kindofcuntess

[kindofcuntess]

when life *reflects* art (but positively, for once…no whitneys here 🙄 if you know, you know, and if you don’t, GO watch ‘the curse’ rn)

now i just have to add to one of my fav posts with thee living bella baxter herself :) i may sound like a broken record if you’ve seen my posts before, but if you’re new here, the parallel i draw is the fact that both are, as best encapsulated in poor things’ synopsis, “steadfast in [their] journey to equality and liberation,” with no regard for whether the truth about social injustice offends people or not. emily, however, lives in a different world and not one that she’s built for aka she’s not performative, so instead of statements, her unsettling (re: actually progressive) things to “say” are through her (produced, acted in, and often both) art: poor things (2023) , the curse (2023), kinds of kindness (2024) i saw the tv glow (2024), (upcoming) eddington (2025), (also upcoming) bugonia (2025), etc. in her (in a refreshing response to a question about why she doesn’t like speaking on her work…unlike others who will scream about how fEmInIsT- totallyyyy not talking about barbie people and their mounting of one of the most insufferably branded campaigns to date when it’s more of a capitalist venture that regurgitates surface-level talking points…oops 🤷🏽‍♀️- or whatever else their half-assed projects are until they’re blue in the face when if it is done for the right reasons, one has no desire to announce their virtue. they simply desire to contend oppressive systems and just DO it 🤯) words, “isn’t it better when the work speaks for itself?” indeed, it is. i can’t wait to see what she does next <3 they really said fuck polite society always and forever ‼️

bella baxter the woman that you are

[kindofcuntess]

will forever be thinking about the day this queen pathologized (not literally, of course, as attributing bigotry and performativity to an medical ailment, therein implying it is not an active choice would be abhorrent…she simply used it as metaphor that i’m taking a riff off of 🤗) performative liberalism as the disease it truly is 🙏🏽 when conservatives say “liberalism is a disease,” i tend to sigh because while we can agree on performativity being insufferable, they tend to refer to the progressive ideologies that performative liberals only purport to hold, but she said it after the following remark: you know what’s the right thing to do. you know what you’re supposed to be saying, posting, doing in a circumstance and yet you don’t necessarily feel it all the way in your bones because you want everybody to think [that you’re a good person].” said remark also took a second hit at performativity culture (which whitney caters to, of course, as do all she reflects in the sense that none of them care about social justice, so there’s that aspect, but accompanying it is the fact that have established tenets of morality based on the antithesis of activism and progressivism (like claiming statements and pins are the former).

do y’all ever think about how disturbing it is that they all just perform for one another constantly, yet genuinely feel a sense of moral superiority when they one-up someone on a topic they don’t give a fuck about? don’t mind my digression, but i am in utter disbelief that this phenomenon isn’t deemed utterly horrific and rather, treated with banality: what’s more, it’s embraced. anyway, the bit about posts and statements refers to the fact that they’ll shriek things like “if you’re not speaking about- code for giving a substance-lacking and often reactionary statement- about a [trending social issue everyone forgets when they decide to move on to a new subject for virtual signaling 🙄] then you’re complicit! we need to rAiSe AwArEnEsS!” when raising awareness, of course, would consist of thoroughly exposing, interrogating, and condemning a social injustice, but that kind of work takes effort and an extensive amount of time. they have no interest in that.

anyway, this is one of my favorite remarks of all time that i NEVER thought i’d hear from someone outside the disappointing use of it by the right wing, but i’d expect nothing less from the woman who stated (no hypocrisy here given she speaks of the most disruptive piece of cinematic activism we’ll ever see: a fully truthful and thus, inherently brutal characterization of performative liberalism that is unprecedented because the sickeningly concentrated cesspool of performativity that is hollywood is too cowardly and too complicit to not sympathize it, let alone condemn it to the full extent: ‘get out’ is a nice intro to the subject, but comes nowhere close to examining the performative mechanism and its every maddening detail, though i don’t think it intended to, so this is in no way a diss) and more importantly SHOWED through action that performative liberalism-especially that of the white variety given it converges with the ever-insidious combination of white superiority and white savior complexes (another quick side note as i seem to have a proclivity for rambling: the latter is always the former but the former can exist without being the latter. think of white saviors as squares and white supremacists as rectangles. all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares)- is a, and i quote with pleasure, “horror.”

bonus and rather depressing fact: people actually laughed when she described it as such (again, what the actual fuck is wrong with society? clearly a rhetorical question, but jesus CHRIST-) but she stood tend toes behind her correct description with an “it IS!!” i’ll have to make a gif out of that soon :)

[kindofcuntess]

the devastatingly ironic product of performativity culture: when actions aren’t self-announced (and rightfully so), activists go unrecognized while the virtue-signaling whitneys of the world receive praise…

i’m so tired of living in a society like this. i thought i’d share my response to the comments above. from your resident black, female social scientist who will be an emily cultist (kok reference ofc!) for life 🫶🏽

what you’ve never seen is her be performative, but it’s clear from the thread you and a number of others have the value of statements and actions placed inversely. she’s become one of the most politically disruptive forces in the industry and is progressive to her core. she’s actually been cited as being aware of the power she holds as a white, wealthy and extremely prominent figure and actively wanting to leverage that power to shield marginalized creators and projects about the systems of oppression we face. again, she just doesn’t parade around announcing these actions like celebs are apt to do, not that performative liberals in society at large fare much better. to name just a few examples, she’s financed and advocated for ‘i saw the tv glow, a film about trans identity, that the director stated may not have even had the political resources it would’ve needed to be made without her given an unwilling distribution system (regressive studioheads), acted as the principal force behind the most damning interrogation of performative white liberalism we may ever see put to screen called ‘the curse’ (it was outright ousted by the industry in a shocking emmys shutout and these politics of hers alongside those of her colleagues likely played a significant role in this occurrence), produced projects like problemista and fantasmas, both of which explore the “othering” of non-white immigrants in america and were directed by someone of that identity (always important when specific experiences that person has faced in relation to their marginalized identity factors are a fundamental part of the project), starred in and shaped (she’s been referred to as his “sous chef,” meaning she takes on any number of responsibilities an AD often would, but unofficially, and is always cited to be the one who chiefly develops her characters whether she’s producing or not) yet another unrelenting interrogative piece on domestic violence and rape culture (kinds of kindness: the one no one would shut up about in regards to it framing humanity “too cruelly” when it was simply accurate and truthful), produced one of the most transcendently feminist and humanist films we have today (poor things), and so much more.

she’s for all intents and purposes the paragon of cinematic activism. by the way, “activism” does indeed mean taking action as opposed to announcing one’s political views before a stage to be applauded or wearing a pin to be declared an “activist” when both of these things do exactly nothing to contend oppressive systems. they merely serve to garner social praise from the masses, which is par for the course in regards to a society in which performative liberalism is worshipped. hollywood exists as a microcosm of it. her series ‘the curse’ (also produced by her) would tell you alllll about that. she was the one cited to have, and i quote, insisted upon characterizing her performative white liberal character truthfully as an outright monster: evil to the core while hiding under the guise of so-called “activism,” which includes an incessant amount of shrieking about activism whilst actively degrading the marginalized communities she claims to be allied with on her little pins. it’s an unprecedented and daring action due to the that most have a proclivity for affording sympathy to these characters and the real people they reflect, which grants performative white liberals and the performativity complex at large (anyone can be performative, but those of the white variety are particularly pernicious given they assert their white saviour complexes and use them to assist in their vulterine machinations) immunity from the scrutiny they deserve given they are just as bigoted as those we see express it in a more explicit way.

by “explicit,” i refer to the right wing/maga people, which a scene in the show that depicts her character and her lack of a single progressive conviction converse with a “maga” kind of guy who happens to genuinely care about indigenous rights and the environment- things she only shrieks about being interested in- delightfully enunciates. anyway, the creators/directors of the show even explicitly told emily that she didn’t have to go this far and assume such a risk given the subject of performativity in particular is an “untouchable” one, meaning people retaliate he meaning that people fiercely retaliate when it is rightly condemned (it poses the risk of alienating her audience and peers alike, as has been discussed in an article i highly recommend), but she deemed it a “modern affliction,” which are words i actually take kindly to given she’s undertaken actions to back up that stance.

christopher nolan himself presumed that she had to be cajoled into characterizing her performative white liberal archetype that way (accurately, as all sources of education should) due to the way in which it jeopardizes her status (based unjustly on popularity and likability…that show was actually review bombed to 17% on the day it released and remains in the 40s on rotten tomatoes despite the critical acclaim that, as i have previously stated, did not translate into what was at one point an all but ensured emmy WIN for her. film and tv critics spoke of the nomination as a literal formality due to how much of a pantheon performance it was, but they didn’t take its political impact in a performative institution into account). THAT is how political she is and her willingness to make personal sacrifices for the collective cause while receiving close to no recognition for it (only those who announce it seem to, which is abhorrent given no true activist does so. a true activist acts in the name of justice rather than virtue-signaling for praise) should do well to attest to this.

[kindofcuntess]

WOW. my first reblog is going to be one of the most thoughtful essays i’ve read involving one of my favorite films in awhile! if i may add, i posit that poor things is inherently feminist in its apparent rejection of the societal impositions inflicted unto bella and her own contentions with it that the film frames in a positive light (particular emphasis on the film and character’s reckoning with the objectification of the female body, with the patriarchal notion wherein a woman is deemed a man’s territory, and with the innately exploitative nature of the sex work industry) but

1) i could not agree more that every film with a female lead doesn’t make it feminist. the oversimplification of just about everything these days is starting to become a bit disquieting…as is anti-intellectualism in general.

2) people reallyyyy tried to insinuate that emma stone wasn’t aware of the feminist themes inherent within poor things *because* we’ve gotten to a point in society where the masses seem to be programmed to only register discourse around a social issue when it exists in a more performative, branded manner and i HATE it. what i mean is she’s not one to sell herself or her films as champions of one social cause or another in a way that’s targeted to garner praise or recognition and so despite the fact that she has mentioned the feminism being “baked in” to a larger means of interrogation best described by lanthimos’ remark that they sought to create a film about “the monstrosity that is society. without even commenting on the film, i’ll simply state that barbie’s explicit campaign tactics that did in fact commodify, by very definition, the idea of feminism, became absolutely insufferable after awhile. they spent close to nine months framing some “feminist 101” narrative about it that became damn near inescapable in the media. i think that the work can and does speak for itself, so if it’s about a social issue, the viewer should be left to interpret that for themselves. that is, branded “activism” is not only perturbing, but can genuinely narrow the viewer’s scope.

3) YES to the concept that feminist film knows no gender because, surprise surprise, one simply needs to be a *feminist* to incorporate those ideals into their art. i will never not be dumbfounded at yet another predominantly liberal notion that implies only people of a certain marginalized identity are able to make films about that identity. the idea should always be to *center* those voices, meaning that no appropriate commentary and the project with which it exists in can come without actively doing exactly that in one’s research/development, but in my view, we need to start encouraging *exactly* that. we should *all* be feminists and that means educating and inviting everyone to engage with and produce feminist material. i may or may not mention it in every other post butttt might i simply remind that the curse, which is perhaps cinema’s most seminal and damning interrogation of performative white liberalism to date, was helmed by a majority white production team (i’m back btw 🙋🏽‍♀️) . they simply did an extensive amount of research and outreach in the community the show was set in that allowed marginalized peoples to inform and properly shape the narrative.

Feminism is not a genre of film!

Does anyone else feel like cinema is kind of popping off in 2024 so far? Watching films has become my coping mechanism for winter. Recently, I watched the film Poor Things which has taken the world by storm; with ‘Best picture’ and multiple other Oscar nominations to prove it. Aside from the gorgeous aesthetics of Poor Things, the film’s story has fuelled the fire for the current feminism in film debate. For anyone who hasn’t seen the film, this post will contain spoilers and I really do recommend you watch it! Poor Things is the story of Bella Baxter, a female lead who’s journey to mental maturation is a key aspect of the film. We follow Bella who is revealed to be an amalgamation of mother and child, the mother’s body with the brain of her infant child (An aspect of the film which receives NOT enough attention). What the film does focus on is how her brain develops and how the young brain being treated as the adult shell affects Bella’s view and experiences of the world. The film covers topics of the 20th Century society, and how women were treated within it, prostitution, marriage, manipulation and suicide.  

Is Poor Things a feminist film? Seems to be a key question in the discourse. But I think that we need to take a moment to question what this concept actually means, what is a feminist film? Whilst there are many great smaller films that cover feminist topics well, I want to focus on these big blockbusters as these moneymakers allow us to also think about the role capitalism plays in this debate. Film is an industry after all. A common theme in these female-led Oscar noms is that none of them are labelled as ‘feminist’ in their promotional materials. Feminism is still a divisive term, and in the pursuit of profit, it can be risky to give a film such a label. ‘Feminist’ is a label that is both given and taken away by the media and discourse surrounding a film.  it is an umbrella term for various socio-political movements, it is a lens in which to view the world and a standard to hold things to. How could this be encapsulated within a film? Within Feminism itself there are internal arguments, one person's feminism may look completely different to someone else's. 

Take a look at Barbie, celebrated by some as a feminist classic, but belittled by others as not being feminist enough. How could Barbie be a perfect feminist film? In 90 minutes could the film have covered aspects of a movement that’s history varies so hugely from country to country. There wouldn’t be time to then expand into intersectionality*, would Warner Bro’s dare discuss abortion issues, Barbie meets a TERF? By putting both Barbie and Poor things up to this impossible feminist standard it leads to them being torn down by an angry mob. It is important to view film critically, especially when these topics are covered, but when these films face so much backlash it can have knock on effects and scare filmmakers from attempting to cover women’s issues in their projects. Barbie is a film that set out to make money, it’s based on a bloody toy! While we can acknowledge that there were issues with the topics covered, it is important to also be grateful that a film like this exists, made so much money and definitely introduced or expanded upon feminist topics to the audience. 

This leads me to ask, where is this energy for films without a male lead? Feminism can be a critique applied to all films yet seems to only be extended to those with a female lead. Just because a film has a female lead doesn’t mean it is feminist. I think this echoes the emotional labour that society puts on women to represent feminism and fight for respect for themselves and other women. Do we all lack the object permanence to remember feminism unless we’re directly gazing upon a woman? In order to be successful, feminist practices need to be adopted in all aspects of a film, yes with female characters, but also behind the screen. A role can be written and directed by a man, just because it is played by a woman does not mean it is feminist or not exploitative.  

Capitalism wants to sell us feminism as this neat little package, it wants us to buy into it and forget that there is no way to price an ideology. Poor Things is a fantasy film, not a feminist film, feminism is not a genre. Yes, there are Feminist themes, but there are also prominent themes of class issues, yet no one is rushing to label it as a communist film. If we cannot decide a set framework or criteria for a feminist film, we need to stop trying to use that label. Feminism is a critique that can be applied to all media, and feminist debate surrounding film needs to also expand to cover those behind the scenes. Let’s just enjoy some cinema and accept that it cannot fit into the high standard, but by sparking a conversation it can do more and still be used to educate people. 

*Hey, don’t know about intersectionality? Thats cool, but you should acquaint yourself. Intersectionality in feminism is an acknowledgement that gender based oppression isn’t one size fits all and that other factors such as class and race can have a huge effect. Read up 

[kindofcuntess]

emily ‘emma’ stone as liz and emily, respectively, photographed for yorgos lanthimos’ ‘i shall sing these songs beautifully’ <3

[kindofcuntess]

best actress of (far more than just) her generation i know that’s right !! she’s a force to be reckoned with and i love how this article gave a nod to more than just the acting itself, actually. she’s emerged as a true beacon of “weird girl cinema,” progressive cinema, etc. on the producing side of things too along. what’s more, she actively leverages that “girl next door” thing they speak of to get these kinds of projects through the door and some people just hate to see it 🤷🏽‍♀️

[kindofcuntess]

emily as emily in kinds of kindness (2024)

[kindofcuntess]

emily ‘emma’ stone as rita fanning in kinds of kindness (2024)

[kindofcuntess]

emily ‘emma’ stone as rita fanning in kinds of kindness (2024)

[kindofcuntess]

... it's actually called 'kinds of cuntess' 💋

emily 'emma' stone in (ok, fine) kinds of kindness (2024)

[kindofcuntess]

emma stone and joe alwyn in kinds of kindness (2024)

oh emily i'll always love you 💛❤️💙

i still don't think people realize the mental toll being in a 24/7 trauma response on account of your stalker ex who likes to pretend you're still his wife making it clear that he's the systemically enabled one who can and does re-traumatize at his expense can partake but yk. that or they treat it with banality, but there was a little too much "absent mom [risking her safety to protect her daughter as best as she could in her circumstances within a society that makes speaking out threatening to them both is the antithesis of such, but]" and not enough "abusive piece of shit" discourse for me.

[kindofcuntess]

emily 'emma' stone in the favourite (2018) with one of my favorite non-verbal pieces of acting of all time: makes sense as her non-verbals (and everything) are god tier ... why is she always SNUBBED ?! [looks with contempt] oh HEY abigail we match!!

[kindofcuntess]

"society" is derogatory, by the way. i feel you girl 👎🏽

[kindofcuntess]

me every time i re-realize that one of the best performances in tv history not only didn't get an emmy ... but wasn't even nominated (??!!!!!). EMILY JEAN STONE YOU'RE AN ICON and it's fuck the damn tv academy forever 🙄🫶🏽

[kindofcuntess]

you mean to tell me she's actually not a frontrunner for not one but three of the most exquisite subtle acting performances to exist ??

[kindofcuntess]

emily 'emma' stone and margaret qualley in kinds of kindness (2024)

[kindofcuntess]

kinds of kindness (2024) holds a mirror to society's treatment of abusers and victims/survivors alongside mental health stigmas regarding trauma and mental illness and some of y'all could stand to take a closer look at yourselves ... a small piece of commentary on the third chapter

disclaimer: emily and yorgos have both answered to the importance of active viewing, shall we say, stating that this film does in fact require engagement, which is their less hostile way of invoking media literacy and critical thinking. they're trying to show (and correctly frame as evil) injustices that go on in the (aptly summed) "disturbing" world. the world doesn't come with didactic narration and therefore, essential to allowing for the improvement of one's perception is the film's refusal to tell you what's going on. treat it like you're in the real world given they actually do show all the filth others like to hide to maintain a facade about none of this evil in the first place. one of the implicit biases this film gratefully challenged me on was "cult members just choose to be brainless" and i'll get into it more below, but if you can manage to find things you may have missed or ideologies you need to unlearn through the film, you'll be better prepared to act with an impact that matches your intention with regard to treating people fairly along with the knowledge of what atrocities take place that are intentionally concealed such that we might try to effect change and prevent them.

this scene never fails to break my heart. it seems many find it difficult to connect with her or deem her robotic, but her soul is always brimming over the rigidity (i suppose people equate to having no emotion, which is problematic, but i digress) she's been confined to in no small part due to being in a 24/7 trauma response. here, she's sombered by the distance she must establish given her circumstance but also expresses such a humble demeanor. she's not doing this- risking what's as close to safety as she can find while still being able to travel back and look after her daughter-for praise. she's doing it because she genuinely loves her daughter, who is led to believe that HE gave her the shoes by none other than the abuser himself. taking credit is never a question despite apprehension that her daughter may wonder if she still loves her what with her not knowing the reason she fled from the home.

at this time, i will remind that her daughter could far too easily (thank systemic enablement of violence against women) end up worse off if she told someone and they believed him over her, who'd easily be able to frame her as a woman who simply abandoned him and their daughter to flock over to a sex cult but sans the wretched act he perpetrated that catalyzed her uncontrollable circumstances. in fact, i've seen the same reviewers who protest kok's cruelty victim-blame with this vile line of rhetoric that in turn matches the cult's (rendered in the film to represent society with a focal point on rape culture) victim-blaming, so no wonder they retaliate against a proper framing of their action.

anyway, i'd implore you to look up the social paradigm of cults targeting vulnerable populations. hint hint: people who've just experienced SA are one such population. emily expresses resistance to the cult's social views and is a fiercely intelligent independent thinker who's only betrayal of logic may be hanging on to the seemingly irrational/supernatural belief that bounds the cult: their possession of water with otherworldly properties. as indicated by her trauma syndromes, she was in a state of disarray as she instinctively fled an unimaginable situation and needed something to believe in after that shock to her system, hence the beliefs about water rooting themselves in her psyche. returning to emily's intentions in the gif, it is clearly established that she genuinely loves her daughter and it's one of myriad expressions of vibrancy that is simply more subtle than, say, bella baxter. both are valid. bella isn't too over animated, as i recall being spat out in large part to discredit emily's (emma) beautifully rich portrayal of a neurodivergent-coded character with a larger-than-life personality whose sci-fi aspects of existence in her fictional world make for a wholly unique way of being, and emily isn't too reserved. y'all just seem to enjoy coming after women who don't act how you want them to or how you do, both of which are poisonous to feminism. thank god emily and yorgos' film theory is informed with the kind of feminism that recognizes women are a heterogenous group different circumstances forge different lived experiences. i rest my case. kok emily (and emily irl) oh how i love you <3