whom experienced personal scandal, Beyonce is a rare star who conveys sexuality in her performances, yet also maintains a tight rein on how much of her personal life is up for public consumption and, says Powers, a sense of dignity in the social media age. “Her performances are about setting limits and saying no to being violated,” says Powers. “She can get up on the stage and do the same dance that hasn’t been done in 200 years in the U.S., derived from the dances that enslaved people were doing in Congo Square. Those dances were originally about dignity and staying free in the face of your oppressors. And she’s doing the same thing now. That’s why she’s the greatest artist of our era.”

Source link

0 notes

mrmichaelchadler · 7 years ago

Text

Matt Fagerholm's Top Ten Films of 2018

For dutiful film critics preparing to mark their ballots, the final months of the year are nothing less than a cinematic avalanche. Studios do everything in their power to entice us into viewing their most prized work prior to our voting deadlines and “best of” lists. There’s no way any single person can watch and fully digest every single movie that comes out in a given year, but boy do the most devoted cinephiles give it their all, consuming multiple pictures after work hours or early in the morning.

You can’t merely enjoy movies to pull off such a feat, you must be obsessed with them and believe deeply in their importance. It’s not just a job or a hobby, it is one of the great purposes of my life to champion an art form that possesses the power of strengthening our connection with one another. In such divided and toxic times, the humanizing beam of a film projector is more vital and revitalizing than ever. And in many recent cases cited below, it reminded me of why I fell in love with visual storytelling in the first place.

10. “Mary Poppins Returns”

In an era where Disney appears hellbent on churning out pointless yet highly profitable shot-for-shot remakes of their animated classics, the very notion of producing a sequel to the studio’s all-time greatest picture sounds like a surefire recipe for disaster. Yet what “Chicago” director Rob Marshall has achieved here will stand as a definitive example of how to honor a masterpiece. There is no attempt made to equal or improve upon Robert Stevenson’s 1964 marvel—after all, how does one top perfection? Yet with a running time clocking in just nine minutes shy of its predecessor, this buoyantly old school musical captures the innocence, whimsy and wonderment of “Mary Poppins” while offering its own spirited take on the material.

Emily Blunt is well-aware that she does not possess the indelible screen persona, let alone the pipes, of Julie Andrews, yet her balance of warmth and sardonic wit is impeccable for the title role, as is Lin-Manuel Miranda’s vibrance and Cockney-by-way-of-Neptune accent in the Bert-like role of lamplighter Jack. A team of veteran animators were brought out of retirement to create the film’s glorious hand-drawn sequence, while the “Hairspray” duo of Marc Shaiman and Scott Wittman penned nine original songs echoing the Sherman Brothers’ signature vaudevillian style. Worth the price of admission alone is the ever-ageless Dick Van Dyke, playing the son of the banker he brilliantly brought to life incognito in the first film. Marshall clearly drew upon his childhood memories of seeing “Mary Poppins” on the big screen, and this labor of love is sure to delight fans and newcomers alike. It certainly brought out the child in me.

9. “Life and Nothing More”

Winner of Film Independent’s John Cassavetes Award during last year’s Spirit Awards ceremony, Antonio Méndez Esparza’s arresting film aims to capture nothing more than the relentless flow of “life itself.” The director used his script merely as a blueprint, enabling each scene to be formed organically in the moment, while guided by the experiences of his nonprofessional actors (who share the first names of their characters). Spirit Award nominee Regina Williams delivers one of the year’s best performances as a waitress struggling to provide for her troubled son (Andrew Bleechington), and baby daughter in Leon Country, Florida. I’ve watched Esparza’s film twice now, and its greatness reveals itself even more upon second viewing, upending the biases we may have developed about certain characters.

The first time around, I tended to view events from Andrew’s perspective because that was how they were framed by the camera. His refusal to trust his mother’s boyfriend (Robert Williams) is understandable, since his own dad’s incarceration has given him little reason to trust father figures, though his methods of ousting him from the house are no different from that of the white family who attempt to kick the boy out of their affluent park, even as he poses no threat to them. All of the film’s major conflicts arise from a stubborn reluctance of its characters to communicate with one another. The poignant final shot suggests that our estrangement can be mended the moment we choose to lock eyes and listen to each other, allowing our voices to rise above the deafening cries of our presumptions.

8. “The Tale”

When Lady Gaga appeared on Stephen Colbert’s late night show this past October, she delivered a stirring defense of Christine Blasey Ford, the psychologist who charged Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault prior to his confirmation as a Supreme Court justice. “If someone is assaulted or experiences trauma, there is scientific proof that the brain changes,” noted Gaga. “It takes the trauma and puts it in a box, files it away and shuts it so that we can survive the pain.” It may take years for that box to be reopened, as evidenced by multiple survivors of the abuse administered by Olympics doctor Larry Nassar. Taped testimonials delivered by these women and girls during his trial, and subsequently uploaded on YouTube, were humbling in their bravery. The same can be said of this blistering narrative memoir from documentarian Jennifer Fox, who revisits an episode from her youth that she had kept buried for decades.

While interviewing rape victims for her latest project, Jennifer (Laura Dern) is triggered into remembering the intimate relationship she developed with the running coach (Jason Ritter) and instructor (Elizabeth Debicki) at a horse-riding camp when she was only a little girl (played with heartbreaking innocence by Isabelle Nélisse, sister of “Monsieur Lazhar” star Sophie Nélisse). Rather than accompany Dern’s scenes with routine flashbacks, Fox finds ingenious ways of having the heroine enter her own past, interrogating the occupants of her memories as if they were the subjects of her latest documentary. Dern’s late “Rambling Rose” co-star John Heard gave one of his final performances as the older version of Ritter, who is publicly shamed in a sequence that registers as a rallying cry of the #MeToo movement.

7. “Custody”

There was no horror film in 2018 that tested my nerves quite like this Hitchcockian nightmare from Xavier Legrand, an incredibly gifted first-time feature director from France. Billed as a domestic drama, I was prepared for something more akin to Asghar Farhadi’s “A Separation,” as a divorced couple, Antoine (Denis Ménochet) and Miriam (Léa Drucker), battle in court over the custody of their young son, Julien (Thomas Gioria, in one of the most astonishing debut performances I’ve ever seen). At first, my sympathies leaned toward the father, whose foiled bids to connect with Julien are relatable—until his face hardens and he begins to show his true colors. Ménochet slyly straddles the line between frustrated sad sack and frightening monster, causing us to feel as perpetually on edge as Julien, never certain of his next move.

In every tremulous motion and agonized glance, Gioria conveys the volatile atmosphere of white-knuckled fear his father maintained at home. Merely being in Antoine’s presence is enough to give Julien PTSD, and when he attempts to make a run for it, he quickly realizes there is only so far he can go. In a superb instance of juxtaposition, Legrand cuts from Julien’s older sister (Mathilde Auneveux) belting out “Proud Mary” at a birthday party to the violence that threatens to erupt between Antoine and Miriam in the parking lot. Then we arrive at a climatic sequence on par with the finale of Hitchcock’s “Rear Window,” as Legrand’s Oscar-worthy sound designers create a harrowing sense of impending doom with the subtlest of repetitions. Only at the final fade out will you allow yourself to take a breath.

6. “Leave No Trace”

A list of the year’s greatest achievements in acting wouldn’t be complete without Thomasin Harcourt McKenzie’s extraordinary lead performance in Debra Granik’s quietly shattering drama. Having already won over New Zealand audiences with her endearing web series, “Lucy Lewis Can’t Lose,” here McKenzie goes toe-to-toe and nose-to-nose with the sublime Ben Foster, and proves to be every bit his equal. Foster’s character of Will has the same first name as the role that the actor played in Oren Moverman’s equally great war-themed film, “The Messenger,” about an injured soldier assigned to inform families that their enlisted loved one has passed. The man Foster embodied in that film was named after one of the soldiers he met during his research, so it’s only appropriate that the Will he portrays in Granik’s film is also a veteran haunted by ghosts from the past.

The picture is deeply effective in part because none of Will’s demons are ever spelled out in an expositional monologue. So much can be gleaned simply through his behavior, such as how he winces at the sound of propeller. Choosing to raise his daughter, Tom (McKenzie), in the wilderness of Portland, Will has carved out a manageable life for himself. The strength of the bond between him and Tom endures until the modern world comes crashing upon them, forcing the pair to reevaluate what direction they want to take in life, and whether it will be the same one. McKenzie never overplays a single note of her character’s journey, remaining strong for her dad even while fighting back tears. It’s the restraint of her work that left me with a lump in my throat.

5. “Muppet Guys Talking”

For lifelong Muppet fans, Frank Oz’s euphoric documentary has been the gift that keeps on giving. It premiered exclusively online this past March, enabling the legendary Muppeteer-turned-director to connect directly with viewers, while providing those who sign up for a membership with enough deleted scenes to fill a separate feature. Taken altogether, this footage paints an invaluable portrait of Jim Henson’s genius, in terms of both his visionary creations and his knack for being “a harvester of people.” Oz (Miss Piggy, Grover, Fozzie Bear) joins four of his fellow “Muppet guys”—Dave Goelz (The Great Gonzo), Fran Brill (Prairie Dawn), Bill Barretta (Pepé the King Prawn) and the late Jerry Nelson (Count von Count)—for a lively chat about the process of puppeteering and the painstaking effort that must be expended in order to achieve the most fleeting yet crucial nuance. It’s fascinating to watch the performers break down the origins of their iconic characters, and how they were inspired by aspects of their own lives.

Yet what makes the film truly great is the way in which Oz and his wife, executive producer Victoria Labalme, resurrect the humanistic spirit of Henson, enabling his worldview to reach beyond the barriers of show business and prove utterly universal in its relevance. Acknowledging that the Muppets’ signature style is less than polished, Oz keeps the picture loose and alive, refusing to conceal the cameramen scrambling to capture their subjects’ unscripted banter. The performers and audiences that Henson brought together through his artistry are his everlasting symphony, and this onscreen quintet is enduring proof of that. And if you like 1981’s “The Great Muppet Caper” now, just wait till you get a load of the behind-the-scenes stories. It’s one of the most mind-boggling feats in cinema.

4. “First Reformed”

With this richly disquieting film—his finest since 1985’s “Mishima: A Life in Four Chapters”—Paul Schrader proves himself to be a master of “slow cinema,” and like the tortoise, he has outpaced every impatient hare in his path. Moviegoers unfamiliar with this term may assume that it promises little more than a dull slog, but that couldn’t be further from the truth. If anything, this genre’s contemplative nature proves to be far more transfixing than films so breathless to entertain that they forget to earn our investment. The austere filmmakers that Schrader pays homage to throughout the picture—notably Robert Bresson and Carl Dreyer—are interested in withholding certain elements, refusing to utilize techniques that viewers have come to expect, such as a quick editing pace or varied coverage like over-the-shoulder shots.

Alexander Dynan lenses the film in the same compressed aspect radio as Paweł Pawlikowski’s “Ida”—1.37:1—limiting the camera movement almost entirely to scenes that jump from the temporal plane to the cosmic realm, escaping the bonds of reality. Whereas Schrader’s “Taxi Driver” followed a disillusioned veteran whose plans to wreak havoc on a world he believes to be diseased are foiled by the plight of a 12-year-old prostitute, “First Reformed” is about a disillusioned military chaplain-turned-pastor whose plans to wreak havoc on a world he believes to be diseased are disrupted by the plight of a pregnant woman named Mary. Ethan Hawke delivers the performance of his career as Toller, a clergyman with self-righteous convictions fueled primarily by his personal demons. Like Dietrich Brüggemann’s “Stations of the Cross” (a 2014 German masterwork that Schrader and I both revere), this movie is a rebuke to the fallacy that self-destruction is tantamount to spiritual transcendence.

3. “Roma”

No director makes my jaw drop quite like Alfonso Cuarón. His latest movie left me so stunned that I remained pinned to my seat throughout the entirety of the credits, which end with the Buddhist chant, “Shantih Shantih Shantih.” This invocation of peace—in body, speech and mind—was memorably repeated in Cuarón’s “Children of Men,” a 2006 thriller that horrifyingly foreshadowed the current refugee crisis. That film contained two extended sequences of continuous movement—one set in a car under siege, the other on war-torn streets—that are among the most spellbinding triumphs of cinematography, choreography and effects in the history of cinema. Cuarón’s new film culminates with a bravura set piece on par with those others, yet that’s only one aspect of its greatness.

Like “Children of Men” and “First Reformed,” this deeply personal tour de force assesses the challenge of bringing new life into a chaotic world. It is also a black-and-white valentine to the Mexico of Cuarón’s childhood and the maid who nurtured him, embodied by Cleo (newcomer Yalitza Aparicio). As she finds her own life paralleling that of the middle-class woman she works for, Cleo begins to feel increasingly conflicted about her own future, as well as that of her unborn baby. Having learned a wealth of techniques from his regular DP, three-time Oscar-winner Emmanuel Lubezki, Cuarón takes charge of the camerawork this time around, and his eye for composition (albeit less restless) is every bit as audacious. A pair of visual motifs involving water and airplanes resurface in endlessly provocative ways, while two prolonged scenes—viewed from static angles—blur the action in the background, marrying two moments of inevitable heartache. I have rarely heard an audience react so audibly to the art of mise-en-scène as when I saw this film with a sold-out crowd during the opening night of its theatrical run in Chicago. If you see only one movie on the big screen this holiday season, make it this one.

2. “Minding the Gap”

In the monumental 52-year legacy of Chicago’s production company Kartemquin Films, none of its documentaries have impacted me on as personal a level as this astonishing debut feature from Bing Liu. While filming his longtime friends Keire and Zack as they took part in their cherished hobby of performing bruising stunts on their skateboards, Liu began to see a potential film materialize as he held the camera on their faces. “This place eats away at you,” says Keire of their hometown, Rockford, Illinois. He relishes the fleeting sense of control he sustains while skating, until he wipes out. Sure, the hobby may hurt him on occasion, but so did his dad, and he still loves the old man, though it’s telling that Keire finds catharsis in stomping on his boards until they splinter.

The fact that all three men are victims of domestic abuse is alarming but also quite commonplace in a town where nearly half the population is paid below the minimum wage, and where the residue of violence clings to the interior of houses that were meant to comfort and protect. “I saw myself in your story,” Liu explains to Keire, who likens the experience of making the movie to “free therapy.” As the filmmaker struggles to come to terms with the wounds inflicted by his own upbringing, he starts to see echoes of his abuser in the increasingly unsettling behavior of Zack. When Liu films his mother and simultaneously confronts her about the abandonment he felt as a kid, he keeps a separate camera fixed on his face, drawing attention to his own inability to break free from the pain of his past. Assisted by co-editor Joshua Altman, Liu weaves these stories together, forming a seamless tapestry of anguish and catharsis that culminates in an extended montage so deftly executed, it left me in awe.

1. “Eighth Grade”

As a bullied student in eighth grade, what I desired more than anything was to become a director of films that would make kids like me feel less alone. Now, with his first foray into filmmaking, Bo Burnham has made the movie I’ve spent nearly two decades hoping would one day exist. The film’s heroine, Kayla, is a lonesome soul bereft of an extracurricular outlet. Though her graduation from junior high is only one week away, every second in that soul-crushing environment feels like an eternity. So she turns to the world that didn’t exist when I was her age, the one that beckons to her from the cool glow of her laptop and phone. Burnham, who first garnered a global audience via his comedic YouTube videos, honors his protagonist by refusing to play her feelings for laughs. As portrayed by 15-year-old Elsie Fisher, Kayla emerges as one of the most compelling and vividly realized movie characters I’ve ever encountered. My heart broke every time the camera lingered on her face—untouched by an artificial Hollywood sheen—as she struggled to contain her embarrassment behind an expression of optimism.

The screenplay by Burnham doesn’t have an ounce of condescension, and the laughter that it generates—which is plentiful—arises out of recognition rather than ridicule. These are the years where attentive parenting is utterly essential, and Kayla is fortunate enough to have a father, Mark (Josh Hamilton), who may exasperate her with his persistent prying, but has a limitless reservoir of empathy and understanding. When Mark’s words finally register for Kayla during a lovely sequence set around a campfire, they affirm her sense of belonging in the world. As he tells his daughter, “You make me brave,” I couldn’t help agreeing with him. There is nothing braver than a middle schooler who dares to be human. What makes “Eighth Grade” the best film of 2018 is the way it makes Kayla’s anxiety resonate on a level that transcends all age, race, gender, nationality and culture. With petulant bullies elected to our highest offices, and technology breeding an addiction to constant approval, it goes without saying that our world has currently succumbed to an eighth grade mentality. You no longer have to be 13 in order to feel trapped in junior high.

from All Content https://ift.tt/2BbIrWp

0 notes