#...they should be banned from cinema

[euniexenoblade]

Sex as an act is only ever glorified by society when said sex is cis straight white abled etc. Gay people, trans people, poc, the disabled, women, get their sex lives mocked, made illegal, banned from literature and cinema, you can literally get killed for being one of these things and expressing a sexuality. At the same time, rape is used as a punishment for existing as these things, weaponizing sex against us. This is similarly why ace people are treated like shit, abstaining from this is treated as a nasty aberration worthy of mockery and corrective rape. Things like "public" sex laws in the USA don't exist for some betterment of mankind, they existed as a way to arrest the gays having sex in a hotel room, they exist to harass the homeless who have no private spaces, they exist to harass trans people for simply existing. It's important to remember when talking about the act of sex, yes society pushes having sex as this important thing you should be doing, but only for men having sex as defined by Christian conservatives.

[pocket-jack]

Kid, attempting to cheer Killer up: "Let's have some distraction and go to cinema. Ye can pick the movie this time"

Killer: "Oh. Ok!"

Killer takes him to the most medically accurate and graphic slasher that should have been banned from the public view

Killer: "Phew! You were right, Kid! That was the best time I ever had in weeks!"

Kid completely traumatized and holding the vomit as hard as he can: "Yeah..... You're welcome, partner...."

[askshoutyasshole]

OKAY, I’VE NEVER DONE THIS SHIT BEFORE SO LET’S JUST GET THIS BULGE GRATINGLY AWKWARD INTRODUCTION POST OUT OF THE WAY

AS THE AUTHOR OF BASICALLY YOUR ENTIRE EXISTENCE (YOU’RE WELCOME FOR THAT, BY THE WAY), I’VE TAKEN IT UPON MYSELF TO MAKE A BLOG TO INFORM YOU ALL HOW FUCKING STONE COLD MORONIC YOU ALL ARE.  AND ALSO TO ANSWER QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE TOO, I GUESS. MOSTLY, IT’S THE FORMER. BECAUSE I’VE WITNESSED BASICALLY YOUR SPECIES’ ENTIRE TIMELINE, FROM THE PITIFUL BEGINNINGS TO ITS PATHETIC TERMINATION, AND LET ME TELL YOU IT’S FAR FROM MIND BLOWING. IT’S MORE AKIN TO WATCHING A SLOWLY DEFLATING BALLOON LET OUT ONE LAST, DISMAL BURST OF FLATULENCE, AS IT FINALLY SETTLES INTO ITS TRUE FORM THE THING IT WAS ALWAYS DESTINED TO BE A SAD, FLOPPY SCRAP OF RUBBER ON THE GROUND.

WHERE WAS I GOING WITH THIS?  SHIT RIGHT, THE ASK BLOG.

SINCE I SEEM TO HARBOR AN UNSHAKEABLE LOATHING FOR MYSELF AND HAVE NOTHING BETTER TO DO OTHER THAN SLOWLY DIE ON THIS ROCK, I FIGURED I WOULD DEIGN TO ANSWER WHATEVER QUESTIONS YOU SHITHEADS MIGHT HAVE FOR ME BECAUSE I’M ESSENTIALLY TAKING UP THE REIGNS AS NOT ONLY YOUR GOD BUT ALSO SOMEWHAT OF AN EXPERT ON ALL OF YOUR DEEPLY ROOTED FLAWS AND FAILINGS AS A SPECIES.

AND IF YOU’RE NOT A HUMAN... I DON’T GIVE A FLYING FUCK ACTUALLY, GO NUTS. SEND ME AN ASK ANYWAY.  ASIDE FROM DISHING OUT WELL-DESERVED FUCK YOUS, I CAN ALSO BESTOW MY FRANKLY SUPERIOR OPINIONS ON CINEMA AND GIVE ADVICE ON QUADRANTS, SINCE I’M ALSO A FUCKING SAVANT AT ROMANCE.

AND UH... YEAH. DO WHATEVER THE FUCK YOU WANT WITH THIS, I DON’T CARE.

H4H4H4H4H4 K4RK4T, OH MY GOD, YOUR3 4CTU4LLY M4K1NG TH4T BLOG??

SHUT THE FUCK UP TEREZI! YOU’RE HEREBY BANNED FROM EVER SHOWING YOUR SHITEATING GRIN ON MY BLOG. SUUUR333  L1K3 TH4TLL STOP M3 >;] HEY, WHAT ARE YOU- AGH!

H3Y LOS3RS! YOU SHOULD TOT4LLY SUBM1T 4SKS FOR M3 4ND US OTH3R TROLLS TOO S1NC3 W3 4R3 4LL *CL34RLY* MOR3 1NT3R3ST1NG TH4N NUBBY HORN3D K4RK4T  Hey! She has good a point. :::)  I Think I Am Good

FUCK OFF! *NONE* OF YOU OBNOXIOUS SHITHEADS ARE ALLOWED ON MY BLOG! DON’T ACTUALLY SEND ASKS FOR THEM, *PLEASE*.

WELL, YOU’RE NOT OBNOXIOUS KANAYA. YOU CAN MAKE SOME GUEST APPEARANCES IF YOU’D LIKE.  I Believe I Made Myself Clear On My State Of Contentment In Not Being Involved Whatsoever But I Suppose I Wouldnt Mind Showing Up A Couple Times

ANYWAY, I’D LIKE TO REITERATE THIS IS *MY* BLOG. NOT A SPACE TO PLATFORM PUTRID JACKASSES AND THEIR GOD-BARFING REPUGNANT OPINIONS.

K4RK4T! 1F TH4TS TH3 C4S3 TH3N WHY 4R3 YOU T4LK1NG?

FJKLSFDRGJLK;DFGRO;IUJ D RIOUG FUCK YOU, INTRODUCTORY POST OVER.

[dyns33]

Antichristmas

A Sandman / Good Omens crossover, with Dream x reader of course 

Merry Christmas and Happy Yule !

When Morpheus had met Y/N, he had felt that there was something special about her, but he had been unable to say what.

Maybe her soft laugh, her beaming smile, her clever mind. At first, after being unable not to think of her for several days, he had called Desire, to check that it was not one of their games to torment him.

But no, Y/N was simply a human that he liked, who charmed him even more after he invited her to his kingdom and that she got along with all his subjects. But it was against the rules for an Endless to associate with a mortal, so Morpheus had made the wise decision to have the happiness of her company only as a friend.

He didn't tell her right away who he was, what he was, afraid that she wouldn't want to see him anymore, but he was pleasantly surprised to receive a smile when he confessed the truth to her. He loved her even more then, suffering from not being able to confess his feelings to her.

           "I don't see why you two couldn't be together, boss."

           "Quiet, Matthew." Lucienne mumbled, trying to scare the raven away. "Those are the rules, Lord Morpheus has no choice."

           "It's stupid, he loves her, and I think she loves him too, I don't see where the harm is."

           "Mervyn, I believe there are still repairs to be done in the west wing of the castle."

           "But he's right, Loosh. It's not fair. Boss, it's not fair. !"

           "Life is unfair." sighed Morpheus as he surveyed his kingdom. "But that's the way it is. I have responsibilities, and I won't put my world, or the waking world, in jeopardy, because of a foolish passion. I've made that mistake once before, I know how that risk of ending."

Dream had a quick thought for Nada. His dear Nada, whom he had loved tenderly and who was now locked up in Hell. Even if he decided to forgive her, he couldn't get her out so easily, especially not after his fight with Lucifer.

Above all, he didn't want such a fate to happen to Y/N. He would not punish her if she pushed him away, he had changed since that time, he himself had been locked up, but if he broke the ban, the Kindly Ones could demand that he send his beloved to the depths of darkness, so that he understands that he had no right to be with her.

He therefore acted reasonably, and one day had the unpleasant surprise of finding Y/N in the company of a demon.

           "Oh. Hello... My lord." the snake demon hissed, lowering his head in front of him, forcing himself to smile while turning to Y/N.

           "Morpheus, this is my uncle Crowley. Well, he's not really my uncle, but I've known him since I was born."

           "Please tell me your "dear new dreamy friend" is not in front of me right now."

           "Don't growl, Uncle Crowley. No need to be anxious. Like about next week."

           "It's perfectly normal for me to be nervous about next week. This holiday... It's ridiculous. Even you should find it ridiculous. Christmas... I forbid you to celebrate it !"

           "That would be ironic and petty of me." Y/N sneered, kissing the demon on the cheek, before taking Morpheus' hand, to guide him down the street, to the cinema where they had a friendly date.

This was the first sign that greatly disturbed the master of dreams and nightmares, convinced that Lucifer was going to try to attack him by attacking Y/N.

The second sign came very quickly, when he was invited to his friend's house a few days later. As he stood in the entrance, he came face to face with a hellhound, a repulsive, dangerous, evil beast.

Except that Y/N didn't seem to see what he was seeing, kneeling beside the creature to hug it, while it was licking her face.

           "Hello, little pooch. Yes, I've missed you too. You've been good ? This is Morpheus, my friend. You're nice to him, okay ?"

           "... Where did you find that... thing ?"

           "Dog ? He was the one who found me. It's been a while now, he's not very young, but he's really adorable. Crowley keeps him from time to time. My other uncle doesn't like him a lot. I can't blame him for that, Dog can be complicated."

A third sign not seeming necessary, Morpheus took the decision to intervene directly in order to avoid a catastrophe.

Of course, if he didn't want to start a war, he couldn't destroy the demon or destroy the hound, so he locked the animal in a nightmare, and he calmly went to order this Crowley to stay away from Y/N if he didn't want to get in trouble.

Contrary to what he had thought, the young woman was not really grateful when she learned what he had done.

           "Uncle Crowley called me to say that you threatened him, and took my dog ! And before you went and yelled at him, you said he couldn't come near me anymore, you didn't mention the phones, so you have no right to blame him !"

           "Y/N, you have to understand, he's a demon. He's dangerous. And your dog isn't a dog, he's a hound from hell. I think they're trying to harm me in hurting you, and I refuse to let that happen. I'll get you another dog. Christmas is tonight after all."

           "But I don't want another dog ! Look... I get what's going on, and I think it's lovely that you want to protect me, but Dog won't hurt me, and neither will Crowley. Yes, they are demons, but they are nice !"

           "Demons are not nice." he insisted, taking her hand, hoping that she would listen to him. "It's in their nature to be evil and cruel. They can't change that, and they don't want to either. They were made that way and nothing can ever change that, they can't be trusted. They need to get them back where they came from as soon as possible."

Again, this didn't seem to have the effect Morpheus was hoping for. Y/N suddenly looked terribly hurt, her eyes filling with tears and she pulled her hand from his before running off.

Thinking that the grip of the infernal forces was already very strong on her, he returned to Crowley's place, where he was surprised to find an angel.

           "Hello, gracious Dream Lord. I'm Aziraphale, a friend of... I know Crowley, a bit. He explained to me that there were some issues between you, him, and Y/N."

           "You know Y/N ?"

           "Of course, she's my niece. We were her godparents at first, but I found the joke a little too offensive after some time."

           "I do not understand." Morpheus said slowly with a threatening voice, his shadow then filling the whole room. "You know there's a demon lurking around an innocent human, and you are not interfering ?"

           "A... Oh damn it. She didn't tell you ? She said she was going to tell you about it, what happened ? I'm sure you did something stupid, you're known for that. Without wanting to offend you."

           "Speak."

           “Y/N is not an innocent human. I mean, yes, she is, but she wasn't supposed to be. She is... the Antichirst. Crowley and I had been tasked by our respective camps to watch her, but we didn't want the world to be destroyed, nor did we want this lovely child to be unhappy, so we showed her another way, and now, even though she has certain powers, her dog is from hell, and she could still cause the Apocalypse, she's only Y/N, my sweet, lovely Y/N. Please tell me you didn't upset her, or hurt her."

The mistake, or rather the mistakes of Morpheus were all then obvious to him. The christmas jokes. The presence of a hound from hell, like the one who was to join the Antichrist on the day of the end of the world.

And above all, Y/N's sad look, when he said that demons couldn't change. That they were evil, untrustworthy, and had to be cast out. If he thought that of the creatures of hell, what would he think of the Antichrist ? Could he believe she wasn't evil ?

Without taking the time to greet the angel, he used his sand to appear in Y/N's apartment. The poor darling was crying on her couch. She didn't jump when she saw him, wiping away her tears as she stared at him with contempt.

           "What now ?"

           "I spoke with your other uncle."

           "Aziraphale ? And what did you talk about ?"

           "He explained everything to me."

           "Oh. I see. And you came to send me to hell, me, the Adversary, the Beast, who doesn't deserve to live ?"

           "No. No, I came to apologize."

Slowly, Morpheus reached into his long cloak, and stepping into the darkness, he dragged the hound out. The creature growled when he put it on the ground, before seeing its mistress, barking happily as it ran towards her to jump on her lap, licking her face and wagging its tail. Like a real dog, a nice normal dog.

This made Y/N smile, cry a little more, cuddling the animal.

           "I thought... I thought you were in danger. I apologize. I'll also go ask forgiveness from the demon Crowley, for this misunderstanding."

           "I don't know if Uncle Crowley will brag about it for eternity or if he'll be afraid his side will think he's definitely betrayed them." she sneered, before looking sad again. "Dream... About what you said..."

           "I was wrong. It was unfair and cruel."

           "I know. It's fine. Your brother warned me."

           "My brother ?" he asked, raising an eyebrow, surprised that Destiny could have gotten involved in something.

           "Destruction. He came to see me after I didn't cause the Apocalypse. He said it was normal for Destruction to come and talk to the Destroyer of Worlds at least once. He wanted to thank me and congratulate me. He said that my choice reassured him, showing him that he might have taken the right direction, by leaving, even if it had hurt his family and they still did not understand it. He advised me to be patient if I used to meet them, because they could be a bit stupid and judgmental."

Not knowing what to say, Morpheus said nothing. He still found it difficult to talk about his brother and the decision he had made.

It was true that he did not understand.

But that didn't mean he was judging Y/N. He was not unhappy that the world had not been destroyed, and so he was grateful to her that she had not followed the path that Lucifer had wanted for her.

A path that had allowed them to meet. Even though she was his enemy's daughter, she was different. And she wasn't human. And she was in no danger of being sent to hell, where she couldn't be locked up anyway, since she was born to reign there.

           "So... Now that you've apologized and aren't going to curse me, what do we do ?" she asked looking at him with mischievous eyes.

           "I thought we could go for a walk, stargaze, and celebrate Christmas."

           "It's an idea. Although Uncle Crowley will be furious. He says I only have the right to celebrate Antichristmas. Don't sigh, it's his joke, and I think it's not that terrible, whatever Aziraphale thinks about it."

Morpheus sighed anyway, reaching out her hand to help her up and guide her outside. As they were about to leave, he looked up to find a sprig of mistletoe hanging from the door. He looked at Y/N, who had followed his gaze.

           "That's not me." she said quickly looking around. "Nor my uncles."

           "No. I know who did this." Dream muttered seeing Matthew sitting on a tree, proud of himself.

           "Well. I don't celebrate Christmas, but tradition is tradition."

           "Indeed, you always have to respect the rules."

The hound and the raven made little sounds of joy as they kissed, before heading back inside, forgetting about the ride, the stars, Antichristmas and the rest of the universe.

[swallowerofdharma]

Over Casca’s naked body

Part one: A long premise

We can’t escape from our geopolitical context even when we are reading manga. We have internalized a good amount of beliefs, values, practices, even regulations from our lived experiences and various simulacra we have been exposed to, especially those in an audiovisual form.

If you grew up in the US, you know that freedom of speech is a core value there. But, while you can say mostly whatever you want within your own country, the US constitution has given the government the right to regulate what comes in from abroad. [1]

And that power has been used. Idealistically, greater access to common technologies even before the internet should have seen a redistribution of the media-creating capacity to many foreign countries outside of the US, so that people could tell their stories. But that hasn’t always been the case, with some exceptions, especially if we consider the biggest narratives that reached global popularity.

During the Cold War, anything that might be considered “communist propaganda” could be seized by the Post Office and never delivered. Books or even souvenirs from communist countries, for instance. Pamphlets criticizing US foreign policy. (…) Obviously it wasn’t totally like North Korea, plenty of foreign movies and music were allowed into the US. But the media that caught on was either already Americanized, or so plastically exotic that it doesn’t really say anything about the culture where it is from. The Beatles were British, but they got their start covering American rock and roll musicians. When John Lennon stepped out of the line, the American government made sure that he knew it. Movies imported from Japan were mostly samurai flicks, with very few movies set in the modern day. The film Ikiru is widely considered the best Japanese film ever made (…) but this existential drama about a depressed lonely man was only given a limited release in California, and the poster was edited to feature a stripper who is only in the movie for one minute. The narrow stream of European movies that made into the USA came in the form of the French New Wave cinema, movies that were stylistically inspired by American films, but also so stuffy that few audiences would ever want to watch them anyway. This was further stifled by the Hays Code, a set of extremely strict regulations that were in place from 1934 to 1968. (…) Some things that were completely banned from ever being shown in any film included: bad guys winning. All movies must end with the police outwitting the evil criminals, or the criminals causing their own demise. Any nudity. (…) Blood or dead bodies. (…) Interracial couples. White people as slaves. Criticism of religion, or of any other country. Naturally this prevented the more artistically liberal European films from being shown in American cinemas and when they did get a release, they were usually edited (…). At least until the rules were abolished in 1968 and replaced by the age rating system we have today. [1]

Even after several decades of access to the internet and foreign cultures, some attitudes have been internalized and carried on. For example, I had direct experience of the ways my own culture has been perceived and stereotyped or interpreted in terms not dissimilar from the exotic. And the same happens to me probably if I don’t keep in check my own personal beliefs about cultures that have been presented to me in similar ways. And I was surprised to see by how deeply rooted and spread are certain attitudes towards punishment or violent retribution viewed as necessary, the policing and self policing, and the expression of judgments or condemnation, and all this can complicate the understanding of different forms of narratives and the acceptance of different cultural attitudes and norms, without the expression of any opinion about morality or legitimacy.

I am reminding you that this is a long premise because I evidently don’t have the gift of brevity but this article is about Berserk and Casca.

In 1956 Anna Magnani won the Academy Award for Best Actress for her first English-speaking role in the American movie The Rose Tattoo. In 1958 Miyoshi Umeki was the first Asian born actress to win an Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress in Sayonara, a movie that despite its title was an American drama starring Marlon Brando. It isn’t hard to see in these decisions from the Academy, or the ones that followed in other categories, the willingness to build relationships between the US and specific foreign countries where the American army had a massive presence and that after WWII were ideal places for American investors, considering significant rebuilding necessary after the loss in the war. The movie industry and everything around it had instrumental roles. When it comes to the Academy Award, it is very interesting to notice that the women were the first ones to be nominated, becoming ambassadors and facilitators of the reshaping of the images of Italy and Japan from enemies to new essential strategic allies in the Cold War. And here comes the problem of the exotic, because after several decades I still see similarities in the American perception of those foreign cultures, Italian and Japanese, to those easy and friendly and intentionally constructed imaginaries of that time. Take the press around Anna Magnani or Miyoshi Umeki for example. Terms are so widely used and repeated that they are still in their Wikipedia pages in English today. For what interests me here, I am going to quote or summarize parts of the video essay listed below as [2] but I really recommend watching it entirely. It really helped me understand some of the issues I am talking about here, but it is much more than just this. And there is footage worth the time. [I know that many people here on tumblr really dislike YouTube videos. I understand why, when it comes to manga and anime, written articles have still better quality and content, in my opinion, but there are also many video essayists doing their due diligence on several other topics. And when I am busy cooking I put them on].

In the 1950s one of the problem with the new alliance with Japan was the widespread hate and racism towards Japanese people.

The government stepped in, producing educational films meant to endear Japanese culture to Americans (…) They showed off Japanese industry, introduced Americans to sushi and sumo wrestling, explained the country’s new democratic system et cetera. (…) A lot of [musical] acts that were popular with American soldiers, specifically exoticized Asian girls bands, like the Kim sisters and the Tokyo Happycoats, come over to the US and appear on television as both entertainment and a sort of cultural ambassadors, not only demonstrating America’s cultural power and dominance by performing recognizable American tunes, but also signaling to white Americans that those cultures didn’t pose a threat. (…)

It’s worth looking at this film [Sayonara] as part of a larger theme in a very specific post war moment. Gina Marchetti points out in her book Romance and the yellow peril: «Between June 22, 1947, and December 31, 1952, 10517 American citizens, principally Armed Services Personnel, married Japanese women. Over 75% of the total Americans are Caucasian». Meaning, Japanese war brides and the concept of interracial marriages was very much a conversation. (…) Sayonara must be seen as one of many films which called for a new evaluation of Japan as an enemy nation. (…) Much of the way [Miyoshi Umeki] was discussed is probably exactly how you might expect. The language journalists used to describe her was unambiguously racialized and often condescending. In the aftermath of her Oscar win, for example, Louella Parsons called her «a lovely little bit of Japanese porcelain», adding: «What a cute little thing she was in her native costume». Still, her Japanese identity also seemed to serve as a symbol, an embodiment of the new friendly Japan. In Miyoshi, Americans would find an idealized portrait of reconciliation, a woman who bore no resentment over the war, a woman who brought homesick American troops to tears by singing White Christmas, who adored American pizza, who learned English by listening to American records. She was accepted because she actively appreciated and participated in American culture. [2]

The roles offered to Miyoshi Umeki are significant in many ways. After Sayonara, she was cast to play other Asian characters besides Japanese ones. One recurring theme in those movies in particular is the contrast between modernity and tradition.

William G. Hyland writes, Flower Drum Song is a «clash between the Americanized lifestyle of the young Chinese and the traditions of their parents». (…) Miyoshi Umeki plays Mei Lee, a Chinese stowaway who arrives in the US for an arranged marriage. The more Americanized she becomes the more independent, the more willing she is to strike out on her own. [Chang-Hee] Kim writes: «[Flower Drum Song] flamboyantly shows that Asians in America were ready and willing to cast off their heritage and become real Americans in repudiation of the pre-war racial consideration of Asians as permanent aliens». I mention this not only because it’s one of Miyoshi’s major roles, but also because this theme, a supposed enlightenment via westernization, occurs again and again in her filmography, particularly in her work on television. Han [?] writes «Umeki’s representation on television is in constant oscillation between her status as a subservient Asian woman and her transformation into an assertive, modern female professional who has achieved independence through American cultural influence». [2]

Bear with me for a little longer if you can, because we are at the point where, watching the video, I experienced that sensation better translated visually in a lightbulb being turned on. I am skipping here the presentation of the story and footage from Miyoshi’s first appearance on television in The Donna Reed Show, but I once again invite readers to watch the video, which features high quality original footage. I was really struck by the “sensitive way” the American woman - Donna Reed I presumed - approaches the character played by Miyoshi, as the writers back then were well aware of the sensitive racial implications, and nevertheless a certain mentality pushes thought. Watching still, it is easier to avoid the presumption that in the 1960s “they didn’t know better” or that contemporary attitudes have improved greatly, just because we are more careful about the language we use.

The thesis statement of this episode is not subtle. The rejection of traditional Japanese customs allows her to live more fully in a democracy. Of course it isn’t really much of a choice, is it. Maintaining the customs of your culture or risking alienating your entire community. She changes her clothes, puts on a hat and goes shopping because she is an American now. Obviously these stories are told from the white American perspective, where this rejection of tradition and culture is portrayed as unambiguously positive and relatively tension free. This was not the case in Japan where the relationship between modernity and tradition were richly explored in cinema, particularly in women’s films. [2]

I would like to add that the independence that Donna’s character shows is only possible because of a series of factors, including the fact that her husband secures her a higher level of comforts, in comparison with lower classes or non-white Americans, and that domestic work is presumably done by home electrical appliances or other women, especially when you add child care and looking after the elderly to the equation. The unwillingness to consider those types of labor, traditionally carried on by women, as of equal importance to any other jobs is rarely discussed when it comes to the issue of women’s emancipation. Not to mention how, alongside this idyllic world shown on television, in the same country large numbers of women have to deal with continuous push backs in the name of different traditional values that all the same prevent many of them from achieving true equality. Those types of conversation and conflicts between traditional and modern happens at the same time in many countries and in most cases translates to continuous negotiations and compromises carried by men and women in real contexts and real situations, without necessarily white American women being aware of it or of all the necessary nuances.

Let me add this last element of conclusion about Miyoshi Umeki’s story.

In 2018 her son told Entertainment Weekly that in the 1970s she etched out her name on her Oscar and then threw the trophy away. Although he isn’t sure exactly why she did it he said: «She told me, I know who I am and I know what I did. It was a point of hers to teach me a lesson that the material things are not who she was». What Miyoshi Umeki achieved is pretty remarkable but one can’t help but feel that she could probably have done a lot more if she’d been allowed to move beyond her identity. [2]

Part two: Are we reading the same manga?

After considering all this, and more that I can possibly include in here to avoid this being even lengthier, I can’t help but wonder about the generalizations I have seen repeated vastly about portrayals of women in Japanese media, as well as misunderstanding of cultural attitudes towards nudity or the treatment of sensitive topics like sexuality and rape. There is a diffuse certain sense of entitlement, sometimes you can hear a condescending tone even, and this isn’t limited to the US. But why approach a foreign culture with a patronizing attitude instead of trying to understand the context more deeply? So many manga readers are willing to ask for clarification on translations, but not many ask about the context or the visual aspects involved in manga writing. I like to read analysis about different topics, so I look for them in English too because they are very numerous and easily accessible, but when it comes to the critique about the portrayal of women in too many cases I have to click away because of too many bias or that subtle sense of superiority of judgment. Berserk has become easily accessible and more and more popular but it is so greatly misunderstood at various degrees by a lot of its western readers - me included - and I really wanted to understand what is preventing, in most cases, a textual and contextual analysis.

The Hays Code hasn’t been around since 1968 but the sentiment that the only proper conclusion for every story is the triumph of the good guys and the punishment for the wicked is very much alive and well. There is this conviction that the only clever readers are those able to separate the heroes from the villains, or the good deeds from evil, and root for the right side to achieve retribution and satisfaction. The Hays Code hasn’t been enforced officially but it’s there in essence and every counter narrative has been rendered almost ineffective or judged poorly. As for the treatment of women, I don’t feel like we can honestly and surely compare or scrutinize Japanese media under special lenses. Nudity in comic books seems to me to be very common outside of Japan too, depending on censorship rules. I certainly notice how frequently Casca is shown naked or has been threatened with sexual violence, but I also notice that she isn’t the only one. The exaggeration of Guts’ muscles and the mutilation of his body are largely put on display. Griffith is intentionally shown fully naked, or completely covered by an elaborate armor, and he is subjected to many threats of physical and sexual violence as well. Charlotte is shown naked, but always in her bedroom, in a private environment or with a transparent cloth or a sheet of some kind to make her nudity different from the occasions when Casca’s body is publicly displayed. I am careful with my own thoughts when I read Berserk, I take the time to analyze my reactions and what I am feeling in these situations. I think that this is the reason that certain books or media are intentionally aimed to adults. I don’t feel a necessity to call to censorship or to give guidance of a moral kind but rather to make the necessary reflections. And I can’t imagine how someone can understand the story without taking their time with it. Part three: Casca’s rape

In 1973 the animation studio Mushi Production released a film called Belladonna of Sadness. I haven’t seen it yet but I know a little about it and I am planning to watch it when I feel like I can do it without being affected in a bad way. It is well known that Miura remembered this film when he designed the Eclipse. In 1975 Pier Paolo Pasolini directed the film Salò or the 120 Days of Sodom, which I strongly don’t recommend to the casual viewer or anyone who felt even slightly offended by Berserk. Suffice to say that in a particular political climate and in the context of the sexual revolution of the late 1960s, in the 1970s nudity and sexuality were at the forefront of the debate and human bodies were exhibited in a symbolic way that can be misunderstood today without knowledge of the context. Gender expression was questioned and men grew their hair or refused to wear suits or to follow rigid dress codes regardless of their sexual orientation. Sexual acts were considered political acts in ways that aren’t comparable with today for many reasons. The languages, the words and the visuals we use are ever changing and actual for a moment and gone the next one or misunderstood. Many words used by queer people in the 1970s wouldn’t be received well today, because the context has been transformed. For what I understand, in films like Belladonna of Sadness and Salò rape and cruelty are preeminently used as symbols because rape and cruelty presented in a direct visual form effect greatly any type of audience and can’t go unnoticed. The sociopolitical climate in the 1970s, in the middle of the Cold War, was particularly violent, both in Italy and Japan, and the art of the time can be remarkably bleak. [Go Nagai’s Devilman was published between 1972 and 1973, Osamu Tezuka’s MW was published between 1976 and 1978, Takemiya Keiko’s Kaze to Ki no Uta was also published between 1976 and 1984].

Kentarō Miura was born in 1966, he breathed the air and grew up in that same climate and was influenced and informed by it, especially later, when he finds himself as a young man in the renewed bleakness of the 1990s. It is likely that he saw Belladonna of Sadness when he was old enough, when he started to develop the story of Berserk, and after being greatly influenced by Nagai’s Devilman. The number of sources of inspirations that Miura used for Berserk is vast, varied and multidimensional and includes books and novels and films of various genres (historical, fantasy, horror, sci-fi in particular) manga, foreign comics books, and traditional art. It is often pointed out among fans that he was also a big fan of Star Wars. Pop Culture Detective released a very interesting video essay called Predatory Romance in Harrison Ford Movies [3] that brought to my attention many things that I didn’t notice or thought about when I was seeing those films myself as a young girl [I am more or less a decade younger than Miura fyi]. Analyzing Star Wars, Indiana Jones or Blade Runner with particular attention to the relationship between the male lead, Ford, and women is an interesting exercise and helps to re-contextualize our judgment about the treatment of women across different media with arguably less reach than Star Wars. I am not inviting anyone to make comparisons and ranking which is better, or absolve Miura because he was influenced by the context around him as everyone else, but I am asking to let go of the presumption that Japanese media in particular presents problematic attitudes towards women by default. The problems are much more generalized than we’d probably like. Better analysis or methodologies are needed to make a proper assessment, and we really shouldn’t assume by default that manga (for boys and men) equals bad treatment of women.

I hope that someone is still reading after such a long time. I didn’t know how to make my point on Casca without at least presenting some of these considerations. I must say I have understood myself better, having questioned why I was feeling uncomfortable when reading Casca but not offended. I understood that Miura wanted me to feel that way, uncomfortable, horrified, and I can appreciate Berserk better [in particular as a person that wasn’t permitted to live in a female body without a certain type of violence].

As stated previously, I noticed that Casca is more exposed and shown in all her vulnerability in much extreme situations: to multiple men in very public displays, like on the battlefield or at the center of the circle of Apostles in the Eclipse. She is also shown naked and vulnerable in other moments, especially alone with Guts. Those intimate moments with Guts, during the Golden Age, are instrumental for the readers to see her in all her humanity, without the armor, or the female dress, in order to build an emotional connection with her. In the cave, Casca makes herself emotionally vulnerable in front of Guts for the first time and tells him her story, exposing her past, her goals and her true self. She tells him things about Grittith too, things that are meant to show Guts/the readers Griffith as much naked, vulnerable and human as she is. Let’s pay attention and try to recollect Guts’ reactions to her story: he is listening to her, but he is embarrassed, distracted and attracted by her nudity and he fails to see Griffith as a human being, potentially fallible and not much different from Casca or himself. Guts also fails to take away from the story the original message, something more than Casca’s infatuation with Griffith as part of her being a woman. Comparing Guts’ reactions to Casca’s nakedness, his recollections or focus on the conversation, what he takes from it and what he doesn’t: a big part of the male readership of Berserk is probably in his same situation. It isn’t till later by the waterfall, that we see Casca alone with Guts again in an intimate way. This time he is naked and vulnerable and completely exposed too. This time through the physical connection between the two, within the sexual act, Guts can’t hide himself anymore, can’t deflect from his past and his fears. I assume that that is an important moment for the male readership to start to feel emotionally invested in the connection between Guts and Casca. That emotional connection and the investment in the relationship helps them to see Casca as a human being through the Eclipse and if that didn’t work then they still can see and feel the horror of the rape of Casca through Guts. Because Miura didn’t want anyone to enjoy that scene or to be sexually aroused without at least the horror and the moral objection to it.

Casca is a woman of color, born in a disadvantaged family and community, that ended up in a mercenary group without achieving the things she wanted, never fully belonging and constantly threatened by groups of men on the enemy side with forms of violence specifically targeted and unnecessary cruel. And everything she goes through culminates or goes back to the Eclipse - before and after - and that should be taken as completely symbolic. Like the multiple instances of rape in Pasolini’s Salò, the innocent, poor and exploitable youth is violated by those in power or those who are in charge. Gambino decides that Guts is expendable or due a lesson in humility, he takes the money and coldly facilitates Guts’ rape. Gennon is rich and powerful and pretends to recreate his fantasy, a sick version of Greek ped*philia. And all he does is using money and power to horrifically exploit the youth and Griffith offers himself up and loses a fundamental part of himself in the process. But the most cruel thing in Berserk is Griffith surrendering to the call of power and doing the same thing to Casca, in the absence of lust or desire: the corruption that has been in him - and has reached Guts as well - has spread. Griffith’s surrender to the call of power, and his intolerance for more of his own pain, silences all empathy in him.

In conclusion, nudity has various narrative functions, beside the suggestion of the erotic: through each character’s naked body, male or female, we see their vulnerability and their fundamental humanity [and if I remember correctly in contrast the rapists are always dressed or covered]. And rape has a symbolic meaning, beside the literal one and the psychological exploration of trauma. Violence but in particular sexual violence is one of the most estreme and powerful tools that can be used in stories [especially in visual media], but unfortunately the overuse of it in an edulcorate format, or as a tease, or devoid of any meaning, has ceased to call for disgust and challenge us to think, has perhaps lessen the impact and the gravity around it. In the 1970s Pasolini saw the dark side of the sexual revolution and how the rich and powerful were willing to build economic empires just to have access to the youth and to the most beautiful women. But he wasn’t the only one. We should reconsider Belladonna of Sadness and the original meaning of those themes in films or later in manga like Berserk and think about it deeply and seriously and not approach every piece of art as entertainment.

Videography:

How America got so Stupid [1]

Miyoshi Umeki: The First East Asian Woman to Win an Acting Oscar [2]

Predatory Romance in Harrison Ford Movies [3]

[biestcallisto]

I ended a friendship over this. Was it a friendship? We hadn't seen each other in years and then she moved back in town. So we met by chance and decided to use our bikes to go to the cinema and we talked. The whole ride. At the ride home the conversation turned towards politics. She had a buddy who had the genes for "locked in" Syndrome. His mother already suffered from the sickness, his sister had it and he may also get it.

Her buddy was mad that his mother had kids. She wasn't the first one in the family. He swore that he would not ever have kids because he doesn't want to see his kids suffer from this, or them see their father suffer from this. Fair. That was his choice.

Now what was my *friend*'s (I use the term loosely) take away from this?

Eugenics. Her opinion was that people with genetic diseases should not be allowed to have kids. Should forcibly be castrated. I took offense to this.

See, I was raised on AO3, where it was made clear, once you draw a line into the sand you will always have to re-negotiate where it is. Let's say we do force people w the genes for Locked-In Syndrome to not become parents. (which I already disagree with) What's next? Down Syndrome? (Which ALREADY is sadly done and it is wrong!) People with the wrong skin colour? (You know it IS being done!)

No. This is Nazi shit. This is eugenics.

YOU can decide to not want kids because of a genetic disease. **I** want all people w a genetic disease to have perfect access to health care. But forcing someone to abstain from parenthood because of something in their genes?

This girl was like "You are not allowing for the grey! The world isn't black and white" And yea, there is a lot of nuance in the world. A lot between black and white. But Eugenics is firmly on the evil side. There is no nuance when you discuss medically removing someones ability to have kids against their will.

If you don't want kids with genetic diseases, improve healthcare for all.

Needless to say, I deleted her number out of my phone and she never called me either.

The problem is not this one genetic disease. I can understand her buddy being mad and deciding against kids. It's a valid choice.

If you go down this road, deciding on kids for OTHER people? You draw a line into the sand. This line WILL be re-negotiated all the time. People will decide that this group of people should also be kid-banned, people you never intended to be included in the kid ban.

So just do NOT draw a line in the sand.

[oldtvandcomics]

Happy Queer Media Monday!

Today: Rafiki (2018) (Title translates to: “Friend”)

This is going to be one of the more spectacular ones. Buckle up!

(Ziki braiding Kena’s hair.)

Rafiki is a 2018 Kenyan movie. The plot is a fairly simple coming-of-age romance. It is about two teenage girls, Ziki and Kena, who, despite their fathers competing against each other in local elections, quickly form a close bond that develops into a romance.

It is, despite the homophobia underlying the society it exists in, a very sweet and joyful movie. It is very colorful, and has all the hopefulness of two young women who just start out in life. Also, and it IS very much not a given, the movie has a hopeful ending.

Where it gets interesting: Homosexuality is illegal in Kenya, punishable by 14 years prison. The Kenya Film Classification Board (KFCB) ruled that this movie was too positive in its depiction of gayness, claiming that it “promoted lesbianism”. As a consequence, they banned it, and warned everyone that even possessing it would be a break of the law. This caused international outrage, and the director Wanuri Kahiu suing the Kenyan government for infringement of her free speech. You can find the whole drama in detail via articles in the source section of the Wikipedia article, or a shorter version here.

Kahui’s main argument was that she wanted to submit her film to the Oscars, but couldn’t do so if it didn’t screen in Kenya, and since Kenya has freedom of speech, she should be allowed to submit her movie to the Oscars, hence they couldn’t ban her from screening it. She won the lawsuit, and the ban was lifted for a week. At this point, enough people had heard of the controversy that there was a large popular interest, and theaters had to add extra screenings.

Rafiki didn’t end up winning anything, as in the end, Kenya submitted another movie in the Foreign Language Film category. Even so, I find this one of the most amazing and definitely one of the most inspiring stories that went down in the film world in recent years. I am European, but even I was following this story through articles shared on social media. And of course I went to see it in the cinema, when it aired here.

You can find a trailer here, and an interview with director Wanuri Kahiu here. Seriously, watch it, she’s amazing. The movie appears to be on Amazon Prime.

Queer Media Monday is an action I started to talk about some important and/or interesting parts of our queer heritage, that people, especially young people who are only just beginning to discover the wealth of stories out there, should be aware of. Please feel free to join in on the fun and make your own posts about things you personally find important!

[bopinion]

2024 / 36 - Abridged vacation edition

Aperçu of the week

“Human dignity is inviolable.”

(Article 1 of the Basic Law, Constitution of the Federal Republic of Germany)

Bad News of the Week

It is well known that life in Afghanistan is not exactly a paradise. The Taliban rule with an absolute power that interferes so deeply in people's everyday lives that it can safely be described as invasive. Now a new law of the guardians of morality is coming into force, which - of course - further restricts the lives of women.

Men are not allowed to wear shorts or to practice martial arts. And must grow a beard if working in public service. But that is nothing compared to the restrictions for women. They are only allowed to attend school up to the 6th grade, are virtually excluded from working life, must always be fully veiled and are not even allowed to leave the house without a male escort. Now even singing or speaking out loud is forbidden - with the threat of a prison sentence. Why? Because the female voice is seductive and men should not be tempted.

Ravina Shamdasani from the UN Human Rights Office in Geneva puts her horror at this development into words: “The newly passed law cements a policy that completely erases women in public life, silences them and takes away their independence by trying to turn them into faceless, mute shadows. That is intolerable!”

The fact that the German government wants to negotiate with the Taliban right now about the repatriation of rejected asylum seekers is at least as intolerable. This is, of course, a reaction to the completely exaggerated cries of the extreme parties that the allegedly excessive migration is the root of all evil. And, in my opinion, it calls into question the principle of asylum. Because the definition of “imminent threat to life” should also include the absence of fundamental human rights: a life that is not worth living is just an existence.

Good News of the Week

German democracy is celebrating its 75th anniversary. After the darkest chapter in its history, the Germans have created the foundations of a liberal, egalitarian society with a democratic basic order. With a classic division of powers in the legislative, executive and judicial branches, unshakeable principles of human rights, freedom and social participation as well as balanced federalism.

The Bundestag (parliament) and Bundesrat (representation of the federal states) are therefore celebrating their birthday. They look back on the past with satisfaction, but express concerns about the future. Liberal democracy is under pressure from authoritarian forces worldwide, says former Federal Minister of the Interior Gerhart Baum in a speech. At 91, he is also a contemporary witness and knows what he is talking about. Bundestag President Bärbel Bas commented: “We can overcome crises - despite tough controversies. Our democracy is strong and resilient against all those who want to harm it." If she is right, Germany can look to the future with confidence.

Personal happy moment of the week

My own children finally got to meet my sisters' children (from my youthful stay abroad in Canada 37 years ago). And it was as if they had known each other forever. I would be very happy if that would last - even across the Atlantic and across time.

I couldn't care less...

...that the US Republican campaign team feels disadvantaged that the film “The Apprentice” about the dubious rise of Donald Trump is now being released in US cinemas before the elections. The guy is already getting away with his delaying tactics in so many (even court!) proceedings that I'm pleased about every confrontation that actually takes place. And that confronts him with his infinite body of lies.

It's fine with me...

...that an international comparative study has now also confirmed the positive effect of a cell phone ban in schools. Researchers at the Chair of School Education at the University of Augsburg came to this conclusion and published their findings in the journal Education Sciences: a smartphone ban has measurably positive effects on the social well-being of pupils and on their learning performance. Our school has been doing this since the first iPhone. And is obviously right to do so.

As I write this...

...the - voted out - democrats in the eastern German states are trying to form majorities without the radical right-wing AfD (Alternative für Deutschland / Alternative for Germany). This party owes it above all to the very young and the very old voters to have become the second strongest (in Saxony) or even the strongest (in Thuringia) party in the state elections. Sometimes democracy has to act against the declared will of the voters in order to protect itself.

Post Scriptum

The summer of 2024 was warmer than ever before since complete records began in 1940. According to the EU climate service Copernicus, the current year as a whole is also heading for a record high. In the past, people would have been happy about “the nice weather”. Today, people are afraid of the next forest fire and water sources drying up. And we are still not prepared to do what is necessary.

[inkstainedhandswithrings]

@ every single person who has ever been rude to or yelled at a customer service employee: I need you to understand, within 2 minutes of you leaving the establishment everybody will know who you are. When that customer service employee gets home they will call their mother, best friend and partner and they will find out about you.

I need you to know that two years from now, the person you yelled at will go for drinks with a few colleagues, one of whom being a newbie and they will tell stories about you.

And if you should ever come back to the establishment (if you haven’t been banned) they will smile and they will deal. But as soon as you turn your back? Everybody will be cackling on the floor because “omg that’s the dude that yelled at Susan because we were out of chips what a loser.”

In conclusion: if you don’t want your reputation secretly tarnished forever at your local coffeehouse/restaurant/store/cinema/whatever, accept the fact that the 20yo, hungover, minimum wage employee is not at fault for company policies and storage problems so just keep your mouth shut and smile. Thank you.

[radkindoffeminist]

I am too fucking tired of this childfree flights drama and I’m not going to respond to anymore reblogs on the topic because I’m tired of going around in circles so he’s my basic points:

No, I haven’t worked out every fucking logistical point about how everything will fucking work. Just because I think it’s a decent idea doesn’t mean I have to work out how plane schedules will work to accommodate childfree flights.

No, I haven’t worked out what % of flights it would be okay to be childfree. I know it should be relatively low and only on route which already operate multiple times a day.

No, I don’t want children and families to be effectively banned/highly restricted from flying. And I will be the first to jump to your defence and make sure there are still a lot of places catering for you at reasonable/similar prices because you deserve to be able to travel. Still doesn’t mean that I need to deal with your screaming child.

It’s not wrong or ‘immature’ of people to not want to be around other people’s screaming children. We’re not talking about banning children but creating limited spaces where we can be away from them. Is that really so bad to all of you?

Not wanting to be around children is not fucking discrimination. Children are loud and annoying. We are irritated by them being loud and annoying; not hating their existence out of our own prejudice.

Yes, I recognise that if this did happen that it would have to be relatively restrictive otherwise we run the risk of every other flight not allowing children on it (given that the demand for childfree flights is high enough and I’m really not sure how high the demand would be) which then becomes highly restrictive for families and that’s something I don’t want to happen.

There are other places where children are banned and they work just fine! Quiet coaches exist on trains. Some cinemas are 18+ after certain times. Just because the option exists doesn’t mean that everyone is automatically going to latch onto it and it’s going to become really popular overnight.

Not every service caters to everyone all of the time. Why should flights have to be any different?

I’m also perfectly happy for the ‘childfree’ flights to be like 12+. It’s the screaming babies and toddlers I don’t want to be around, not the teenager who’s probably also going to sit a watch films on their phone/iPad.

[punkahudsonia]

Okay, so. Let’s talk Goncharov (1973). One thing I think has been largely lost in the (deserved) praise of the film on tumblr is just how weird Goncharov is as a film in general (I mean, you can’t tell me the plot as described doesn’t seem doomed to be a confusing narrative mess,even if you have three hours to tell that story; it should not be the absolute tightly-wound banger that it is in practice) but also how weird it is as an example of a Scorsese film. This, I think, is inevitable, because almost everyone on tumblr is young enough that Scorsese has ALWAYS been a Big Name in Film. To see him attached to a masterpiece doesn’t seem weird in that context. And since very few people got to see this movie before it was digitized and widely distributed for the first time in the mid-aughts, it seems to have largely become viewed as a creation of Martin Scorsese, the master filmmaker. But. Martin Scorsese, master filmmaker, had made a grand total of two features prior to Goncharov (three if you count Mean Streets, but let’s come back to that). One, Who’s That Knocking at my Door, has some similar themes to Goncharov, but it’s a very rough film (hell, the only reason it got distribution is because Scorsese recut it as a sexploitation film). And the second, well, it’s called Boxcar Bertha and Scorsese made it for Roger Corman. It’s not what you’d call Great Cinema. By 1972/1973 Scorsese’s working feverishly on two films. One will become Mean Streets, which is a real firecracker of a movie. It’s compact, furious, and intensely personal, and here again we see some themes that also get deployed in Goncharov; a trio of two men and a woman as the central figures, an obsession with honor and loyalty, personal dissolution and power. It’s a masterwork and when it saw general distribution in the US, it deservedly made Scorsese’s name as a filmmaker. But the other film. Oh, my god, the other film is Goncharov. And it is so technically proficient, so richly written, so layered, so complex, and so goddamned beautiful to look at, and how the fuck, one wonders, did the same man make the scrappy indie crime drama based on his own childhood friends and neighborhoods, AND the complex meditation on grief and obsession and mafia and soviet politics, in the same goddamned 24 months?? How does one film feel like a fresh wound from a creator just launching his stardom while the other feels like the culmination of a lifetime of study of how to make a film that hits you where you live?

Okay, so. I have a theory on that.

We all know by now that Goncharov almost didn’t see the light of day, allegedly due to mafia objections to its distribution leading to the systematic destruction of the general-release prints. We know also that the producer of the film was Matouš Cimrman, grandson of the immortal Czech polymath and playwright  Jára Cimrman  -- hat tip to tumblr user @eightfourone on that, because their post is what got my wheels turning here. Of course Jára Cimrman’s son František Cimrman, Matouš Cimrman’s father, was a legend in prewar European cinema for his intimate dramas that drew on his father’s theatrical sensibilities. "Franta” fought with the Czech resistance in WW2 and then returned to filmmaking, though most of his work from the Soviet period (1948-c 1965) was virtually inaccessible to the West. In 1966 he was imprisoned and his films were banned and destroyed, and although he was supposedly released in 1967 he never made another film, and there’s no official record of his existence after the Prague Spring in 1968. Most people think he was disappeared by the Soviet Czech government, with a small minority thinking he was smuggled to the West for his own safety. His son has never, ever talked about Franta’s post-WW2 life in public. But I have another theory. While I’ve never been able to see his films in person with the exception of Pískle (”Spring Chickens”, 1933, but every film student’s seen that one) , the descriptions we have of his Soviet-era works talk about an increasing preoccupation with time passing, with fixing mistakes, with the magnetic pull of loyalty between men who can’t admit their attractions for one another. And, of course, Franta Cimrman shared his father’s gift for finely developed, humanized, well written women (I think any scholar worth their salt HAS to credit that to the huge influence of Franta’s mother/ Jára’s second wife, Karolina, and I’m not going to go on a huge ADHD tangent here about how cool SHE was, you’ll have to google, this is stupidly long already).

What’s the one thing you hear over and over when people discuss Goncharov, especially in contrast to Scorsese’s body of other work? How great the women are, especially Katya (my beloved, my pearl beyond price, my girlboss, etc.). Doesn’t it strike you as strange that he made a film with Katya in it, and then just . . . made the rest of the Martin Scorsese movies after that? For that matter, isn’t it a little strange that he managed to evoke the energy of worldweary inevitability so well when his prior films are, if anything, textbook examples of classic Movie Brat youthful auteurism and his next films seem to snap right back to that oeuvre? Say what you will about Taxi Driver, but it’s CLEARLY a film about young men’s discontent, not middle-aged disillusionment. Look. I’m not saying that Martin Scorsese didn’t make Goncharov. His fingerprints are all over the film visually and narratively, and we have recollections from the actors involved clearly demonstrating that Martin Scorsese was behind the camera lens and on the set on a daily basis. But one of the few concrete details we know about the NOTORIOUSLY secretive preproduction/scripting process is that the producer, "Mateo jwhj0517", reached out personally to Scorsese after seeing a rare UK screening of Who’s That Knocking at my Door in or around 1970 in Birmingham (and listen man I’m not going to judge him if he went to see it for the sexploitation scenes, they didn’t have an internet yet, you do what you got to do). I just don’t think it’s crazy to say that there was more than one Cimrman in those script meetings. I don’t think it’s crazy to say that an artist who had lived through the brutal first half of the 20th century, with a good chunk of that time under Soviet rule in Czechslo-fuckin-vakia, would perhaps be better positioned to create a masterpiece about brutality, failure, and the cruelty of relentless time. (I think it was Pauline Kael who wrote the essay on the Mafia’s parallels to the Soviet authoritarian governments? IDK it’s late I’m trying not to write a book here cut me some slack). I don’t think it’s crazy to posit that a man at the end of a life of creative vision would see something in a younger artist, and take him under his wing, and help guide his hands on the clay when it needed done. Anyway I look forward to the inevitable “Punka doesn’t believe Scorsese made Goncharov / Punka is pro-Soviet Czechslovakia / Punka thinks this film was made by a ghost and also is a homophobe for writing not one word of Gonch/Andrey in this entire novel of a post” callout.

[muozu]

Cognitive dissonance is an axiom of the moviegoing experience. The power of cinema—lifelike fictions given bounded, unlifelike shape—lies in its utopian promises. It can allow us to experience worlds not yet within our grasp. That disparity, between dream and reality, can either fill us with yearning and propel us toward action; or it can sate us vicariously, becoming an excuse not to take action. Major film festivals are, by design, invested in ensuring the latter. An entire ecosystem—involving labor, capital, politics, technology—comes into being to allow us to watch, buy, and sell films. Any change in the status quo would destabilize this ecosystem. So we submit to the myth of the festival as a hermetically sealed world. We tsk-tsk at Cannes’s annual ban on protests along the Croisette and continue to book tickets for screenings. We write glowing reviews of films that critique the very institutions that our presence at Cannes is used to justify.

But that implicit surrender to dissonance has been growing increasingly unsustainable in the last eight months, as artists and festival workers have been organizing in support of a ceasefire in Gaza and demanding greater agency within film institutions. They have used their work, platforms, and presence to ask that festivals reconcile their (increasingly, fashionably progressive) artistic positions with their material and political engagements. To some, this insistence may seem futile or misplaced. Certainly it does to Cannes Artistic Director Thierry Frémaux, who, in the pre-fest press conference, swore off controversies and polemics at this year’s edition: “In Cannes, the politics should be on the screen.” According to The Hollywood Reporter, he also questioned the political influence of film festivals. “When we gave the Palme d’Or to Michael Moore for Fahrenheit 9/11 did it have an impact on the reelection of George [W.] Bush? No.” But politics is not a grand, faraway thing, implying only election outcomes and geopolitical upheavals. Festivals are, fundamentally, exercises in world-building. Like students on campuses across the globe, activists in the film-festival space are asking: what kind of world are we building right here, right now? What possibilities are we reifying through our participation in a film festival, and which ones are we foreclosing?

Two of the most beautiful movies I saw this year at Cannes refocus politics as the product of small acts of instantiation. Tru’o’ng Minh Quý’s Viet and Nam and Payal Kapadia’s All We Imagine as Light are shiveringly pretty films in which illicit love stories unfold against fraught backdrops. In the former, two gay coal miners contending with the ghosts of the Vietnam War prepare for a treacherous emigration in search of better fates; in the latter, a Hindu nurse secretly romances a Muslim man in a Mumbai where the threat of communal violence lingers perpetually in the shadows. Both films shudder under weighty historical and political burdens, yet seek resolution and subversion in intimate human gestures—of acceptance, desire, and beauty, brandished in the face of terror. Both films also implicate capital-P politics: Viet and Nam has been banned in Vietnam for its “negative” portrayal of the country, while All We Imagine as Light, which made history as the first Indian Grand Prix–winner, has earned bouquets from the same public officials who have persecuted Kapadia for participating in strikes against the right-wing government’s interference in India’s premier public film school.

Celebrating such films and the communities they convene is one of the possibilities that international festivals keep alive. But how long can we maintain the ruse of championing artistic freedom and civil liberties in cinemas surrounded by hundreds of cops and A.I.-powered cameras and staffed by underpaid workers? There is no easy way out of these imploding contradictions—no zoom-out to break the fourth wall and relieve the tension; no artificial intelligence–themed twist to blame it all on. We have wrought this world, and we will have to rebuild it.

— Devika Girish, "Cannes 2024: Whiplash" for Film Comment

[beardedmrbean]

“1916 showed us the way!” didn’t it lead to multiple Eastern Europeans leaving their home countries to escape communism? And iirc in the 80’s ussr had to ban a American movie because Russians were surprised that even the poorest Americans could have their own car.

Hmm what happened to the Romanovs? Oh yeah after their murders they are heavily romanticize (heh) and later became saints. That usually happens when the next leaders are worse than the last.

I can say more but Jesus Christ commies are dumb, can someone make Liberty Prime already?

Ya some of the most hokey jerry rigged contraptions in history were made by smart people who were trying to escape their communist utopia.

Also you're thinking of "The Grapes Of Wrath (1940)" staring Henry Fonda, only thing good that ever came from a John Steinbeck novel imho. The Grapes of Wrath (film) - Wikipedia

Although Steinbeck avoided a call from the House of Un-American Activities Committee, the film based on his book, which subtly (many would say openly) criticizes capitalism during the Great Depression by following a family of sharecroppers, received significant backlash from the public.

In the times of the so-called “Red Scare”, such criticism was perceived as “socialist”, “Marxist” and above all ― un-American.

John Carradine and Henry Fonda In ‘The Grapes Of Wrath’

Therefore, when the film was given the “Red Label”, the USSR felt that it was time to step on the stage.

Stalin himself considered that if The Grapes of Wrath managed to annoy the U.S. government so much, perhaps it could be used as a propaganda tool in the country which he governed with an iron fist.

He approved the film to be released in the USSR in 1948, at the time when the Cold War was just “heating” up. This wasn’t a common sight at the time, as cinemas only promoted domestic productions.

Stalin, who had the final say on pretty much everything that was going on in the country, was highly suspicious of foreign movies, which he considered to be “subversive”.

However, in this case, Uncle Joe thought that a film which the Americans label as “socialist” must be heaven-sent in the largest and most influential socialist state of the time.

This was a sound conclusion given that the main subjects of the story ― the Joad family ― are suffering from poverty after losing their farm due to the recession which forces them to become migrant workers.

However, after the film was released, Stalin’s idea completely backfired. In the film, it appeared as though even the poorest owned an automobile ― a luxury that was off limits to an ordinary Soviet citizen at the time. Instead of evoking anti-capitalist sentiment among the common folk, it was as though the only thing the viewers could see was the difference between being poor in the USA, compared to their own experience in the USSR.

While the USSR boasted itself as the country that belongs to the peasants and the workers, Stalin had, in fact, canceled many of the privileges that were gained during the country’s first years. ___________________

Romanov's suffered from blue blood, but yes they were absolutely slaughtered, SOP for royalty generally speaking.

Last Czar of Bulgaria, Simeon Borisov von Saxe-Coburg-Gotha (you may recognize some of those names at the end, they're all related to each other) is still alive and served as Prime Minister there for 4 years so don't always get murdered.

Another fun bit with the commies is they blame capitalism for their own failures too, 'US didn't trade with them so they didn't have enough food' kind of thing.

hunger makes you dumb, we should have a give a snickers to a commie day, might help

[mariacallous]

To understand how the American media landscape fractured, one must first understand the brands that forged it. According to Faris Yakob, cofounder of creative consultancy Genius Steals and author of Paid Attention, advertisers created the neutral “view from nowhere” voice in media. In the 19th and 20th centuries, national brands looking to grow customers wouldn’t partner with biased publications. But everything changed when ad tech arrived.

“People started tagging their digital media buys so it wouldn’t appear next to topics like homosexuality, or Covid, to avoid getting into clusters,” Yakob says. “But that means that the news isn’t being funded. If you can pick and choose what topics to fund in news, you can distort what is being reported on, to some degree.”

That distortion, like the US Federal Communications Commission’s abolition of the fairness doctrine in 1987, is part of how America got into this mess. Similar to content recommendation algorithms, audience profiles in digital marketing created micro-targeted ads. Those ads are more valuable on multiple screens. Media executive Euan McLeod recalls growing up when “there was no choice” but to watch what his parents were watching. Now each person in a household might be watching something wildly different, and the shared experience has dissolved. Isolated artists are creating for isolated audiences. Is it any wonder that generative AI seems poised to tailor entertainment to audiences of one?

In this world, we can all be George Lucas, using technology to create special editions. Rick gets on the plane with Ilsa. Jack fits on the door with Rose. Ben Solo lives. As Marvel Comics writer Anthony Oliveira says, Andy Warhol was fascinated by the fact that people everywhere drank the same Coke. But the allure of AI content generation, he says, is the same as the Coca-Cola Freestyle: filling your own cup with someone else’s flavors.

But when everyone can just request the narrative path they want, opportunities to hear other people’s stories greatly diminish. “That is a very sad world to live in, because how else are we gonna be conveying our deepest hopes and wishes, what we think should be a vision of the world we want to live in, what we should worry about?" Yang says. "This is what story and art is for.”

Using AI to sanitize content in regions where certain subjects are banned is already possible, especially if actors yield likeness rights. Generative AI means that studios could edit or change the content of some films without consulting the people who signed a contract based on a script, and the only thing stopping them is the possibility of a defamation suit. It sounds unlikely, until you remember that multiple versions of Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse appeared in cinemas.

And animation is an apt comparison: Most changes to entertainment production have made film and TV more like animation or video game development, not less. With current technology, actors can be little more than action figures smashing together, as weightless as they are sexless. With AI, the actors need never leave the trailer. Or exist.

“[Studios will] say it’s for the insurance,” says production designer Blass, suggesting a “Paul Walker scenario” in which a deceased actor’s performance needs generating, because that performance is one of the terms of the film’s business insurance. But in reality, these likenesses could be used to do things that actors would rather not—whether it’s a dangerous stunt or a sex scene.

Generative AI could also be used to edit films in real time, responsive to data-brokered preferences, with algorithms running A/B tests on how much nudity you want based on the customer profile you most closely match.

If this sounds familiar, that’s because it is: In the 1990s, Blockbuster Video refused to stock films like Natural Born Killers and The Last Temptation of Christ. But that tradition goes back even further. Otherwise known as the Hays Code, the Production Code was an industry standard of self-censorship guidelines for major US studios from 1930 to 1968, when it was replaced by the movie ratings system. The Code influenced everything from the Comics Code to parental advisory warnings to video game ratings. It’s why titles from major studios during that period don’t depict graphic violence. It’s also why they lack out-and-proud queer and interracial relationships. But today, a revived Production Code might have very different guidelines. For example, the Pentagon recently announced it would no longer offer technical support to filmmakers who censor their films for the Chinese market.

When I ask McLeod if he thinks America will ever re-adopt the Production Code, he’s unequivocal: “Absolutely. Everything goes in cycles.”

Hollywood’s Future Belongs to People—Not Machines

[spider-xan]

There are legitimate criticisms to be had about Martin Scorcese, but so much of the allegedly progressive criticism isn't even based on actual facts and is just working off some cartoon villain version of him as a white man out to ban women and POC from cinema when he's probably done far more to mentor marginalized filmmakers and preserve international cinema than all of the white faves people stan, and like, you can't whine about him making films about white men (it's also blatantly not true that he only makes white man mafia films) and then get mad at him for making a film that doesn't focus on white men in which the ethnic group in question worked on the film and are happy with it and say he should only make films about white men smh

[pacifymebby]

Also, it occured to me, sometimes what's labelled anti-feminist is actually anti-capitalist, and what's lauded as feminism is nothing more than the upholding of the existing systems of power/patriarchy/capitalism, etc. Case in point: girlbosses.

Omg no because you are so right for this!!! I read a few books the other summer about the whole neoliberal anti-care anti-community thing and how it's been detrimental not just on a government level but also on a family/personal relationships level.

To try and sum all three up briefly it was basically that a lot of left wing movements such as feminism have kind of been hijacked by neoliberalism which in the west has been the predominant societal structure? Since the 80s and that capitalists have been able to use feminism/pride/etc as things they can profit. Like you said about girlbosses, girlbosses are an example of women being welcomed into capitalism, not for equality but because they represent an opportunity for profit etc. It's why we have rainbow capitalism and stuff.

But also neoliberalism and also, more traditional left wing movements have championed the "destruction of the family" which is a dog whistle so stay with me here okay. From a "leftist liberal" perspective this could mean like "fuck the nuclear family anything can be a family" which is GOOD. From a neoliberal perspective the destruction of the family is more sinister, like the destruction of a family unit, the destruction of community. Get the mothers out of the house and into work too (yay feminism) so that the state can raise the children with their morals which are strictly capitalist, profit centered "morals" rather than family teachings of nurture and mutual care.

It also talks a lot about how we view care in the west, how caring for people is seen as a mother/woman's job, therefore as worth less. But also as a "basic human instinct we're all capable of" which isn't true and acts as justification to pay nurses/carers/teachers/nursery staff less and less (until we can't afford to live, sad times)

Now, once upon a time feminists were demanding pay for stay at home mother's and home makers, because without them who would actually put food on the table etc. Society wouldn't function without them so they should be paid for their labour. (Fun fact most unpaid care labour is done by women)

However when girlboss feminism/neoliberalism kind of took over the feminist and other social justice movements, people all kind of agreed that it was beneath women to be mothers, an evil patriarchal expectation and that women should be allowed to participate equally in capitalism by becoming a ✨girlboss✨and obvs that just left women having to be mothers and work a full time job and still not have time for themselves. Like we just dumped all this extra on them and gave them nothing in return other than the opportunity to play a card in the shite game that is capitalism.

Like I personally think that all this bimbo/coquette/tradcath mom shit is entirely a response/ cry against girlboss feminism and the unfair expectations now placed on a lot of women who don't want to be a career woman etc.

I could go on about this forever btw because there's way more to it, like how we don't build infrastructure for parents, how it isn't a requirement to have baby changing facilities in public venues, how there's no safe places for prams in public/ public transport isn't designed for people with prams or babies. How it's still really easy to push a woman out of her job on the because she's going to have kids. How it trends on twitter all the time like "ban kids from restaurants/the cinema/pubs/swimming pools" etc.

As a society we're really anti anyone who can't look after themselves including children. Also against anyone who cares for children. But it's just neoliberalism with the dial turned up to 11 and it's really fucking sad. Every year someone gets mad at the birth rate declining but no one does anything to support those who want children.

Also just as a disclaimer here I'm not saying that every woman should have or want children. Some women want to be career women and they should be able to, feminism was always supposed to be about equality and giving women the voice and the tools to achieve what they want. Feminism shouldn't have taken its antimotherhood turn and it shouldn't take an anti career woman turn either. It should and always should have been about letting women have the freedom men have to do what they want to do in life.