#But the racial aspect of the story makes the whole thing just deeply deeply racist and condescending

[panvani]

Ig all coming of age fiction is like this bur it's like Catcher in the Rye without the irony

[william-williams]

Black Americans experiencing collective trauma, grief

Carlil Pittman knows trauma firsthand.

As the co-founder of the Chicago-based youth organization GoodKidsMadCity-Englewood, he grieved the loss of Delmonte Johnson, a young community activist, more than two years ago to the very thing the teen fought fiercely against: gun violence.

He’s also been angered and frustrated by the onslaught of stories of Black Americans killed at the hands of police across the nation throughout the past year.

First, there was Breonna Taylor, a Black woman who was fatally shot in her Louisville, Kentucky, home last March. Then there was George Floyd, whose Memorial Day killing by a Minneapolis officer sparked global protests. Just this week, Daunte Wright, a 20-year-old Black man, was fatally shot by a police officer during a traffic stop in Brooklyn Center, Minnesota — just minutes from where Floyd died. And on Friday, Pittman spent much of the day planning a demonstration with other Chicago organizers to protest the police killing of 13-year-old Adam Toledo, who was Latino.

“We’re constantly turning on the TV, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and seeing people that look like us who are getting murdered with no repercussions,” said Pittman, an organizer for A New Deal for Youth. “It’s not normal to see someone get murdered by the click of a video on your phone, yet it has become the norm for our people, our Black and brown communities.”

Many Black Americans are facing a collective sense of grief and trauma that has grown more profound with the loss of each life at the hands of police in America. Some see themselves and their children reflected in the victims of police violence, heightening the grief they feel. That collective mourning is a great concern to experts and medical professionals who consider the intersectionality of racism and various forms of trauma impacting communities of color a serious public health crisis facing America.

The racial trauma impacting Black Americans isn’t new. It’s built upon centuries of oppressive systems and racist practices that are deeply embedded within the fabric of the nation. Racial trauma is a unique form of identity-related trauma that people of color experience due to racism and discrimination, according to Dr. Steven Kniffley, a licensed psychologist and coordinator for Spalding University’s Collective Care Center in Louisville, Kentucky.

“A lot of cities across the country are realizing that racial trauma is a public health issue,” Kniffley said, citing health concerns such as increased rates of suicide among Black men, a life expectancy gap and post-traumatic stress disorder. ”There’s no other way that we can explain that except for the unique experiences Black and brown folks have based on their identity, and more specifically, when they encounter racism and discrimination.”

Kniffley said each generation of Black Americans since slavery has faced its own unique iteration of racism and discrimination, which has manifested into a form of intergenerational trauma.

“We’ve essentially handed down 10 or 15 generations worth of boxes of trauma that have yet to be unpacked, and that’s what’s contributing to a lot of those biological and mental health related issues that we’re having,” Kniffley said, noting the trauma extends beyond police violence.

In a 2018 study examining the mental health impact of police killings on Black Americans, researchers found exposure to police killings of unarmed Black Americans had adverse effects on mental health among Black people. Nearly half of Black Americans who responded said they were exposed to one or more police killings of unarmed Black Americans in their state of residence — either through word of mouth or the media.

“That effect was found only in Black (Americans),” said Dr. Atheendar S. Venkataramani, one of the authors of the study and a physician at Penn Presbyterian Medical Center in Philadelphia.

Rashad Robinson, the president of Color of Change, said the trauma has also created generations of Black Americans who have valid mistrust of law enforcement agencies. And many are experiencing further mental anguish while watching the trial of Derek Chauvin, the former Minneapolis police officer who pressed his knee into Floyd’s neck.

“We have a whole set of folks with badges and guns who are supposed to protect and serve and they do neither,” Robinson said. "In order to survive, we have to integrate into a system in a structure which is brutal — brutal to our lives, our dignity, our health. It has collective and long-term impact.”

While much of the media spotlight on police killings impacting Black Americans is focused on Black men, experts say it’s important to also highlight misogynoir — misogyny directed toward Black women. Black women experience misogynoir in various aspects of their lives but also in connection with police violence. The #SayHerName campaign was launched in 2014 to bring awareness to the lesser-known stories of Black women and girls who have been victimized by police. The hashtag flourished again after Taylor's death, prompting accusations of delayed justice in her case.

“As a mom, I’m constantly in fear for my son and my heart is broken by this country over and over again,” said Aimee Allison, who leads She the People. “It really calls into question how Black women in particular, who’ve sacrificed so much to serve this country in terms of democracy and bringing voters to the polls, upholding a vision of peace and justice for everyone else, how much more can we take?”

Chicago resident Erendira Martinez said the Little Village community, a Chicago neighborhood with a majority Latino population, is also hurting, not just from Toledo’s killing but also from the trauma of losing other children to gun violence.

On Thursday night, just hours after the video of Toledo’s death was released, a 17-year-old girl was shot and killed in the same neighborhood. Martinez’s own teenage daughter was shot and killed in Little Village in December.

“We had just buried my daughter, and a month later, we’re burying this kid that grew up with my daughter," she said. "No mother should bury their child.”

Some community organizations are working to address the trauma, said Aswad Thomas, chief of organizing for Alliance for Safety and Justice, who runs Crime Survivors for Safety and Justice, a network of more than 46,000 crime survivors from mostly Black and Latino communities. The group is releasing its first-ever National Crime Victims Agenda next week to address collective trauma.

“The tragic truth is that police violence is the most horrific, visible symptom of a larger systemic problem of how our public safety system is designed and we need to address that head-on,” Thomas said. “But while also investing in the mom and pops who are on the front lines to violence, hosting the community vigils and interventions groups.”

Uzodinma Iweala, CEO of The Africa Center, based in New York, said sometimes the thought of what he and so many other Black Americans have experienced is rage-inducing. He thinks of the times he and his brothers have been stopped by police. Or the time his uncle was called a racial slur by an officer. And how in each instance they prayed they would make it out alive — experiences he thinks some white Americans willfully ignore.

“We’re going to need a real fundamental examination of the roots of what America is,” Iweala said. “America refuses to acknowledge that America is not a country without the labor of and the blood, sweat and tears of Black people. Until America values those contributions, it will never value Blackness as a life form.”

[semper-legens]

183. The High Lord, by Trudi Canavan

Owned?: Yes Page count: 642 My summary: Sonea is a prisoner of the High Lord, Akkarin - but things are not as simple as they might appear. There is a threat on the rise from a foreign land, and only a black magician can stop them. Or so Akkarin would claim. Facing the destruction of Kyralia or her expulsion from the Guild, Sonea must make a hard choice...and the world will face the consequences. My rating: 3.5/5       My commentary:

The conclusion! Though I gotta say, I was less enthused with this one than its predecessors. I’ll go into why under the cut, obviously; though overall I really like this series, it does fall a bit by the wayside here at the end for me. Still, it’s an enjoyable enough YA fantasy outing, and I certainly don’t regret reading it. I just felt it got a bit muddled, towards the end.

So it turns out Akkarin has a good reason for being a black magician - he’s not a murderer, per se, he’s just defending himself against assassins from another land. Sonea, in order to help protect Kyralia, willingly becomes a black magician, and both are cast out from the Guild for it. This lasts about five minutes before they’re back to defend the city. Sonea continues to be great - this is a part of the story where there are a lot of decisions being made by powerful men, but she still manages to keep her independence and agency. Akkarin wants her to stay in the Guild, but she lets herself be cast out to help him. Everyone around her wants her to do as they say, but she makes her own choices and sticks with them, even when it’s difficult for her. She’s a strong protagonist and brings an interesting perspective to the events of the book, and I really admire her.

And...there’s a romance between Sonea and Akkarin. It grossed me out a little. They meet when she’s 17 and he’s in his 30s, and he’s in a position of power over her. My main issue with it, though, was how superfluous it felt to the narrative. The plot would not have changed one iota had this not been part of it. And the Babies Ever After ending felt particularly tacked-on; it’s probably setup for the sequel series, which I have not read, but still. Sonea previously had a brief fling with Rothen’s son Dorrien, and she carried a torch for Cery in the first book, but this series hasn’t really had a focus on romance to this point. Here at the end, it just feels somewhat tacked-on, not utilised with purpose.

Speaking of Cery, he’s back to POV status in this one. He has a side-fling with a woman from Sachaka for expositionary purposes, and also to show the reader that him and Sonea aren’t gonna be a thing. I like Cery’s chapters just because they’re interesting in terms of the class conflict idea brought up in the first one - Cery’s high up in the Thieves now, but the Thieves as a whole are never presented as bad, by necessity. Indeed, they come out to help defend the city in the end at great personal loss, as well as mobilising some of the lower-class citizens to aid Sonea and Akkarin by lending them power. I really like this perspective on what would in a lot of fantasy worlds be a more chaotic neutral group - the narrative never demonises Cery for being a Thief, or any other characters for working with the Thieves. The only Thief who is demonised a little is Faren, because he sold out Sonea. That’s it.

Less well-handled are the racial aspects I mentioned last time. It’s sadly standard in fantasy fiction, but when we get to the point where an ethnicity of people are being used as a shorthand for ‘bad guy’ it needs to be analysed more deeply. I’m not saying Canavan’s a raging racist or anything, she probably just needed to look more carefully at the fact that most of the non-white characters in her book were slave-keeping black magicians. And the ones who aren’t are sexy (Cery’s lover Savara) or servile (Akkarin’s servant Takan). It’s not a good look, that’s all I’m saying.

But that’s all for this series! Next up, a brief dip back into the world of comics.

[chasingshhadows]

RNM S01: A Progressive Review

I want to talk about diversity, representation, social issues, and the way Roswell New Mexico succeeds and fails in that particular department. It’s 2019 and we no longer live in a world where it’s acceptable to ignore the societal implications of the media we consume. That said, it’s also 2019, and Roswell is doing some things that place it far ahead of its peers in media in ways that make it an absolute pleasure to watch. Like honestly, I’m fucking thrilled with this show ok.

I’ve read and skimmed a lot of discussion about the ways in which RNM has failed to be this perfect paragon of progressive representation, and I’ve read/skimmed far less discussion – by both fans and TPTB – about the ways in which the show is trying to be better than its forebears.

However, there seems to be a wide divide between people recognizing the former and people recognizing the latter, and I very much believe it’s irresponsible to try to focus on either one without at least acknowledging the other. So I’m going to talk about those failures and successes, and I’m gonna zig-zag that line so that if you want to read about how I feel about one of those things, you’re gonna have to at least skim the other.

[read more]

I tried to be as concise as possible, but even so, this is rather long, mostly because I didn’t want to make several posts about this. I want to say what I have to say on the topic and then get back to the story because that’s really why I’m here.

Also to note: I understand – and I hope we all understand – that we are in the first season of this show. This means that they should have plenty of time to follow through on or fix many of the issues I will point out, but that also leaves room for them to torpedo many of the positives I’ll discuss. Just – please know that I know we’re only one season in, and anything could happen.

On lived race

This show does a fabulous job exploring how race intersects with these characters’ lives and how it plays an active role in shaping not only who they are, but how their story lines play out. With Liz & Arturo, their race – and immigration status – are openly discussed on screen and inform their decisions and how they present themselves to others, as well as how they are received by their town. This is, in fact, a major aspect of the first season arc/plot as a whole, not just as it pertains to Arturo & Liz (and Rosa), but as it pertains to all the characters, so it’s worth emphasizing.

With Maria, we see her discuss her race as a factor in her isolation from her hometown, as well as seeing how she owns it in the face of racist customers. With Kyle, we see his compassion as a fellow child of immigrants in treating Arturo off the books, and with his mother, we see her perspective on that situation based on her own experiences as a Hispanic immigrant. And with Mimi, we see, tho tangentially, how the intersection of her race and gender and the stereotyping around those have had a negative impact on her healthcare. Even what little we saw of Arizona was washed in her experiences as a Native woman, and her (rightful) disdain for white people.

On the other side of that coin, we have white characters, namely the three alien siblings, whose White Privilege plays an active role in their actions and how they conduct themselves. I know some people have frustrations that these three main characters were all cast as white, but I’ll be honest, after having seen 1.06 (Smells Like Teen Spirit), I would not have bought that any of these characters were a POC. Can you imagine a Black or Hispanic teen being thoughtless enough to frame a WOC – who also happens to be the daughter of a known undocumented immigrant – for the drug-induced vehicular manslaughter of two white girls and not expect the entire town to then turn on that family? Even as a teen, no POC would be race-blind enough to not have had that forethought. It would not be believable, without an immense amount of heavy lifting in the backstory, for a POC to have framed Rosa instead of either of the white women, to have made the decision to put her in the driver’s seat over the other two.

And in this way, the show also does an amazing job in showcasing how good, liberal white people can still be thoughtless where it concerns race. Especially at 17. The White Privilege of the alien siblings, and their lack of awareness of it, serves as a major negative driver of the show’s plot and is the root cause of much of the conflict throughout the first season. That’s real, that’s believable, and that’s important to show.

This, all of this, is vital in portraying accurate, true-to-life representations of how marginalized racial communities interact with each other and white populations, and also gives those communities characters they can point to that not only look like them, but also share their experiences – experiences which are unique to POC and also give white viewers a clearer picture of what it’s truly like to live in this country as a person of color.

On meaningful racial representation

I feel rather let down that the show didn’t follow through on Alex’s heritage in any of the meaningful ways that they did with the other POC on the show (see previous section). All of those characters had clear and explicit aspects of their narrative which centered their race as an part of their story – again, rightfully, as that is how it’s lived IRL. We got to see them express and experience their race as more than just the color of their skin. We didn’t get that with Alex. (or with Noah, but he’s a whole other story)

It’s particularly disappointing considering that Alex is the only POC on the show who passes (that we know of, ofc). Many people will be upset at my bringing this up, but it’s true and we should be talking about it. His ability to pass – the ability for anyone to look at him and not know immediately that he is of Native descent – does not in any way negate his POC identity. Not even remotely. Not a little bit, not at all. All it means is that as a POC, Alex has the ability to be spared from certain microaggressions experienced by others in his community. Not all, not even most, but some. But it also means that he is subject to microaggressions that others in his community will never experience – such as someone making disparaging comments about Natives as tho there aren’t any in the room, or by people assuming he’s “basically white” bc he looks white and erasing his heritage entirely. Those are experiences unique to his race that other Natives who don’t “pass” would never experience.

Roswell didn’t follow through on that this season. We saw no indication, other than the casting of his brother as a Native actor (which I was very pleased about, mind you), that Alex Manes is not as white as he appears. Portraying and giving accurate representation to POCs who pass is just as important as giving it to POCs who don’t.

On consent

WOW this show does a marvelous job at portraying how people should approach getting active and explicit consent from those around them. Active consent is so deeply ingrained in the foundation of this show that its absence is used as an indicator to the audience that something is very very wrong - and on more than one occasion. In order to pull that off, the show has had to set an abundantly clear standard for the type of consent that these characters should expect from each other when things are not horribly wrong, and that standard is appropriately high.

Max and Liz are the obvious duo with which this is explored. From the first, when Liz wants to kiss Max outside of the cave, he stops her because he’s concerned that her judgement may be impaired or impacted by the effects of his powers. He refuses to take advantage of that state, making a direct call to the behavior women wish we could expect from men when our own judgement may be impaired. This continues later when she asks to be left alone and he just immediately backs down and away, not pushing or persuading. He treats her word as law, as he should. We see even in his past, as a teenage white boy in 2008, that he consistently asked for Liz’s consent to even be in her presence.

We see it between Michael and Alex in very different but still very present ways. A lot of Michael and Alex’s communication is silent and, as such, so are their consent check-ins. Before their first kiss, you see Michael checking in with Alex, watching Alex’s body language as he approaches and making sure Alex is receptive before he goes for the kiss – and Alex is, clearly. Michael asks what Alex wants and Alex says that doesn’t matter while stepping toward Michael. Michael stops and looks at Alex and Alex continues to move closer, looking back and forth from Michael’s eyes to his lips. This type of silent communication and consent checks continues throughout the rest of the season, from the scene at the drive-in to the teenage scenes and on.

We also see clear attempts at getting explicit consent between Liz & Kyle, between Cam & Max, and even when Michael was guarding Maria at the gala (I can go get Liz if you want me to leave) and later when he approaches her following the events of 1.13.

This has honestly been so fucking cool to see like this, on a CW show especially, to see how easy and essential it is to get that consent in all situations. It’s an important representation that we don’t see laid out clearly enough in media today and I’m so fucking proud of Roswell for doing it so effectively.

On disability & erasure

This show started to do something that was really incredible in portraying one of the main characters as an amputee. We see his crutch, we see the way he moves with it, we see how he struggles with it, and we see how he is determined to life his life as an amputee, and not just despite it.

There was certainly plenty of room to improve in even that regard - specifically where it concerns coaching on exactly how a recent amputee might move their body and center their weight and whatnot, even, or maybe especially, if that person were trying to hide their struggle. But it’s clear that the show was trying to represent a type of character we don’t get to see often.

But then Alex loses the crutch. Rather suddenly and very cold turkey. This is not an accurate representation of how someone with a recent loss of limb would experience their recovery, no matter how much that person may want to hide it. Recovery takes time, it takes practice, and it includes bad days. We didn’t see any of that.

It's particularly frustrating considering the show gave themselves the perfect opportunity to do this transition far better and didn't take advantage of it. There was a six-week time jump between episodes 8 & 9. Had we seen Alex try to go without his crutch when he confronted Liz in ep 7, and then have to return to using it after the long day out, and again in episode 8 with his father - wouldn't it have been so amazing to see him collapse in his chair after Jesse leaves and rub his leg because he's been ignoring the pain all day in an attempt to intimidate his father? And then we could see him moving more independently after that six-week jump.

The show dropped the ball there, in my opinion. In a big way. That beautiful representation was given and then promptly taken away. And then the show set itself up perfectly to explore how the invisibility of disability can be experienced, and has not followed through on that at all. Quite literally the last indication at all that we get of Alex's amputation is Michael commenting on his having lost the crutch in episode 9.

One of the harsh truths of disability is that no matter how much one might try to ignore and hide that aspect of who they are, it will always be there and it will make itself known. It might be invisible to others, but Alex will experience it anyway, will be affected by it anyway. He may be able to do anything that anyone else can do, but he’s gonna have to work ten times harder at it. We should have gotten to see that.

This same problem of erasing disability happens with Michael’s hand in the last episode. Michael’s scars, what they prevented him from doing, how they affected his work - all of that was so important to see, and then he gets the unconsensual healing power of magic and suddenly he gets his happy place back. And as happy as I was as a Michael!Stan to see him find that, this sends a bad message, that people with disabilities just need to be “fixed” to be happy. And as I mentioned above and in other posts, it is wildly apparent that Max healing Michael’s hand without his consent is meant to be an indicator that Max is Very Not Okay and is a prelude to him literally going so mad with power that he kills himself to resurrect Rosa. That noted, from a representation standpoint, I wish another mechanism had been used to show that.

On unapologetic politicism

Roswell makes it absolutely clear where it stands on the political spectrum and who this show is for. This show exists in the post-2016 election, post-#MeToo era and it embraces that culture and does not shy away from being political, on everything from race, sexuality and misogyny to immigration status, gun control, and even research science. It uses context and even hero dialogue to make the audience aware of what is right and what is wrong on these topics, and it does so without ambiguity or nuance.

It (appropriately) paints ICE as the enemy of good, hardworking people in literally the first scene of the show. Liz starts ranting about being stopped because she’s Latina and I just did a little dance inside because Yaassss, these are my people. And the show doesn’t let up there - the shadow of ICE hangs over Arturo’s - and by extension, Liz’s - head the entire season in a way that makes the audience uncomfortable and angry on his behalf.

The show consistently, from multiple characters both in law enforcement and not, refers to undocumented immigrants, the homeless, and prostitutes as “the most vulnerable members” of society, and not as a scourge or a menace to that society. These are good, worthy people deserving of protection and justice. The show paints anyone who views differently as firmly In The Wrong, from the disgusting Wyatt Long to the self-righteous Sheriff Valenti.

The dialogue calls out everything from subtle racism in police descriptions to building a wall to #AllLivesMatter to fake news to the terrifying ease of buying a gun to homophobia to the president himself  - it does not hold back and it does not leave room for excuses or sympathy on the part of the more conservative characters.

Most of the dialogue on the show that wasn’t explicitly Alien-centric feels very organic in the ways that it makes offhand quips about immigration and racism and sexism and everything in between - that’s the way I and my friends speak and converse. That stuff just filters into our conversations about really anything because it’s always at the forefront of our minds. We call those things out when we see them and talk about idiots like they’re not sitting right in front of us (“I think that’s Hank speak for ‘he wasn’t white.’”) There aren’t a lot of shows that nail that so perfectly and the only one that’s coming to mind at the moment is Dear White People, which was the first I saw to pull this off so well.

This is media that doesn’t try to paint a picture of “there are good people on both sides.” This media isn’t playing middle ground, or trying to please everyone. It’s making a statement in these choices and it doesn’t shy away from pissing off toxic people - this media isn’t for them. Most popular successful media (*cough* MCU *cough*) achieves that status by very carefully toeing the line between left and right, by using subtext to attract progressive viewers while keeping the explicit storyline clean and moderate. Roswell doesn’t do that - its progressivism is explicit and unmissable, as it should be. And that makes it, truly, an absolute joy to watch.

On Maria’s arc

Maria DeLuca did not start this season as an extension of Michael’s - or anyone’s - storyline, and I’m incredibly frustrated that, narratively, that’s how she ended it. That’s easily my biggest disappointment regarding the season as a whole, exaggerated by the fact that Maria is a black woman and because of that, her storyline carries more weight than many of the others. This post does a good job of discussing why POC rep matters more, and while it focuses on race-bending (which this show has also done with Maria, in a positive way), I think it still makes the point that Any POC Rep will just always hit harder, good or bad.

When that Rep is good, it’s fantastic. When it’s bad, it’s terrible.

And for most of this season, it was hitting very very good well. Maria throughout most of the season was this fierce, beautiful firecracker of personality and suppressed issues. She had a history and a deep well of issues both pre- and post- the loss of one of her closest friends, followed by the physical separation from her other two best friends. She’s got an amazing relationship with a mother who is slowly losing grip and slipping away from her. Those things, how they shaped her, and how they expressed themselves made her relatable, tangible, and easy to love.

That was actually one of my favorite parts about her hooking up with Michael, that these were main characters seeking comfort and distraction in one another, rather than just with throwaway characters. Maria is her own person with her own story that we had already seen explored as an independent arc from any of the other main characters

However, that arc never quite got the same attention as Kyle’s or Alex’s and certainly not as much as Liz or the Pod Squad. A lot of that likely has to do with her ignorance of the alien presence in the town (which appears to be coming to a close, but I won’t speculate on that) and that makes sense, narratively. As she couldn’t be actively involved in pushing the alien mystery plot forward, there was only so much the show could do with her, and I think they did take advantage of what little wiggle room they had there.

That said, given that she’s the only black woman on the main cast, it’s very disappointing that she rounds out the season by being drugged, possessed, and either talking about, pushing away, or engaging with Michael. My own perspective on this show may revolve around Michael, but that doesn’t mean I think our black woman should share that fate narratively.

And I’ll note that characterization-wise, I understood the ways Maria’s thoughts and actions could become consumed and fixated on a love interest. Oh, holy wow, have I Been There. But allowing that - and essentially, only that, narratively for Maria at the end of the season, as the only MC black woman on the show - is a disservice to her character and the community she represents. Which is not to say that I take issue with how Michael and Maria come together at the end, either from a narrative or a character development standpoint; what I take issue with is that that is all we get of her in the later episodes. Maria deserved more, and so did we.

On fighting for WOC

One of my favorite things about this show is how the characters on this show again and again come to bat for the two main WOC, despite that both of them are portrayed as absolutely capable of fighting for themselves. Both Liz Ortecho and Maria DeLuca are shown to be strong, multifaceted, beautiful (neither because of nor in spite of their race - just beautiful, end of story), desirable, and worth fighting for - and unapologetically and undeniably women of color.

Our “main hero” Max makes it absolutely clear that he will Throw Down for Liz Ortecho. He risks his own life and the lives of his siblings to save her, and nearly torpedos those relationships entirely on her behalf. He loves her absolutely, flaws and all. And he acknowledges those flaws - he doesn’t put her on a pedestal or pretend she’s perfect - she doesn’t need to be for him to love and respect her.

We see Alex and Michael and Liz all show up for Maria at different points in the story, fighting on her behalf, defending her, and making the statement that Maria is precious and should be protected. More than that, through Michael’s eyes, we stand in awe of Maria DeLuca - she is a standout, she is impressive, she is powerful, and she is her own savior, every time. And through all of that, she is beautiful and desirable and absolutely worthy of being the center of attention.

These storylines and characterizations are unfortunately still incredibly rare for women of color in modern media. Women of color rarely get to be these fully fleshed out characters with their own backstory and own motivations, and even more rarely do we get to see them be viewed by others as special and valued. Roswell isn’t sidelining its WOC or centering their storylines around white men (my comments above re Maria’s last couple episodes notwithstanding). And that’s amazing and should be celebrated.

On aesthetics

No matter how important something is to the plot or how in-character it would be, the sociological aesthetics of media are still relevant. Plot-wise, the roundabout Wyatt leading to Maria leading to Noah was an interesting mechanism, and it makes sense, character-wise for Cam and then Isobel to suspect Maria’s involvement. And it makes sense, character-wise, for Liz to then defend Maria against those suspicions.

But - aesthetics matter. And watching a scene in which two white blonde women accuse a WOC of horrible crimes at another WOC is immensely uncomfortable and very tone-deaf. That wasn’t fun or engaging to watch, I don’t feel drawn into the mystery of it all in that moment, I feel pretty grossed out, actually. Because this show has set a standard for itself of being better than that, and in that scene, it failed its own test.

On bisexual representation

This one I’ve already talked about at length and having finished out the season, my feelings haven’t changed. This show does a damn fine job showing us a bisexual character living out his life, his pain, and his unhealthy but entirely relatable coping mechanisms. They don’t try to portray him as perfect because he’s not and he shouldn’t have to be for us to respect and love him.

On bi-baiting

I’ll admit to being disappointed that Isobel’s feelings for Rosa turned out to be artificial and driven by the man living her in mind. It took the whole situation from amazing bi rep to aggressively heterosexual. Not only was our queer woman not actually queer, but all of those feelings and attraction toward another woman were actually driven by a really toxic man that was actively violating Isobel to pursue that attraction.

Once again, the show started to give us something really fucking amazing - two bisexual main characters - and then appeared to take that away. We’ve been given no indication that Isobel’s attraction to Rosa was anything more than Noah in her head or that she herself is anything other than Very Straight.

This doesn’t diminish the amazing bi representation they’ve given us with Michael, but that amazing representation does not excuse or erase our having been baited into falling for another bisexual character only to find out it was all very likely a sham. While there are certainly not enough bisexual men in media, there is also not enough queer women at all. So dangling that in front of the audience before yanking it away is frustrating.

On respecting survivors

*Content Warning: sexual assault* 

So I’m going to talk as a survivor for a moment and explain how Holy Shit Muther Fucking Important it was to see another survivor being told that other people’s feelings and needs didn’t matter. What She needed mattered. I was sobbing through that scene because no one has ever told me that. No one ever told me that what I needed trumped other people’s comfort or anger or needs.

But Isobel got to hear that. She got to hear that her brothers’ needs Did Not Matter (and that, particularly, hits hard for me). The only thing that mattered was whatever She needed to get through this, to feel better, and to heal. She got to hear that taking care of herself was the most important thing, that she was allowed to be selfish and think of herself. She didn’t have to put others first, or make sure everyone got what they wanted. What they wanted is nothing compared to what she needs. I needed to hear that just as much as Isobel did.

The show did not shy away in facing just how violently violated Isobel was by her husband - body and mind. It doesn’t brush off what he did as just another evil act by an evil man - this was invasion of Isobel in every possible way by someone she loved and trusted.

And it doesn’t try to artificially portray her as too strong to care, or too weak to handle it. She’s strong, but she’s affected. She’s shattered inside, and she’s handling it. A lot of us know what that’s like in ways people that haven’t experienced it never could. And as someone who finds therapy in being understood, in seeing my experiences in media, this scene was everything I needed.

On villainizing POC

This one has sparked a lot of valid discourse. Media has a really ugly history of telling society who is good and who is bad based on casting choices and always always always making the villains the POC, particularly MOC. It’s unconscious bias leading to more unconscious bias, teaching viewers that we shouldn’t trust POC bc they’re always the bad guy.

It’s a problem and every additional casting choice like this contributes to that problem. No show or movie is immune to it simply because they had a good reason, or even because they wanted to give a POC a job. Studios can give POC jobs by writing roles for them from the beginning, rather than slotting them into damaging stereotypes.

While I do acknowledge that it is unfair and in many ways problematic to deny an actor a role simply because of their race, aesthetics matter. There has to be some forethought in the casting choices regarding the message that choice will send. If the desire is to have more POC characters, then write more POC characters.

And that’s another way in which Roswell doesn’t really succeed with Noah. While there’s at least mention of Noah’s race on the show, he falls into the same category as Alex in that we never see his race expressed or lived. They cast a South Asian actor to play a raceblind role, which means they cast a POC actor to play a white role. POC characters have different stories than white characters - Roswell dropped the ball on giving us that with Noah.

Roswell does a lot right where it concerns race on this show, and it is refreshing that our POC villain is far from the only POC on the show. That said, I was taught something in college that I will never forget:  oppression is a moving sidewalk. In order to work against it, you cannot stand still (i.e. casting POC on both sides). You must actively walk the other direction in order to affect change.

Like with the issue of Isobel’s baited bisexuality, giving us amazing representation in one hand doesn’t change that you’re using the other to flick our ear.

On centering queer stories

*hugs myself in delight* This is a big one and is probably the aspect that Roswell gets the most right. Both in impact, screen time, and even in literal scene-splitting, Roswell again and again makes it clear that Michael & Alex’s love story is just as vital and central to this story as Max & Liz’s. They intercut their scenes at numerous points, and characters even within the show compare how similarly their stories have played out. The two relationships experience major milestones on the same day on more than one occasion.

Michael and Alex’s relationship has depth. It has conflict, it has history, it has heartbreak. There is tension and pain and softness and love. It has laughter and safe spaces; it has big gestures and powerful words. These two men who crash together and fly apart but whose whole beings seem to orient toward the other and who, at the end of the day, are willing to let themselves be destroyed for their love.

This queer love story playing out on season 1 of Roswell has more foundation, development, chemistry, and payoff than some of the most romanticised straight couples in media history. It’s been a week since the finale and I’m still just utterly in awe at what we’ve been given here. Roswell is absolutely succeeding in giving us thorough, relatable, meaningful queer representation with Michael and Alex. They are not holding back or sidelining or tokenizing. And they are following through on narrative promises instead of just baiting or relying on subtext. And that’s…. so fucking insanely satisfying to finally get to see.

.

Ultimately, I’m far more happy with how the show treats its underrepresented identities and modern social issues than I am critical. Most of the content on this show is akin to looking in a mirror and seeing my own worldview reflected back. I am a queer progressive woman and a survivor, so many of these issues are personal for me.

But I’m also white, and my disabilities are not physical. As such, I am not and should not be the authority on some of these issues. I am more than open to feedback from those who feel I was either too harsh, or not harsh enough, where it concerns those issues.

But for now, this is essentially Chasing’s Progressive Review of Roswell New Mexico, Season 1. And now I’m gonna go roll around in meta and fanfic and gifsets for the next several months cuz I sure as hell ain’t done talking about this show.

[jcmorgenstern]

@superohclair oh god okay please know these are all just incoherent ramblings so like, idk, please feel free to add on or ignore me if im just wildly off base but this is a bad summary of what ive been thinking about and also my first titans/batman meta?? (also, hi!)

okay so for the disclaimer round: I am not an actual cultural studies major, nor do I have an extensive background in looking at the police/military industrial complex in media. also my comics knowledge is pretty shaky and im a big noob(I recently got into titans, and before that was pretty ignorant of the dceu besides batman) so I’ll kind of focus in on the show and stuff im more familiar with and apologize in advance?. basically im just a semi-educated idiot with Opinions, anyone with more knowledge/expertise please jump in! this is literally just the bullshit I spat out incoherently off the top of my head. did i mention im a comics noob? because im a comics noob.

so on a general level, I think we can all agree that batman as a cultural force is somewhat on the conservative side, if not simply due to its age and commercial positioning in American culture. there are a lot of challenges and nuances to that and it’s definitely expanding and changing as DC tries to position itself in the way that will...make the most money, but all you have to do is take a gander through the different iterations of the stories in the comics and it’ll smack you in the fucking face. like compare the first iteration of Jason keeping kids out of drugs to the titans version and you’ve got to at least chuckle. at the end of the day, this is a story about a (white male) billionaire who fights crime.

to be fair, I’d argue the romanticization of the police isn’t as aggressive as it could be—they are most often presented as corrupt and incompetent. However, considering the main cop characters depicted like Jim Gordon, the guys in Gotham (it’s been a while since I saw it, sorry) are often the romanticized “good few” (and often or almost always white cis/het men), that’s on pretty shaky ground. I don’t have the background in the comics strong enough to make specific arguments, so I’ll cede the point to someone who does and disagrees, but having recently watched a show that deals excellently with police incompetence, racism, and brutality (7 Seconds on Netflix), I feel at the very least something is deeply missing. like, analysis of race wrt police brutality in any aspect at all whatsoever.

I think it can be compellingly read that batman does heavily play into the military/police industrial complex due to its takes on violence—just play the Arkham games for more than an hour and you’ll know what I mean. to be a little less vague, even though batman as a franchise valorizes “psychiatric treatment” and “nonviolence,” the entire game seems pretty aware it characterizes treatment as a madhouse and nonviolence as breaking someone’s back or neck magically without killing them because you’re a “good guy.” while it is definitely subversive that the franchise even considers these elements at all, they don’t always do a fantastic job living up to them.

and then when you consider the fetishization of tools of violence both in canon and in the fandom, it gets worse. same with prisons—if anything it dehumanizes people in prisons even more than like, cop shows in general, which is pretty impressive(ly bad). like there’s just no nuance afforded and arkham is generally glamorized. the fact that one of the inmates is a crocodile assassin, I will admit, does not help. im not really sure how to mitigate that when, again, one of the inmates is a crocodile assassin, but I think my point still stands. fuck you, killer croc. (im just kidding unfuck him or whatever)

not to take this on a Jason Todd tangent but I was thinking about it this afternoon and again when thinking about that cop scene again and in many ways he does serve as a challenge to both batman’s ideology as well as the ideology of the franchise in general. his depiction is always a bit of a sticking point and it’s always fascinating to me to see how any given adaptation handles it. like Jason’s “”street”” origin has become inseparable from his characterization as an angry, brash, violent kid, and that in itself reflects a whole host of cultural stereotypes that I might argue occasionally/often dip into racialized tropes (like just imagine if he wasn’t white, ok). red hood (a play on robin hood and the outlaws, as I just realized...today) is in my exposure/experience mostly depicted as a villain, but he challenges batman’s no-kill philosophy both on an ethical and practical level. every time the joker escapes he kills a whole score more of innocent people, let alone the other rogues—is it truly ethical to let him live or avoid killing him for the cost of one life and let others die?

moreover, batman’s ““blind”” faith in the justice system (prisons, publicly-funded asylum prisons, courts) is conveniently elided—the story usually ends when he drops bad guy of the day off at arkham or ties up the bad guys and lets the police come etc etc. part of this is obviously bc car chases are more cinematic than dry court procedurals, but there is an alternate universe where bruce wayne never becomes batman and instead advocates for the arkham warden to be replaced with someone competent and the system overhauled, or in programs encouraging a more diverse and educated police force, or even into social welfare programs. (I am vaguely aware this is sometimes/often part of canon, but I don’t think it’s fair to say it’s the main focus. and again, I get it’s not nearly as cinematic).

overall, I think the most frustrating thing about the batman franchise or at least what I’ve seen or read of it is that while it does attempt to deal with corruption and injustice at all levels of the criminal justice system/government, it does so either by treating it as “just how life is” or having Dick or Jim Gordon or whoever the fuckjust wipe it out by “eliminating the dirty cops,” completely ignoring the non-fantasy ways these problems are dealt with in real life. it just isn’t realistic. instead of putting restrictions on police violence or educating cops on how to use their weapons or putting work into eradicating the culture of racism and prejudice or god basically anything it’s just all cinematized into the “good few” triumphing over the bad...somehow. its always unsatisfying and ultimately feels like lip service to me, personally.

this also dovetails with the very frustrating way mental health/”insanity” or “madness” is dealt with in canon, very typical of mainstream fiction. like for example:“madness is like gravity, all it takes is a little push.” yikes, if by ‘push’ you mean significant life stressors, genetic load, and environemntal influences,  then sure. challenge any dudebro joker fanboy to explain exactly what combination of DSM disorders the joker has to explain his “””insanity””” and see what happens. (these are, in fact, my plans for this Friday evening. im a hit at parties).

anyway I do really want to wax poetic about that cop scene in 1x06 so im gonna do just that! honestly when I first saw that I immediately sat up like I’d sat on a fucking tack, my cultural studies senses were tingling. the whole “fuck batman” ethos of the show had already been interesting to me, esp in s1, when bruce was basically standing in for the baby boomers and dick being our millennial/GenX hero. I do think dick was explicitly intended to appeal to a millennial audience and embody the millennial ethos. By that logic, the tension between dick and Jason immediately struck me as allegorical (Jason constantly commenting on dick being old, outdated, using slang dick doesn’t understand and generally being full of youthful obnoxious fistbumping energy).

Even if subconsciously on the part of the writers, jason’s over-aggressive energy can be read as a commentary on genZ—seen by mainstream millennial/GenX audiences as taking things too far. Like, the cops in 1x06 could have been Nick Zucco’s hired men or idk pretty much anyone, yet they explicitly chose cops and even had Jason explain why he deliberately went after them for being cops so dick (cop) could judge him for it. his rationale? he was beaten up by cops on the street, so he’s returning the favor. he doesn’t have the focused “righteous” rage of batman or dick/nightwing towards valid targets, he just has rage at the world and specifically the system—framed here as unacceptable or fanatical. as if like, dressing up like a bat and punching people at night is, um, totally normal and uncontroversial.

on a slightly wider scope, the show seems to internally struggle with its own progressive ethos—on the one hand, they hire the wildly talented chellah man, but on the other hand they will likely kill him off soon. or they cast anna diop, drawing wrath from the loudly racist underbelly of fandom, but sideline her. perhaps it’s a genuine struggle, perhaps they simply don’t want to alienate the bigots in the fanbase, but the issue of cops stuck out to me when I was watching as an social issue where they explicitly came down on one side over the other. jason’s characterization is, I admit and appreciate, still nuanced, but I’d argue that’s literally just bc he’s a white guy and a fan favorite. cast an actor of color as Jason and see how fast fandom and the writer’s room turns on him.

anyway i don’t really have the place to speak about what an explicitly nonwhite!cop!dick grayson would look like, but I do think it would be a fascinating and exciting place to start in exploring and correcting the kind of vague and nebulous complaints i raise above. (edit: i should have made more clear, i mean in the show, which hasn’t dealt with dick’s heritage afaik). also, there’s something to be said about the cop vs detective thing but I don’t really have the brain juice or expertise to say it? anyway if you got this far i hope it was at least interesting and again pls jump in id love to hear other people’s takes!!

tldr i took two (2) cultural studies classes and have Opinions

[thesteadydietofeverything]

Thronebreaker: The Witcher Tales is so much more than a Gwent-based spin-off

I put about 150 hours into The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt. It’s probably my favorite game ever. I tend to think that I’ve more or less done everything in that game that there was to do, but there is one glaring exception to that: Gwent. I tried a couple rounds of the collectible card game in the beginning of the game, didn’t quite understand what was going on, and certainly didn’t care to learn when the rest of the game offered a big, beautiful world to explore, full of great stories created with near unparalleled writing. I had never really gotten in to card games within video games in general, really - I remember reacting to Final Fantasy VIII’s Triple Triad in much the same way. And I’ve certainly never attempted Hearthstone, or any such similar DCCG’s. This is all to say, I’m still a bit surprised at how thoroughly I fell in love with Thronebreaker: The Witcher Tales, a game built largely around Gwent.

CD Projekt Red’s newest game was released just a few weeks ago to disappointingly little fanfare. What reviews there are have been pretty strong, but let’s be real - this is an isometric RPG with visual novel elements whose combat is based around a card game, and it was released three days before Red Dead Redemption 2. It’s a shame, though, because the game really does offer so much to those who, like me, might be unsure about undertaking such an experience. It’s got a gorgeous, comic-book-esque art style that makes exploring the game’s detailed maps a joy. It’s very well written, with novelistic prose and strong characters delivered by Jakub Szamalek, one of the writers from The Witcher 3. Marcin Przybylowicz returns with another memorable and moody Polish-folk-music-inflected score. While combat is entirely based around Gwent, the rest of this game is devoted to exploring detailed maps and making hard, morally ambiguous decisions in the main story. In other words, the team behind The Witcher 3 made a brand new, full, deep RPG set in the universe of The Witcher, and you really should be paying attention.

Thronebreaker is a prequel-ish spin-off, set just before the events of the first Witcher game. It centers around Meve, Queen of Lyria and Rivia, and her quest to reclaim her land from a devastating Nilfgaardian invasion. The morally gray nature of The Witcher universe is an even more ever-present central tenet in this game than previous ones, as it deals explicitly with the inherent injustice of monarchical governance. Meve is, as queens go, a very good one. She’s brave, determined, and compassionate, willing to fight to the death for the good of her people. But war nevertheless makes for hard decisions, especially when you’re leading a small army with limited resources against a giant imperial machine, and attempting to navigate the complex politics of multiple lands.

The maps you explore in this game can include big cities and castles, but for the most part, you’re traversing through rural lands, passing by small villages and farms, grappling with the cruelty of feudalism. The peasants you meet have next to nothing to begin with, so often are they forced by the government you rule to give up their earnings, at least in part so that you can live in luxury. Now that war has come around, it only gets worse for them - you physically take resources from them for your army, and often conscript them to join. You stick your nose into local conflicts you don’t fully understand or appreciate. Mass inequality and injustice are everywhere, and try as you might to be a just and fair monarch, you can only go so far when your existence is one of the primary reasons for that mass inequality and injustice.

There are rarely “good” options to choose from in this game. A decision always involves a compromise, and no matter what, somebody is going to be made very unhappy by it - most likely including you. There are often more ostensibly righteous or noble options, but the consequences of those can sometimes have an effect that makes you wish you had chosen the other one. “You’ve chosen one evil over another” is a prompt that you get very used to popping up - it’s the game’s sole response to you making a story-altering decision. Sometimes this can feel pretty damn off. Sorry, game, but choosing not to kill a messenger when I’ve just been reminded of the rules of war, or saving an elf from a mob of racist humans attempting a public execution are just not evils, no matter how you look at them. The point of it is showing how your actions, even seemingly altruistic ones, have consequences, and the shades of gray thing works pretty well for the most part, but despite the game’s assurance to the contrary, not every choice you make is an evil one.

The more successful decision making comes when you really feel those consequences, either through a hit to your resources, or a bit of writing that explains what ended up happening. There’s a heavy dollop of Machiavellianism to these decisions, as it often comes down to choosing between what’s right and what’s successful. You need gold, people, and resources to survive. In the early parts of the game, you’re pretty desperate for all three of these things. So when you stumble across an already disturbed grave that has valuables in it, do you pillage it? You want to say no, and yet, you weigh the options - the only negative would be upsetting company morale, but morale is already high after saving a church graveyard from a monster, so pushing it down to normal isn’t a great loss in comparison to leaving behind gold. In that same section, you can chase down a group of bandits that stole gold from the church. After you retrieve it, you can either return it, or keep it for yourself. I returned it, but I didn’t feel quite as great about it as I expected to. Sure, I made a small group of nuns happy, but does this truly benefit the kingdom as a whole if we’re short on money to fight our enemies?

That’s not to say that the game encourages you to make the selfish choice. I’ve heard it claimed before that the Witcher games reward policies of non-interference and cynicism in the face of injustice, but I don’t think that’s necessarily true. Sure, taking the gold for myself would have made the game a little bit easier for me, but that’s temptation, not reward. There’s always a cost for getting involved, but it’s hard for me to see that as the game punishing me. There are consequences no matter what, and this is the rare game with a semblance of a morality system that often makes attempts at doing the right thing the most narratively interesting choice rather than the choice with the most practical reward. This becomes clear in the second chapter, where, after seeing the atrocities wrought by the opposition, you can’t help but become more willing to recognize the cruelty in yourself, to make decisions you never figured you’d make. This wouldn’t feel nearly as impactful if you didn’t start out trying to make Meve the most just ruler possible.

Though the game presents a complex world of bitter division and desperate cynicism, and thus engaging with it leaves little possibility of not getting blood on your hands, the writing rarely feels ignorant of the roots of injustice. The human lands that you spend most of the game exploring are deeply racist. The Elder Races - elves and dwarves, mostly, have been subject to countless pogroms across these lands, and even when they aren’t being straight up murdered, are never treated as equals to their human neighbors. So the fact that the Scoia’tael, a radical group of nonhuman guerillas, exist isn’t surprising, nor can you not have sympathy for their alliance with the invading Nilfgaard. Though the Nilfgaardians can be seen as a stand-in for any massive imperial force, from the Roman Empire to Nazi Germany, with all the delusions of racial superiority that tend to go with empire, their invasion of the Northern Kingdoms actually does seem to make life a bit easier for nonhumans - one of the chief complaints of the humans you meet living under occupation is how many more rights have been granted to elves and dwarves.

The Scoia’tael, fighting for Nilfgaard, thus become another enemy you must face. Some of them, justifiably thrilled at the prospect of overthrowing their oppressors, use the destruction of a kingdom like Aedirn as an opportunity to slaughter whole villages of humans as revenge. You see the mindless violence they’ve committed, then are faced with the threat of it yourself, and there’s really no other choice but to take the Scoia’tael down. It feels terrible. Every aspect of it. And I believe the game earns this trudge through moral quicksand. It recognizes the righteousness of the Scoia’tael, even as it forces you into opposition against them. It’s both awful, and a surprising relief from the social commentary video games so often fall into - the reductive and mischaracterizing Bethesda/Rockstar/Bioshock “both sides suck” approach. It recognizes the power differences at the root of the issue, and doesn’t hide from the ugliness that ensues.

That’s not to say that the writing is always perfect when dealing with this stuff. Cut a single corner with material this volatile and you can end up with a pretty off-putting scene, as Thronebreaker occasionally does. There’s one character, a human named Black Rayla, that joins your team in the second chapter. She’s a seasoned fighter of the Scoia’tel, and thoroughly racist as a result, and yet, she’s useful to your cause, so you allow her in. This is all well and good, and theoretically should make for some interesting internal conflicts, but there were several scenes where I was disturbed by Meve’s lack of response to Rayla’s nationalist bullshit. There was one scene where she was going down some real “I don’t have a problem with them, as long as they know their place” garbage, and I just decided to dismiss her at that point. I wonder what would happen if she stayed with my group till the end, if Meve would have more to say to her after she wasn’t quite as desperate for her help. I’d hope so, but considering the lack of mindful writing around her character I witnessed it, I wouldn’t exactly expect it.

For as fascinating as the narrative of this game is, the thing you’ll probably spend the majority of the game doing is playing Gwent, and for a solid two-thirds of my time with the card combat, that was something I was very happy to be doing. The system built for this game, similar to, but modified from its Witcher 3 iteration, is deep, strategic, and occasionally pretty challenging. It feels made for newcomers like myself, mostly unfamiliar with Gwent, or even the standard mechanics shared by most card games, in the way that it eases the player into it. The first hour or so of the game is the official tutorial, but really the whole first chapter feels like a fairly natural extended tutorial for beginners, starting you off with a fairly limited deck in order to solidify the basics. For the most part this is very well done, though there were some particular aspects of the game that didn’t seem to be entirely explained, and took me a pretty long time to pick up on exactly how they worked.

The biggest strength that the card game here boasts is real variety. So many of the battles have particular rules or cards in play that drastically change the way you have to approach your strategy. Many of these come in the form of “puzzles” - aptly titled special battles where you’re given a specific set of cards and there’s really only one solution that you have to deduce through experimentation and logic. These are largely fantastic, not only because they’re all unique and fun in their own right, but because they often serve as mini-lessons in how individual units work and the various strategic ways they can be utilized.

Then there are the standard battles, where you actually get to shuffle and draw your own deck. The designers clearly put a lot of effort into the variety here as well, so often do they throw in inventive special rules and objectives, a lot of which not only change the pace of battle in meaningful ways, but often weave narrative significance into play as well. One of my favorite feelings in this game was getting stuck on a battle because of its particular rules, banging my head against it for a little while, then just suddenly seeing it, and pulling a satisfying victory just before it would’ve started feeling frustrating.

For as much thought and care as was clearly put into the design, though, there’s really only so many ways to keep combat interesting and engaging through a campaign that can last as long as fifty hours. In the back half of the game, combat can too often feel like a grind. At this point, you’ve got a big, diverse deck with plenty of powerful cards that makes it too easy to brute force your way through most situations. I found myself repeating the same tried and true tactics over and over again to bring my game to a speedy end so I could just move on with the story, which I was still very much enjoying. It’s hard to know if more work could have been put in to truly keep the card game feeling novel - Gwent just generally loses its depth once you’ve got mastery over a sturdy deck. I think ultimately, the game is just too long - possibly by even as much as ten hours or so, honestly. That’s not to say that I outright stopped enjoying it at any point; this is unquestionably one of my favorite games of the year, but if I didn’t have to face that grind in the final couple chapters, it very well could have been a contender for the top spot.

It feels a bit too long in the narrative sense as well. Not necessarily the written aspect of the narrative - that all felt consistently strong and inspired throughout the course of this game. But the mechanics surrounding the narrative, in particular the hard decisions you have to make as a result of limited resources, fall flat once the in-game economy feels maxed out. By the final chapter, all my upgrade trees were completely filled and I found myself sitting on a growing surplus of funds, and suddenly making the “right” decision didn’t feel quite as hard.

Despite its cumbersome length, few games surprised and enchanted me this year as much as Thronebreaker. The challenging and compelling role playing, the satisfying card combat...hell, even if that stuff wasn’t as outstanding as it is, I probably would have been happy to spend a considerable amount of time in it for its art style and music alone, so thoroughly did it soak me in those intoxicating Witcher vibes. It made me very excited at the potential CD Projekt Red still has in it for finding innovative and novel approaches to fresh storytelling in a well-worn universe, and I just hope that potential can continue to be realized after the distressingly muted reaction to this game’s release. Here’s hoping that its recent addition to Steam, and its upcoming console release, allows it to find the audience that it deserves.

[princessnijireiki]

anyway, while we're on the subject

I know half my family is catholic so I have no room to talk, but apparently some folks are super weird and think this kind of shit is normal & a testament to how deeply entrenched and allegedly non-discriminatory it is for secular christmas to be omnipresent & the cultural default & exclude… literally everyone else

but like

at the same time as y'all say some shit like that I can't help but think of stuff like "the merchant of venice" re: at minimum an acknowledged jewish presence in the uk over 400 years ago… or how on this same meta level for "a christmas carol," written by dickens, a noted antisemite, scrooge (complete with his old-testament first name, ebenezer) has his wickedness cast through a lens of not celebrating christmas… which, in a story about a man's spiritual journey, I refuse to believe was solely about the secular aspects of the holiday.

or tbh that the whole thing is in defense of jk "my magical bankers are all untrustworthy beady eyed hook nosed goblins" rowling's naturally unquestioned inclusion of christmas / exclusion of literally anything else in the harry potter novels, as if like… that is not in fact still evidence of weird egocentric religious bigotry at play in a story set in the uk in the 1990s, particularly she's a racist weirdo already

likewise tolkien & his boy cs lewis were both highly religious and incredibly racist, with various monsters & wicked kings functioning as stand-ins for non-christians & people of color, where the hobbits & pevensies are Good God Fearing Christian English Folk (#make narnia/middle earth great again) in thinly veiled religious allegories & white supremacist screeds for children…

like… kipling didn't pull that shit lol. oscar wilde is not known for yuletide stories… or instead of jkr you have some room to pull in other (better) modern authors' examinations of christianity as default & christmas as a given in english lit/culture, esp bc there's def some critique & satire in there with stuff like doctor who or pratchett's hogfather…

it's just weirdly lazy & curious to me that people would say, "no, it's not racist, they've just been this way culturally for centuries— it's tradition!" as if britons have not historically got mountains of evidence of not only racism, but lovingly placing that racism on a pedestal for sake of said tradition already, for centuries…

like it's a HARD no from me on giving a free pass to religious / racial biases (because that's what they are) towards christians and against everyone else in real life practices and in fiction just because an imperial nation with centuries of imposing christendom onto its own citizens and its colonial subjects has gotten into a cultural rut and refuses to embrace the reality of a world in which not everybody celebrates this specific christian holiday, particularly when it goes hand in hand with depicting people (or "the kind of people") who don't celebrate that holiday as strange, foreign, evil, or all three.

[trecblog]

Brit(ish): On Race, Identity, And Belonging By Afua Hirsch - Review

All my life my sense of identity and belonging has never been in doubt or called into question by anyone I have met. I am a white British man. While I have grown as a person over the years, and what it means to be a white British man has changed in my mind over time that part of my identity has remained. This is a privilege that Britain does not afford most demographics. My identity, and sense of belonging is solid, for many it is more complex, and nebulous. Brit(ish) by Afua Hirsch is part autobiography, part social commentary, and part exploration of the nature of identity, and belonging in Britain. Hirsch is a British born mixed-race woman with a black Ghanaian mother, and a white Jewish father. Her search to discover her own sense of identity is one which took her around the world to Senegal, Ghana, and back to Britain. This book is simultaneously deeply personal, and wide ranging in scope. It is one woman’s journey to find where she belongs, a collection of interviews with people sharing their experiences in Britain, and a look at Britain’s past, and its present as a whole.

Hirsch’s search for a place in the world where she can fit in, and the alienation she feels is the main driving force of the book. This is as much about finding where she culturally belongs as it is about geographic belonging. She describes growing up in a middle-class family and was often one of very few students of colour in school. This position, being alone in a sea of white faces continued up to her attendance at Oxford University. By her own admission she did not know much about black British culture as a result of her upbringing. She expresses feeling like she was on the outside everywhere being neither physically white enough to fit in one world, nor culturally black enough to fit in the other. Her relationship with her hair is a clear example of this dichotomy at work. Her natural hair is curled enough to defy her attempts to flatten it as a child, but the curls are not tight enough and too fine for black hairdressers’ usual treatments to work. She goes into detail about the difficulty she experienced trying to find ways to treat it, with most haircare products available for purchase not being designed with her hair in mind. Her hair is not only significant as a marker of her outsider status however. It also becomes a formative part of her culturally claiming her identity as a Black woman. Hirsch writes about when she first got her hair braided, and how things changed for her when she had a traditionally black hairstyle for the first time. She says the difference was night and day as they made her look blacker, and older. Her hair became a cultural marker signalling her as a member of the black community in a way she had not felt before. As a reader this was eye opening, revealing even something as simple as the hair growing out of my head to be yet another thing where I am relatively privileged.

The way Hirsch writes about her hair, the work it takes to care for it properly, and the reaction of others to it, is not the only way she writes about her relationship to Britain as a Black woman.  She goes deep examining Britain’s hyper sexualisation of Black people. In a notable early chapter, she details visiting the “Black Man’s Fan Club” (BMFC) which is a monthly swingers night specifically for white women who want to have sex with black men. She links this hyper sexualisation back to racist stereotypes that developed during the era of slavery and colonialism to dehumanise black people. She looks at how these myths have been used to portray black men as boogeymen coming to take the virtue of white women, and points to the treatment of the Central Park Five as an example of how these myths still cause real harm in the modern day. At the BMFC however, instead of rejecting or pushing back against these myths she finds black men who have not only embraced them with open arms but are actively reinforcing them, and a club which does not seem to understand how fetishizing black bodies this way can be offensive or racist. Hirsch also writes about the hyper-sexualisation of black women and her own experiences of this in action. She includes examples of how at just fourteen years old she had teenage boys making crude jokes about black girls supposed greater promiscuity, and sexual experience. These stereotypes and myths around the hyper sexuality of black women similarly to those about black men seem to be repeated with no consideration or awareness of their historical origins rooted in white masters raping black women slaves. This is just one example of how Britain’s reluctance to examine its past of slavery, colonisation, and empire is poisoning the well even now in the 21st century.

Hirsch is critical of Britain’s seeming refusal to look at its past with honest eyes throughout the book. Britain favouring a view of the past which extolls its fight for abolition while minimizing its role in the slave trade has contributed to a view of Britain as being a post racial society. Hirsch clearly stands opposed to this notion using her own experiences to show that the idea that Britain is “colour-blind” is a veil to hide Britain’s more subtle hidden brand of unspoken racism. The more overt instances of racism she describes such as a neighbour who would make their dog defecate directly outside her grandmother’s home every day do not receive as much focus. Instead, its things like what she terms “The Question” that seem to have left more of an impact. The Question is: where are you from? It is as an almost perfect example of the kind of micro aggression Hirsch is pushing back against. I have never been asked where I come from, but she and many others have countless times. It is presented as being just out of curiosity asked by people who will readily claim they “don’t see race”. The problem with this is when a person is asked over and over again like Hirsch has been, its ‘alienating’ and ‘othering’ effects are multiplied. The idea that Britain is some kind of post racial nation is so widespread it has come up in past reviews and is a clear source of frustration for Hirsch. It is almost a form of gas lighting on a national scale. It flat out denies the lived experiences, and racism people of colour are forced to live through every day. One example of this Hirsch writes about is at a special reception held by the Daily Mail to mark 10 years of the journalism diversity fund. A mixed-race journalist called Joseph (who Hirsch spoke to for the book) confronted some of the Daily Mail grandees present about a racist cartoon the newspaper had published. In response he was told to “stop being a troublemaker”. This myth has turned Britain into a nation with racism but no racists, where calling out racism and demanding accountability is met with denial, and labels like “troublemaker”, or “divisive”. To question and challenge this idea might make Hirsch a “troublemaker” but to paraphrase the late American politician and civil rights activist John Lewis, sometimes you need to make good trouble, necessary trouble.

To conclude this piece, good trouble as John Lewis described it is something Hirsch provides throughout the book. As her search for her own sense of identity continues, she touches upon and explores many aspects of what it means to be Black in Britain today. She always maintains her self-exploration as the emotional centre of the book so these dives into a wide range of subjects around race and identity never feel unwieldy. Her interviews with people of all walks of life are woven into the book well. They never detract from her story instead, adding more shades to it. Hirsch writes with a deft hand which is thought provoking and illuminating in equal measure. The book reviews I have written have all forced me to confront and reckon with my own privilege and position in society and this one is no exception. While it is about one woman’s journey of self-exploration it has also become an important step in my own self-exploration, and ongoing education.

[bonpourlorient]

Mis-adventures in Turkish Whiteness: Or why “whiteness has no sociality”

Growing up in Turkey, I was told a set of claims about my ethnicity that may seem surprising and wholly unfamiliar to a foreign audience. These claims came with varying degrees of authority and facticity, some merely asserted by self-fashioned intellectuals, (uncles and aunts, who despite being doctors, teachers and engineers also regarded themselves as experts on Turkish history), some taught in Turkish history class, some I encountered in a sketchy propaganda email I’d receive from a distant cousin but knew to be at least part of (if not central to) the official discourse on Turkishness at one time point in history or another. 

These claims included; that Turkish people originated from central Asia, that the language and alphabet they used stretched back to the Göktürk Khaganate and even further, that all languages descended from Turkish (the Sun language theory), that Turkish people were “Western” because central Asia was the cradle of all civilization (Turkish History Thesis), that Mu the legendary lost continent was among the possible homelands of the Turks, that the ancient Etruscan civilization near contemporary Tuscany, later colonized and assimilated by Rome, were descendants of Turks (giving the Roman empire a Turkic character), that indigenous peoples of North America were in fact descendants of this central Asian Turkic race (since languages and shamanic practices in Central Asia resembled those in North America), that it was the Ottoman commander Piri Reis who drew the oldest surviving map of the Americas, that the event that marked the end of the Middle Ages was the “conquest” of Constantinople “by Fatih Sultan Mehmet” in 1453 and not Christopher Columbus’s colonial endeavor in 1492. And above all, that Turkish people were white. 

Of course, I didn’t believe all of this. No one in school did. And most of us instinctively knew that most of it was straight up wrong. Specifically, the Turkish history thesis and the Sun language theory, perhaps the most formalized of these claims, were long abandoned and no one in school, save perhaps for my very nativist Turkish literature teacher, believed them. In the context of living in Turkey, most of these seemed like fanciful speculations that were on the whole, harmless. 

Yet what endured for a long time was the unshakable conviction that Turkish people were white. More specifically, that Turkish people were white, precisely because they were central Asian, or to be more precise because they were not Middle Eastern. Even today, when I suggest that Turkish people aren’t necessarily considered white, especially by Americans who largely don’t care enough to distinguish between “Turks” and “Arabs” friends and family members get upset, not only out of being misidentified but also out of not being categorized as white. “But we are white!” friends tell me, “look at our skin tone.”

This might seem confusing to an outside spectator. While colourism is familiar enough, why would claiming you are central Asian, make you white? Yet such claims were not foreign to early republican history. As Turkish historian Murat Ergin writes, in his book, “Is the Turk a White Man?” racial discourse became a key part of early republican history. The Central Themes of Turkish History, a book published by Afet İnan, an adopted daughter of the nation’s founding figure, Mustafa Kemal, best reflected this contradictory view: 

“The Central Themes of Turkish History made a number of notable and fanciful assertions that found their way into school curricula, and established themselves as orthodoxy among Turkish educators and scholars. They include: 1) Turks are the original white race; 2) Turks are the descendants of an ancient, central Asian civilisation, which is the oldest and most advanced in the world; 3) Turks spread civilisation to the rest of the world when they migrated out of central Asia, their mythical homeland; 4) when they encountered other races, ancient Turks assimilated and Turkified them. 

This last claim was an interesting twist on the peculiarly racist one-drop rule in the US, whereby anyone with any black ‘blood’ is black. In the Turkish model, racial mixture did not debase the ‘superior’ race. Instead, it raised and assimilated ‘inferior’ races. Turkish people learned that the cradle of Western whiteness and civilisation was to be found in Asia. The American philosopher John Dewey (1859-1952) visited Turkey in 1924 to prepare a report on education, and quipped: ‘It is paradoxical that it should be necessary for a nation to go into Asia in order to make sure that it is to be Europeanised.’” 

In deed, if we view categories such as Whiteness and the West as referring to a substantive sociality or historical experience, it is very bizarre that Turks would claim to be white because they are Asian. It seems even more bizarre that Turkish nationalist discourse would also make claims that amount to self-indigenization; at the same time they are claiming whiteness? 

Yet view whiteness not as a substantive category but rather as faciality, as the black holes in a black-hole/white wall system of racial comparison and superiority and things fall into place. After all, what could be whiter than to claim indigeniety, to think that the peoples, the seas and the land are yours to claim? Whiteness, viewed from this perspective, is not tethered to a substantive social or historical content. It is the sense of rule as such. From this perspective, what is Turkish was already “Western” and what was Western could easily be demonstrated to be Turkish. (see Gavin Walker’s interesting take on this the schema of “the West” as a white wall/black hole system.)

Turkish whiteness, just like any other whiteness, aspires to be world historical, to own the world and write its history. Perhaps this was why history class in Turkey, consisted of looking at the maps of all the lands that “Turks” used to rule, stretching from the Uyghur and Göktürk Khaganates to the last days of the Ottoman Empire. The object of Turkish history was the concept of Turkish rule projected onto historical maps and slide shows.**

Viewed from this perspective, Turkish whiteness is not a replica of European whiteness. During the turn of the 20th century, the Turkish republic (still in its infancy) did attempt to appropriate the apparatuses of scientific racism, inviting eugenicist scientists, European linguists and historians, to Turkey, to help study and demonstrate the racial “superiority” of the Turks, especially to the Europeans. There was an overwhelming effort to demonstrate that Turks were in fact white, and ought to be included into the realm of “superior” races, that they were not “yellow” or “brown” or “black.” Most importantly that Turks represented a distinct civilization, descended from central Asia, that could not be Oriental. Between 1933-1943 especially, figures associated with the Turkish state tried to import the discourses of biometric and anthropometrics to develop a more sustained argument regarding scientific racism. 

Yet Turkish whiteness was not confined to these years. Nor was it focused merely replicating the racial science existing in Nazi Germany. Turkish whiteness did not etch itself onto that of Germany, France or Britain, whereby Turks would descend from the same imagery the same lore and mythology that is sometimes attributed to whiteness. Rather, Turkish whiteness presented itself as nothing other than a profound sense of ownership over history, over the world, a deeply imperial and buffoonish sense of arrogance, superiority and mastery. 

This profound sense of mastery, allowed Turkish whiteness to easily assimilate everything it encountered. Of course Enlightenment traditions could be adopted, since Turks had already made these discoveries a long time ago. As the thesis of Turkish whiteness was reformulated over the years, it could even assimilate Islam; of course Islam could be Turkish (and white!), since the essence of Islam, uncorrupted and purified of bygone Arab superstitions and traditions, was already in line with Turkic beliefs and culture. It was the Turks that finally revealed what was worthwhile and Enlightened in Islam. Such an Enlightened Islam was to be the basis of religion in the Turkish republic. 

What all this teaches us then, is that the phenomenon of whiteness is much broader, much more pernicious and much less collapsible into a “cultural context,” than ordinary discourse might imagine. Perhaps whiteness has no substantive sociality, no reference point, apart from this sense of rule as such, an idea articulated by the black radical tradition. The struggle against whiteness maybe more diverse and multifaceted than at first imagined. Perhaps to exit whiteness, we must disinvest, both materially and mentally from the pretention to rule the world. 

--

**(Perhaps the most bizarre aspect of all this is the unending and somewhat farcical obsession with demonstrating the Turkic origins of the native peoples of North and Central Americas, as a way to demonstrate the world historical reach of the Turkic race. This claim originally began as an attempt to demonstrate that the ancient central American cultures, such as the Mayan civilisation, were Turkic. Even today Turkish newspapers continue to publish news stories every 2 years or so, that claim to demonstrate the Turkic origins of Native peoples in North America. Ironically, using DNA as a method of claiming indigeneity is routinely critiqued by Native scholars as a colonial practice.)

[coffeebooksorme]

THE BLACK WITCH REVIEW

GOODREADS REVIEW: Elloren Gardner is the granddaughter of the last prophesied Black Witch, Carnissa Gardner, who drove back the enemy forces and saved the Gardnerian people during the Realm War. But while she is the absolute spitting image of her famous grandmother, Elloren is utterly devoid of power in a society that prizes magical ability above all else. When she is granted the opportunity to pursue her lifelong dream of becoming an apothecary, Elloren joins her brothers at the prestigious Verpax University to embrace a destiny of her own, free from the shadow of her grandmother’s legacy. But she soon realizes that the university, which admits all manner of people—including the fire-wielding, winged Icarals, the sworn enemies of all Gardnerians—is a treacherous place for the granddaughter of the Black Witch. As evil looms on the horizon and the pressure to live up to her heritage builds, everything Elloren thought she knew will be challenged and torn away. Her best hope of survival may be among the most unlikely band of misfits…if only she can find the courage to trust those she’s been taught to hate and fear.

I have to preface this by saying that I was not originally interested in reading this book. I have to admit, the original backlash brought forth by that review definitely put off even wanting anything to do with this book, and then I joined book twitter. I noticed quite a lot of people defending the book (specifically POC & marginalized people) and was intrigued. So I went to GR to read some reviews and after I scrolled through all the 1 star reviews from folks who hadn’t even read the book, I found some decent reviews from folks who had. Interest piqued, I decided to pick up a copy and give it a shot.

I’m also quite apprehensive about even posting this review because I’ve seen the vitriol and hate slung at people on Goodreads over this book. I’m more than willing to engage in discussion with anyone that would like to discuss this book, but I will only do so in a mature fashion. I’m not going to get into a screaming or name calling match with anyone.

First off, the accusation of racism/sexism is absolutely correct. This book contains a lot of racism/sexism in it, sometimes too heavy handed for me, but I think that was the point. IMO, the author was trying to show us readers just what kind of vile and horrendous world that our MC & friends live in. And it worked. Think the end of Harry Potter 6 with the beginning of Harry Potter 7. Umbridge pushing Hitler like propaganda about wizard purity and ‘testing’ for genetic purity of wizards. Anyone not of purebloo are rounded up and imprisoned. ‘Mudbloods’ being tortured by Voldemort. Racial slurs thrown around like a baseball. All that happened in the HP world, but it was to show just how vile and horrible the world would be if Voldemort was in charge.That’s the world Elloren is in in ‘The Black Witch’. Now let’s add some religion onto the story. All the racism, segregation, and hatred are stemmed from religious beliefs, and the Gardnerians are religiously indoctrinated from birth to believe this racist baloney. Religion is prevalent in every aspect of their culture; their dress, their patriarchal society, the way they marry, to even the way they eat a dang cookie! They are religiously brainwashed to believe that their almighty ‘God’ created them to be the ‘special’ people, the most important, the greatest above all, etc. As a matter of fact, each race has their own version of this ideal within their own religions. Now, imagine a member of the FDLS (Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints) is moved from their home to, let’s say, New York City, San Francisco or, even, Detroit. It’s going to be one HECK of a culture shock for them because they’ve lived a very secluded life with heavy religious influence. They’ve been brainwashed from a young age to believe certain things. They’re ignorant, yes. But not willfully ignorant, IMO, because they don’t know any better. The culture shock alone is going to be enough to make them recoil, especially considering they’ve been raised in a religion that demonizes anything that isn’t part of their group. Now add in them being brutally attacked upon arriving to their new city. That will certainly reinforce whatever preconceived notions they have from their religious indoctrination. That is Elloren in this story. She was raised in a heavy religious society to believe certain things. Not only that but she was hidden away at the edge of the country in a small town with barely any outsiders. Moving from Halifax to Verpax was one hell of a culture shock. She’s our sheltered FDLS member that’s been taken from her small town home and thrust into a bustling university in a major city. She was brutally attacked before arriving at University so the fear is only encouraged. Upon arrival, again, she is brutally attacked, verbally assaulted, and threatened with future physical abuse. This attack was completely unprovoked, mind you. It happened because she is part of another race. She’s constantly judged because she looks exactly like her grandmother (who, upon research, Elloren finds out was a brutal person who committed genocide against people), and she falls in with the wrong crowd by becoming so smitten with Lukas (the first male to show her any romantic attention, btw), who, in her mind, is her only protector from all the bullying, violent attacks, and threats. Because Elloren is scared, she reacts badly. Badly is an understatement because she feeds into the racism and hatred. Rather than turning the other cheek to attacks and verbal abuse, Elloren reacts in kind and throws back racial slurs, runs to Lukas who in turn commits atrocious, racially spurred actions on her behalf, and she even commits a few herself because as Lukas teaches her, ‘Dominate or be dominated’. Does this justify her actions? Absolutely not. Under no circumstances are her actions or words justified. But I can understand why she reacts this way. Fear is one hell of a motivator and when that’s combined with religious indoctrination, it’s a dangerous thing. I think that was the whole point the author was trying to make. Was it done in the best way possible? Probably not. But as a first time author, I think she did a pretty decent job. The whole story is about how Elloren is submerged in this racist, sexist, homophobic society and how she overcomes these notions to form her own opinions by interacting with the other races, researching the history instead of blindly believing what’s been presented to her her whole life, and eventually, fighting back against the inequality because she wants a better place not only for herself but her brothers and her friends as well. Sure, some of her old racist habits come through every now and again, but habits die hard, especially those that were indoctrinated into you from birth. She’s trying. Obviously, POC are going to be very uncomfortable reading a story that shoves racism down their throat for the first half of the book. If I read a book with fatphobia for the first 3/4 book, I’d be uncomfortable as well. I get the reluctance and the flat out refusal to read a book that would make you uncomfortable. If you don’t want to read it then that is absolutely your prerogative and I do not blame you one bit. I do not agree, however, with calling the author or it’s readers racist POS and white supremacists that support a racist narrative. That’s flat out condescending and erroneous. If you’d read the book rather than someone’s subjective review, you’d see how the story is about a girl overcoming the indoctrination of her racist society. People also seem to have a problem with this being a ‘white savior’ book. I can see where people think that, but I do respectfully disagree with that point. I understand why people are upset because it’s like ‘Oh god, another story about a white person saving the day’, but that’s the whole premise of the story. That’s the whole point behind a lot of ‘chosen one’ stories. HP was a ‘chosen one saves the day’ story about a white boy fighting a racist POS villain at the root of it’s story. The Hunger Games was a story about a white girl saving the day for the poor folks. Divergent is about a white chick saving the day from oppressors. If you look at any ‘chosen one’ stories, it’s about someone saving a marginalized group. Is the YA community saturated with that trope? Yes, absolutely. Is ‘The Black Witch’ racist for using that trope as well? Absolutely not. I really enjoyed this story. I laughed. I was upset. I was deeply uncomfortable at times. It’s one of the first YA stories that has really made me stop and think about things. It’s unfortunate that it’s gotten a bad rap because of one persons opinion, and even more unfortunate that the mob/herd mentality has vilified readers who have enjoyed it. I implore anyone who has even thought about reading this book to give it a shot, read with an open mind, and realize that this book was never intended to be a fluff, easy read.

[thenicedolphin]

Oscars Analysis With Biting Commentary: 2019 Edition!

We are BACK, with the 7th annual Oscars post from The Nice Dolphin (see links here for 2018, 2017, 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013), where Matt provides insightful, quality analysis while Alex texts some thoughts from his iPhone about how Lego Movie 2 was robbed of a nomination even though it’s not even eligible this year. As always, Matt is in regular font, and Alex comes in with the BOLD.

 You know what? Lego Movie 2 WAS robbed this year! Just like how Lego Movie should’ve been nominated for Best Picture in 2015 and didn’t even get nominated to be in the ghetto of Best Animated Feature. Horseshit. We haven’t even gotten to the first category and I’m already PISSED.

 Best Picture: “Black Panther” “BlacKkKlansman” “Bohemian Rhapsody” “The Favourite” “Green Book” “Roma” “A Star Is Born” “Vice”

 I’ll start by noting this wasn’t my favorite years for Oscar nominees. The top picks aren’t as good as Get Out or Lady Bird (or Phantom Thread) from last year. Or Moonlight and La La Land the year before. But there are a few great films in here, along with some mediocre picks.

 Nice try sneaking La La Land in there -- should’ve at least gone with Argo. I do agree that it’s a weak year. Lady Bird would’ve jobbed out almost all the other movies this year, and it was like the third best movie from last year (behind Get Out and Phantom Thread). Honestly, just go back and read last year’s post.

I’d go to bat for Roma for sure. It’s a great film. It certainly is a masterpiece of visuals and a writer/director getting to tell his personal story. It certainly felt like a movie event to watch it in theaters.

 Certainly.

 The sound was really creative (surround sound to make the neighborhood and events feel alive). The visuals were beautiful and poignant, as one would expect with Cuaron. He really put all his effort in telling this story, paying homage to his childhood and to the live-in maid who so strongly influenced his upbringing.

 Roma starts slow, but it builds, and I became enraptured with it during the second half. Some of the sequences are intense and well worth the previous groundwork. There’s a 10-15 minute sequence (just an estimate) that left me shook and in awe at the filmmaking (the scene starting at the furniture store). Another scene gave such emotional catharsis and helped close the movie really well. Roma also has some fun tangents and moments (I think of everything around New Year’s Eve) that some may find meandering. I dug them.

 While Roma was a technical masterpiece, I’m still not sold on it as a story. Literally nothing happens for the first 100 minutes then we get some things that are completely unnerving, including one image that does not feel entirely earned, to put it mildly.

 TASTELESS SPOILER ALERT

 Cuaron is like “yeah, let’s focus on some dog shit for two hours. Enjoying that? Well, here look at this dead baby for like 15 minutes straight.” Dude was on screen for EONS. Thought he was gunning for a best supporting nom.

 SPOILERS OVER

 Roma is definitely a loving portrait of Cleo, a personal ode to the women who raised Cuaron, and an astute look into the intersection of economic class and gender in 1970s Mexico, but I can’t tell if those well-made pieces combine to make a truly great movie.

 Otherwise, I’m not sure how much I’d want to rewatch this film or revisit it in entirety, but I really admired it and thought it was great. It is the frontrunner, and it would deserve Best Picture.

 I’m a little worried that because of its Netflix standing and that weirdness. For example, AMC and Regal didn’t include Roma in their best picture marathons/showcases because it didn’t meet the distribution requirement for those theaters. Does that affect voters too? It seemed to with a few previous prestige Netflix films, but things do seem different now. So let’s talk about the next upset contender right now: Green Book.

 Green Book is an interesting movie to me. It’s fairly polarizing because of the way it treats racial issues and the friendship between Viggo Mortensen’s white Italian character (Tony Lip) and Mahershala Ali’s black character (Don Shirley). You may have seen some of the controversies, such as how Shirley’s family wasn’t consulted on the film and disputes some of the representations of Shirley’s relationship with his family (deserving of criticism in my opinion). There has been criticism of director Peter Farrelly’s past on-set antics, or co-writer (son of Tony Lip) Nick Vallelonga’s tweet history (less of an issue to me to criticize the film, but still, not great, Bob).

 First and foremost, FOCK this movie. Tony Lip is racist as hell! Like REALLY racist. You can tell it was written by his son, because the movie treats Tony like he’s the perfect man who was just a touch unexposed to other cultures. He never really learned or grew, especially with the whole “You’re not even black!” rant at the end. He just goes from being super racist to not(?) racist because he’s getting paid to hang out with Dr. Shirley for a few weeks.

 Green Book has two great leading performances and some wonderful friendship moments. It has some funny Italian moments (is this racist?), and it has some great moments of strength by Don Shirley in rougher times racially. But man… I just can’t get over some of the key aspects of the film.

 The film really leans into the dynamic of hey, you’re black, I’m white, we’re different, but hey, we’re not so different! It feels antiquated, and this year, other films handled race relations better while being better stories overall (examples include Sorry to Bother You, Blindspotting, and If Beale Street Could Talk). Green Book’s lack of nuance reminds me of Crash and Driving Miss Daisy. Hell, the movie is called Green Book, and they barely mention it! They should have just called it something else.

 I get that little Nicky V. wanted to make a film about what a big man his daddy was, but it really only should’ve been loosely based on the Lip-Shirley friendship, and it could’ve avoided all the embarrassing fallout about Shirley not actually being estranged from the family/culture.

 The flipside of this is whether or not Green Book is an entertaining, good movie. And in some ways it is. The friendship is fun. The banter is entertaining. I really liked Wesley Morris’ analysis of this on a podcast with Bill Simmons, who discussed how, when you take aside race and the message, the friendship is well-portrayed and some of the editing and scenes work well.

 The first 30 minutes of this movie is some of the worst stuff ever recorded. Not even in terms of movies, but like, anything. It’s just Tony and his family being super racist, him entering into a hot dog eating contest (lmao what) and hacky banter between Tony and Dr. Shirley. Tony having to explain the concept of fried chicken to Dr. Shirley was a low point in a year that featured the existence of 15:17 to Paris. LOOK AT THE BABY CHICKEN LEG SPENCER

 But Green Book is trying to talk about race. It’s what the film emphasizes and it’s what the creators of the film emphasized during their awards run. And if you handle that clumsily, it’s hard for me to separate that from my enjoyment of the film. I don’t need to see more stories about white guys thinking black people are deplorable, and then well, you meet a black guy, and he isn’t so bad! That’s not a great story! Ultimately, Green Book is a solid film with some troublesome messaging that weighs it down. And the film isn’t so amazing story/acting wise to overcome those issues. It’s just kinda… vanilla.

 I’ll speak more on the leads in later sections, but if it wasn’t for Mahershala Ali’s deeply nuanced portrayal of Don Shirley, this movie would be completely irredeemable. Fortunately, he’s actually given a character with some agency, but everything about him is all done in service of the white man’s story about his “growth” as a person, which is really just him learning to be less of an asshole -- not exactly a hero turn!

 Also, how many fucking times did they need to cut back to Tony shrugging in the Orange Bird? Geez, we get it already.

 One more point to rant on: the fact that Tony’s son co-wrote the screenplay, and then Don Shirley’s family came out strongly against some of the story points REALLY rubs me the wrong way. Let’s put it this way: if a friend of mine did a story about his friendship with me, emphasizing inaccurately that I didn’t know how to eat Korean BBQ and had initially thought the idea of it was gross, and that I was estranged from my family but considered him and his family to be my family instead??? Dawg… I would haunt you from my grave for that shit.

 /quietly deletes “The Nice Dolphin” screenplay

 A Star is Born seemed like a heavy contender when it came out. It crushed the box office, critics and audience members seemed to love it, but it seems to have cooled off bigtime v. Roma and Green Book (really??? Green Book???). Well, I loved it, so let me sing its praises.

 A Star is Born was good, but not that good. A hugely entertaining first hour followed by some terribly-paced sequences and a weirdly undefined Jack Maine (I didn’t realize how he spelled his name until that concert poster at the end) combine for an enjoyable, but uneven film.

 Star is Born coulda gone poorly. Cooper trying to direct/sing/play music, Gaga trying to act, original soundtrack, and remaking an old story. Well, it works. The music is on point, the two lead acting performances are strong. There are some magical moments in this film… the scenes where they meet and flirt, where they write music together, when they perform Shallow… it’s so good! The film is good throughout, and the ending packs a wallop. I really like Star is Born, and I hope it can get more love than its likely Best Song win.

 I will admit, I knew the ending before I saw it, so some of the impact was lessened and it also basically ruined that scene with Jack and his counselor. Also it was really late at night and I was pretty cranky, so by the third or fourth scene of her lumbering around the dance studio, I was ready to call it.

 Still, Gaga and Cooper have great chemistry, which made the early scenes pop. However, the movie seemed like it didn’t really know what to make of Jack. Was he truly a troubled poet, or just a raging asshole using his art as an excuse for being an awful person? Was he a big country star selling out amphitheaters or a washed up, piss-soaked loser? What the movie was trying to claim as nuance really just came off as equivocation.

 I am pleasantly surprised that The Favourite got as much Oscar buzz as it did. Alex can elaborate, but Yorgos is definitely a more out there director, and The Favourite seems to work really well as a pivot for him. It’s a little more mainstream, but not completely. It’s not a sell-out. This movie is still probably too weird and rated R for some people.

 As a true Yorgite, I am THRILLED that my man is getting more mainstream love. The Favourite and Black Panther are my two favorite Best Picture nominees this year, despite them basically having no shot at winning.

 Even going a bit “mainstream” here (this is the most natural-sounding dialogue in the Yorgos filmography), Yorgos sacrifices nothing about his unique, vicious style. This movie is as nasty, biting, and hilarious as anything else he’s done, and the entire cast (especially the three leads) delivers.

 I really liked it. The performances were great, the story was really fun (Mean Girls but in a royal setting, or All About Eve, which I haven’t seen), the camerawork was interesting. I like how unconventional it was in some ways, like the ending just sorta sneaking up on me.

 I saw this in a packed theater and I could definitely tell it was a lot of older couples who thought they were in for something along the lines of “The Crown” or “Downton Abbey,” and not heavy lesbian erotica. Also, despite what he says, I don’t consider Matt a true Yorgite, so it’s no surprise he wasn’t ready for that ending. My first thought when them bunnies hit the screen? “Yorgos, you’ve done it again!” A true masterpiece.

 People are worked up about Black Panther getting a nomination, and I’m like… have you seen Bohemian Rhapsody or Vice? And you’re mad about Black Panther?

 People being mad about the Black Panther getting nominated and Green Book getting legit Best Picture love? If only there was some common thread here...

 First, I’ve definitely had friends surprised because for them, Infinity War was better… but I mean, they’re big Marvel fans so IW was a bigger deal to them storywise. Meanwhile, a lot of friends also told me how amazing Black Panther was, how it was their favorite Marvel movie, how it was so much more than a superhero movie, etc. Critics gave it strong reviews deservingly in my opinion, and it crushed the box office because it resonated with a lot of people. Just because it’s not as critically good as Roma and it’s a superhero movie doesn’t mean that it’s only in because it’s about race or that it doesn’t deserve it.

 Black Panther absolutely deserved the nomination. Despite Avengers: Infinity War being a more crucial story to the MCU, Black Panther was a better, more cohesive film. IW was basically one long chase/fight scene, which I loved, but it can’t really stand on its own.

 Black Panther built an entire world, populated it with fascinating characters with complex motivations, and had some badass action scenes all within the span of like two hours.

 Also, come on guys. This is the same show that’s given nominations to… Bohemian Rhapsody. And Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close (did anyone actually see that?). The Post, American Sniper, Philomena (does anyone remember that?)... I mean, does a movie only deserve to be nominated because it was about an Oscar-type of topic? I say nominate more of these blockbuster movies (IF they are good). Why did Mission Impossible and Crazy Rich Asians and Game Night not get nominated when Bohemian Rhapsody did? They were better reviewed.

 First of all, I take umbrage to you including American Sniper with that trash. Also, Game Night didn’t get nominated because it wasn’t that good (it’s still better than Green Book and Bohemian Rhapsody, but you get it). Crazy Rich Asians and Mission Impossible were both fantastic. Actually, here is an incomplete list of movies that are better than Bohemian Rhapsody and Green Book that came out this year, but didn’t get much, if any, Oscar love:

Annihilation Bad Times at the El Royale Crazy Rich Asians Deadpool 2 The Equalizer 2 (didn’t actually see this, but it’s got Denzel) First Reformed Halloween Lego Movie (still) Mission Impossible: Fallout A Quiet Place Searching Sorry to Bother You Spider-man: Into the Spider-verse (got some love, deserved more) Widows

 Honestly Teen Titans Go! To The Movies and Venom were better than that trash too.

 Anyway, Black Panther rules. It’s got an awesome cast of characters, it represents culture well, Coogler crushes the direction, the story is fun, and the villain is super compelling. People loved the ending scenes of Black Panther. This movie is worthy. Also shoutout to that last scene between Boseman and Jordan. Seriously, so good. Honestly, Black Panther had at least 4 scenes that were just as dramatic AND better-done than BR.

 That sounds impressive until you realize that BR had zero well-done scenes. Seriously, every time I think about that movie I hate it more. It’s the opposite of Phantom Thread. It’s the Terrestrial Thread.

 Bohemian Rhapsody is probably one of the worst movies to be nominated for Best Picture in recent years. Look, if you like the movie and find it entertaining, that’s totally fine! Just don’t tell me Black Panther didn’t deserve it when it’s better in every technical aspect.

 The editing is bad. The story of the movie is a censored version crafted by the living band members of Queen to paint them in the best light. Freddie Mercury is portrayed like more of an immature punk than he deserves, and the other band members seem like the grown-ups. The dramatic scenes are not very good. It’s just fine. The acting is solid. The movie is fun when the band is playing music or making music. But it really drags at parts. A solid B- crowdpleaser. NOT an Oscar movie.

 The only time this movie is entertaining is when Queen is playing/making music. Just save yourself the trouble and watch some old concert DVD or whatever. Every “based on a true story” movie is going to take some liberties with the facts, but this is the first movie I can recall that makes the true story MORE boring. This is literally the exact same movie as Straight Outta Compton, except that one was better -- and didn’t even get nominated! Straight Outta Compton is the Lego Movie of musical biopics.

 BlacKkKlansman was a powerful movie, though I’ll say it isn’t peak Spike Lee for me. It is really good in moments, and it’s also weaker in stretches. Basically, whenever the main character is infiltrating the KKK or working with his partner, the movie works. The scenes about the civil rights movements are really good, especially a scene where Kwame Ture gives a speech. The movie is slower when it tries to delve into Ron Stallworth’s personal life and romance. The movie is probably 15-20 minutes too long, which would be my main critique. And the ending is a bit polarizing (it worked for me, but I can see the argument against it).

 15-20 minutes too long? Sounds like peak Spike to me. Hey-ooooooooooooo!

 I really dug BlacKkKlansman, but man the capitalization of the title is infuriating. I agree that it’s a bit scattered (and not in a way that actually serves the story), but overall, I think Spike put together a film that is entertaining, exciting, and sadly all-too-relevant in today’s world. The scenes from recent news at the end might’ve come off a bit clunky to some, but it really brought the message home that in some ways the movie might’ve had a “happy” ending, but in no way is the big picture a positive one.

 Vice. Man. I was really looking forward to this one and I was disappointed. It felt like Adam McKay took all his tools from The Big Short and used them to excess. The Big Short was crisp and covered one specific story. Vice tries to cover a lot of years of Cheney’s life without much cohesion. I wish the movie had focused more on the VP years, which were the best parts of the movie and far too short. The Big Short’s narrator was a main character who explained a lot of complicated concepts that related to his character. Vice tried to have a random character with tons of narration, and it was all over the place without really having a reason for being in the movie. McKay also tries a few other ambitious things that don’t work as well when your movie isn’t strong. Basically, the riskier decisions stuck out more poorly. I wanted to dig this movie, but it just wasn’t very well-made, and I’m underwhelmed by its nominations.

 I didn’t get around to Vice, but there’s something comforting about knowing that I’ll never see all of the Best Picture nominees. Not that I’ve ever let that stop me from providing commentary before. Besides, after Matt’s SCATHING review, I probably made the right call.

 An interesting theme that pervades several of the Best Pic noms this year is the movies being directly at odds with their “true stories” in ways that actively hurt the movies. Green Book, Bohemian Rhapsody, and BlacKkKlansman all suffer from this. Maybe Vice too? Who knows.

 Generally, I try to separate the movie from the real events it’s based on. Real life is rarely as entertaining as a Hollywood flick, so I totally get why Die Hard didn’t have a third act of Carl Winslow filling out paperwork. HAVING SAID THAT when the true tale gets twisted into something totally unrecognizable, is it fair to criticize the movie for that? Green Book completely mutated the character of Dr. Don Shirley to fit a narrative of friendship triumphing over racism; Bohemian Rhapsody mischaracterized the relationship between Freddie Mercury and his bandmates to create a non-existent redemption/comeback arc; BlacKkKlansman ignored all the ways Ron Stallworth sabotaged the pro-Black movement in Colorado in service of painting police as the true heroes of equality.

 I don’t have all the answers here, but these three examples feel like particularly egregious warpings of reality. However, I want to use this opportunity to praise YORGOS, who took enough from history to give The Favourite some context, but was up front about his editorialization enough to where the historical inaccuracies didn’t matter, and it didn’t feel like watching some ol boolshit.

 I wish First Man and If Beale Street Could Talk had gotten in over Vice and Bohemian, or in addition to (since the nominations can go up to 10).  Hell, if you had just added these two to make it 10, this crop would look stronger. The follow-ups for the directors of La La Land and Moonlight, neither film was as strong as the previous outings, but both were quality art. First Man sometimes had less impressive action with its use of shaky cam in the cockpit (which made the theater experience dizzying at times), and it mostly lost the mainstream audience because it was less adventurous than movies like The Martian or Interstellar. It also chose to try to portray Armstrong as an ordinary, less romantic type of hero, which may have been to its detriment for entertainment purposes. But I really liked the story of Neil Armstrong and NASA, warts and all. It felt more authentic and well-acted compared to, oh, I dunno, BR. And the moon landing scenes were breathtaking.

 Beale Street struggled for me with its back-and-forth narrative, and some characters who I wish had more to do but some of the scenes were so good, and the art of it was beautiful. I also wish foreign films like Cold War and Shoplifters could get some Best Picture love too, but I’ll talk more about them below.

 Cinematography: “Cold War,” Lukasz Zal “The Favourite,” Robbie Ryan “Never Look Away,” Caleb Deschanel “Roma,” Alfonso Cuarón “A Star Is Born,” Matthew Libatique

 (edit: We put these categories here as a little TND protest for when the Oscars weren’t gonna air them on the regular telecast. But we’ll leave them here still, because these categories rule.)

 The presumed favorite appears to be Roma, with Cold War as a potential dark horse. After Cuarón’s go-to cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki (three-time consecutive Oscar winner at one point, including for Cuarón’s Gravity) left, he pulled a Thanos and decided to do it himself. Roma’s photography has all the marks of a Lubezki/Cuarón joint. He did well. Some of the shots may be a bit much (as one friend asked, why so many dog poop shots?). But the tracking shots are glorious and usually worked well for art. Following the lizard around on a random day, Cleo running along the street, the shot of the men training, the forest on New Year’s Eve… and of course, the aforementioned furniture store and beach sequences.

 I didn’t see Cold War, but it’s fine because Roma will win. Roma does look great, but damn can Cuaron get another trick besides panning ten feet in either direction after the natural conclusion of a scene? Seriously, he does it like every twenty minutes. I guess this is world building? “You see, here’s what’s happening to our characters. And there’s also more stuff happening...slightly to the left.”

 I was very curious about Cold War after it got a best director nomination as well. The cinematography was beautiful too. And it also deals in black-and-white like Roma, and with different camera framing (I’m not technical enough to explain that). It had some great shots too, in particular a shot with a mirror that really impressed me. Of note, Cold War beat Roma in the American Society of Cinematographer Awards.

 A Star is Born had some good camerawork and cool concert shots.

 Great camera framing when the guy pisses himself. You really *feel* the piss.

 The Favourite was worthy of a nomination too, using some unique camera angles and fisheye lens shots that could have been distracting but ended up working really well for the movie. I have not seen Never Look Away, but the trailer looked good.

 Those long hallway shots in The Favourite were superb. Robbie Ryan is a true Yorgite.

 Film Editing: “BlacKkKlansman,” Barry Alexander Brown “Bohemian Rhapsody,” John Ottman “Green Book,” Patrick J. Don Vito “The Favourite,” Yorgos Mavropsaridis “Vice,” Hank Corwin

 LOL Bohemian Rhapsody. See the aforementioned link about the bad editing in it. I mean, I guess the montage while they recorded the title track was really fun, but cmon! I also had a lot of fun during some scenes of Venom, and I didn’t see that get a bunch of noms!

 Well maybe it should have! Matt made me watch that clip of the first record exec convo from Bohemian Rhapsody, and it’s so bad it wasn’t until like my third viewing when I realized Matt was trying to point out how poorly edited it was. Seriously, I couldn’t even get past the dialogue: “Queen...is for losers” “Well I’m sold!”

 Vice seems to be a favorite on Gold Derby. The movie was too all over the place for me, and I guess it would win for the most editing, because there are all sorts of jumping around and montages and random things the film does. Bohemian is the next favorite, so I don’t really care for this year’s winner. Maybe this year it SHOULD be on commercial break. Jk.

 I didn’t see Vice, but I agree with Matt that more editing definitely doesn’t equal better editing. I think Billy Walsh would agree that sometimes it’s about the cuts you DON’T make.

 I would vote for The Favourite. It’s crisp and efficient. Green Book’s editing is probably a strong suit too, admittedly. BlacKkKlansman could have been shortened some, but the editing during some of the back-and-forths (I think of the KKK meeting versus the black students’ meeting at the end) was really good.

 I agree* that all three of these films were well-edited. It’s a shame that apparently they have no chance at actually winning this award.

 *I think I’ve already set a record for most times agreeing with Matt in an Oscars post. We’re like one of those old married couples that gradually turn into the same person over the years. Sure it might make for a boring post, but at least we’re RIGHT.

 Director: Spike Lee, “BlacKkKlansman” Pawel Pawlikowski, “Cold War” Yorgos Lanthimos, “The Favourite” Alfonso Cuarón, “Roma” Adam McKay, “Vice”

 Cuarón is the presumptive favorite, and he would be very worthy. He shepherded this project to fruition, he told the story he wanted to tell, and he kicked ass. I’ve heard Spike Lee is a possible surprise here, but I’d rather see him get the Screenplay win. As mentioned, BK is not his strongest work for me, and doesn’t quite compare to Do the Right Thing.

 Finally Matt says something stupid! Okay because BlacKkKlansman wasn’t as good as one of the greatest films of all time, Spike doesn’t deserve a win here? I’m not even saying he should win, but if he doesn’t, it’s not because he made a better movie in 1989.

 Cuaron will probably take home the gold, and it’s well-deserved, as he really put his signature style on every aspect of Roma. It’s obviously an extremely personal project for him, but he never lets it dip too far into “diary” territory, and ultimately allows the audience inside of his perspective instead of forcing us to observe from a distance.

 It’s dope that Pawlikowski got nominated sorta out of left field. He really crafted an interesting, powerful story, and it was creative and unique. Yorgos deserves props for his nomination, managing to combine his style with someone else’s script (first time using a script that wasn’t his!). I’m glad Peter Farrelly didn’t get the nod here, but I wish Cooper had gotten it in over McKay. Vice is not that impressive, but I really dug some of the decisions made in Star.

 This might come as a surprise, but I’m quite happy Yorgos got nominated and would love for him to get the upset victory over dog dookie Cuaron. Shoutout to both guys for being able to direct the hell out of some nudity though.

 Lead Actor: Christian Bale, “Vice” Bradley Cooper, “A Star Is Born” Willem Dafoe, “At Eternity’s Gate” Rami Malek, “Bohemian Rhapsody” Viggo Mortensen, “Green Book”

 My Cooper support continues! I hope he wins, and it sounds like some people want him to be a surprise upset here. I thought he really built this role up and nailed it. This could have gone poorly. He could have sounded like Russell Crowe in Les Mis, his voice could have been weird, and he might not have been so likable on screen. But he was! He really became Jackson Maine and crafted this interesting, romantic, tragic character. I thought he was terrific.

 *big sigh*

 I agree with Matt again. Cooper was fantastic in playing a could-have-been-thankless role of a guy who does terrible thing after terrible thing, but still needs the audience on his side at the end. His singing was more than serviceable in the movie, as it was mostly done in live concert scenes where him being a little ragged fit the character/moment. Just uhh, don’t pull that shit up on Spotify.

 Rami Malek is the frontrunner here, which surprises me. Again, I don’t like the movie, but I also like Malek. But Malek has impressed me much more in projects like Mr. Robot and The Pacific. Here, I feel like he is doing a solid impersonation, but he’s not blowing me away like DDL in Lincoln. I feel like he was also limited by the weak script/story. I wish he had had more powerhouse scenes and dialogue, but he just didn’t.

 Oh he didn’t blow you like DDL in Lincoln? That might’ve been the greatest biopic performance of all time. “Malek was good, but his acting wasn’t as good as Spike Lee’s directing in the 80s.”

 Not to defend Malek, dude is just up there doin a little bucky beaver impression -- and I like Malek! Shit was limp and lame. IAWM (I agree with Matt) in that the rest of the movie was so bad, Malek was never afforded the opportunity to rise above being a Halloween costume. Still, he did next to nothing, even with scant material.

 Bale obviously made an impressive transformation in weight/look for Vice, and I always am a fan. He was pretty good here, and I’d be fine with a win, but it wasn’t his best work.

 Viggo was good, but part of the problem of the movie is the fact that Viggo was the lead instead of Mahershala, as the film would have benefited more from being through the lens of Shirley’s view, and not Tony Lip’s.

 Yeah, it pisses me off that Viggo (lol never realized how funny of a name that is until I just typed it) is even in this category. Sure he did a fine job playing a racist guy...maybe a little too fine of a job? I’m surprised Liam Neeson wasn’t clamoring for the role of Tony Lip, so he could do a little method acting.

 As for Dafoe… I don’t know anyone who saw this film, and I wasn’t hyped enough to go see it. Hell, the idea of a 60+ year old playing a guy who died at 37 was enough to not get me hyped, even if the makers tried to say he would have looked like Van Gogh because of the circumstances of the times.

 I obviously didn’t see this movie, but wow that is a hell of a paragraph. Are most people hyped by an old man playing a younger man? Actually, I heard that the producers were worried that Dafoe didn’t look old ENOUGH and were going to CGI in Christopher Plummer. Still though, “circumstances of the times?” I know 2019 seems awful, but this is a helpful reminder that the world use to be a literal hellscape.

 I would have liked to see Ethan Hawke here for First Reformed. He carried the movie, he was awesome in it, and it was definitely unlike the normal Hawke performance I’ve seen before.

 Matt, put a backhanded compliment warning there, sheesh. Hawke was fantastic in First Reformed and absolutely deserved a nomination ahead of Viggo, Malek, Fat Bale, and Benjamin Button-ass Dafoe.

 Gosling here would have been good too. Also would have been cool to see an indie lead, whether Lakeith Stanfield in Sorry to Bother You or John Cho in Searching.

 Stanfield and Cho crushed it in their respective roles. Funny story, Cho initially passed on Searching, but the filmmakers basically stole his phone number and hounded him until he agreed to do on the condition that they leave his ass alone afterwards.

 Lead Actress: Yalitza Aparicio, “Roma” Glenn Close, “The Wife” Olivia Colman, “The Favourite” Lady Gaga, “A Star Is Born” Melissa McCarthy, “Can You Ever Forgive Me?”

 Glenn Close is supposed to win. It’s apparently a lock. This definitely feels like another career honor, since this is her 7th nomination and she hasn’t won. Close is pretty good. The movie is OK and she has a delicate, graceful, but powerful performance here. I mainly just feel like it was the least memorable role here.

 I didn’t see The Wife, but for some reason I’ve got love for Glenn, so I’m happy she’s getting a win.

 Colman wasn’t necessarily the lead of the film, and it was really a three-headed monster (apparently Stone’s character has the most screentime), but she was awesome. She nailed this crazy, sad, bigtime character. I’d pull for her, and I think she has a small chance.

 Colman might’ve had less screen time than Stone, but as the raunchy queen, she commands the audience’s attention much like she commands love from Stone and Weisz. Everything is in service of the queen and Colman puts every ounce of emotion and feeling into a role tightly balanced between needing fealty and needing love.

 Gaga was a contender for a while, and I really liked her and was impressed with her rising to the occasion and taking on this lead role, weaving in her real life story with this fictional character. I think she didn’t always quite hit the acting level of Cooper, but she was close.

 Gaga was good for a rookie, but cmon. She basically had like two expressions the entire movie (dumbstruck and covering half her face/sad and covering half her face).

 I was really into McCarthy’s performance and thought this was a legit good indie film. Small story, really focusing on her character, and she carries it well! The Wife and this are smaller indie stories, but I was more wowed by McCarthy. She handles a sad sack of a character, self-loathing, mischievous, witty. I think she’s a great actress who sometimes ends up in unfortunate movies. This was a good one.

 Shockingly I didn’t see Can You Ever Forgive Me?, but I’m glad McCarthy is getting love. She’s a great actress, but always finds herself in shitty movies.

 I’m so glad Yalitza Aparicio got a nomination! She wasn’t quite as strong to me as Colman or McCarthy, but she has to be good for the film to be good, of course, and she is. I think the technical aspects of the movie outshine her performance in some ways, but she deserves merit.

 Yalitza’s gotta be straight up laughing at all the love for Lady Gaga. Another first time actress, she actually does a great job in the film instead of just getting points because she has hit single songs. The range of emotions on her face when confronted by the nude ninja alone made her worthy of a nomination.

 Who else would I have wanted? Maybe Joanna Kulig for Cold War. She’s a star, and she dances/sings/acts in terrific fashion. Also shoutout to Natalie Portman for Annihilation and Elsie Fisher in Eighth Grade. No one’s gonna remember The Wife in 5 years, but Eighth Grade will stand the test of time.

 Supporting Actor: Mahershala Ali, “Green Book” Adam Driver, “BlacKkKlansman” Sam Elliott, “A Star Is Born” Richard E. Grant, “Can You Ever Forgive Me?” Sam Rockwell, “Vice”

 Mahershala is expected to win, and he’s really good as Don Shirley, so I’m cool with it. He is such a magnetic actor, and he carries Shirley well. It’s a pretty different type of character from Juan in Moonlight. Juan’s performance leaned in on charisma, masculinity, and tenderness. Shirley is a character reliant on dignity, sophistication, and inner rage. He nails both. He’s really good. For all the faults I have with the making of Green Book, I do really like Mahershala here. It’s pretty wild that he’s about to get his second Oscar, but hey, good for him!

 You mean an actor played two different roles? Wauw.

 Mahershala completely carried Green Book and filled Don Shirley with so much nuance, complexity, and integrity that he himself should’ve gotten nominated for Best Picture. He IS the movie. It’s such a shame his character was relegated to the supporting role because there’s so much awesome internal logic to Dr. Shirley that he’s fascinating to watch and Ali does a great job of bringing all of that to the forefront without having to resort to speechifying his thoughts or emotions.

 I really like Driver and always like his work. He’s a unique, compelling actor in whatever role he’s in. He has more to do in BK than John David Washington’s main character, and he’s not weighed down by the romance story. There’s something really convincing in any role Driver portrays, whether it’s Kylo Ren, Adam in Girls, or his performance in Silence. I thought his performance was pretty key to the BK story.

 Driver definitely brings a fun presence to BlacKkKlansman helping to achieve the delicate tonal balance Spike was looking for. I mean, not as good as the tonal balance JGL brought to Lincoln, but I digress.

 Grant was really wonderful and charming, and he really carries the movie along with McCarthy. Elliott doesn’t have a ton of scenes in A Star is Born, but each scene of his was a highlight for me. His relationship with Cooper is key to the film, and I really dug it. I don’t really see why Rockwell had to get a nom here. He’s not too essential to the film, and he does a good W impersonation, but this just pales in comparison to his role last year in Three Billboards.

 Ha I only skimmed that last paragraph and just furiously googled “Sam Elliott Three Billboards” because I was confused as fock. Yeah that last conversation between Cooper and Elliott was fantastic, and Elliott is great throughout as the older brother who never got quite as much ass as Jackson Maine.

 We couldn’t have thrown a nod here to Michael B. Jordan instead, for his compelling (albeit polarizing) acting job in Black Panther? I also loved Brian Tyree Henry’s character in If Beale Street Could Talk. Similar short screentime to Rockwell, but way more impactful and memorable. Henry’s scenes in Beale Street are some of the best work you’ll see from last year.

 Was that acting job really polarizing? We have a term for people who have negative things to say about Black Panther. They’re called...Vallelongas. Brian Tyree Henry is one of my favorite actors, so I have no doubt that he was great in Beale Street. I do want to shout him and Daniel Kaluuya out for their performances in Widows. For a story about four strong women coming together to wreck some shit, Henry and Kaluuya stole the show. And my heart.

 Also want to shout out my man Beast! Not saying he should win, but his scene to hilarity ratio in The Favourite was easily 1:1. Everything in The Favourite popped, but his presence made it even poppier.

 Supporting Actress: Amy Adams, “Vice” Marina de Tavira, “Roma” Regina King, “If Beale Street Could Talk” Emma Stone, “The Favourite” Rachel Weisz, “The Favourite”

 I really like Regina King, and she’s pretty good in Beale Street, but I’m sorta surprised that she became the consensus pick. She doesn’t quite have as memorable a performance for me as Mahershala’s or say, Brian Tyree Henry in the same film. She’s a great actress, but there’s not a ton for her to do, and I didn’t leave that film being like WOW, that character!

 Stone and Weisz seem to negate each other, unfortunately. They are both terrific. I didn’t love Stone in La La Land but she’s really fun and vicious here. Weisz is great too and has a lot of fun. I would probably give the edge to Weisz, but I’d strongly praise either performance.

 Weisz was amazing as Sarah Churchill. She is definitely the centerpiece of the film, and does a wonderful job providing an axis for all the wild shit that goes down. What really elevates her performance is that she doesn’t fall into the trap of merely being the straight woman (no pun intended, seriously), and still imbues her character with loads of cunning, fire, and personality.

 Stone was great as well, and I’ll say I didn’t enjoy her in La La Land either, but that’s mostly because I was watching La La Land at the time.

 Amy Adams is awesome in general and good in Vice. Marina de Tavira is really good in Roma, and her nomination was a nice surprise too. Her character as the mother is really pivotal to the story, and I thought she was good at being overall likable even while sometimes being harsh.

 De Tavira gives a great performance in a role that would’ve been easy to gloss over if played by another actress. She never allowed herself to become a background character or only appear as Cleo’s boss. Her story is just as dynamic and heart-rending as Cleo’s, and with less attention given to it, only a great performance would give it the weight it needed and de Tavira absolutely delivered.

 Original Screenplay: “The Favourite,” Deborah Davis, Tony McNamara “First Reformed,” Paul Schrader “Green Book,” Nick Vallelonga, Brian Currie, Peter Farrelly “Roma,” Alfonso Cuarón “Vice,” Adam McKay

 The Favourite seems to be… the favourite for this category.

 Nice.

 It’s a fun, witty script based on historical events (and it seemed to do a decent enough job being similar enough to real life!). Updating a story for the modern times in film format is no easy feat, and I really enjoyed this story.

 Like I mentioned earlier, The Favourite does a great job of drawing just enough historical context while still keeping things fresh and honest, without making the story feel bastardized.

 This is Paul Schrader’s first nomination, which is pretty crazy when he’s had films like Taxi Driver and Raging Bull. First Reformed has a unique, fascinating, compelling premise and story arc. It does remind me a good bit of Taxi Driver in some ways but is its own story too.

 Really happy First Reformed got a little love. In a time when we’re getting nothing but remakes and sequels, a truly original story is always welcome.

 I don’t want Green Book to win. As mentioned, this shit wasn’t vetted by Shirley’s family, which seems kind of important! And it’s a bit cheesy throughout. Technically speaking, it seems like the directing/editing would be better than the writing here. Vice… that story was so all over the place. McKay’s script for Big Short was way crisper and stronger. Roma is a great film, but I don’t put its screenplay up as strongly as its other technical achievements. Eighth Grade should have been nominated here and been a contender. It won at the Writers Guilds Awards (Bo’s speech is really funny too), and Bo Burnham made a brutally vulnerable, honest story about adolescence and technology.

 I usually make a joke here about how movies based on actual events should be in the Adapted Screenplay category (since they’re adapted from real life!), but I guess Nick Vallelonga really took that to heart because he basically removed any shred of reality from Green Book. May as well give Bohemian Rhapsody a nod here too lol

 Adapted Screenplay: “The Ballad of Buster Scruggs,” Joel Coen , Ethan Coen “BlacKkKlansman,” Charlie Wachtel, David Rabinowitz, Kevin Willmott, Spike Lee “Can You Ever Forgive Me?,” Nicole Holofcener and Jeff Whitty “If Beale Street Could Talk,” Barry Jenkins “A Star Is Born,” Eric Roth, Bradley Cooper, Will Fetters

 The rules for adapted are always funny. A Star is Born is based on three previous versions, and Buster Scruggs apparently has some adapted short stories but other completely original short stories. Weird. I wouldn’t feel too strongly about Star’s screenplay since I feel like the quality in its update is more in the acting and music, versus the writing. Buster Scruggs was a mixed bag for me, with some awesome and some meh stories.

 Bro, which stories were meh? Name names! There wasn’t a bad one in the damn bunch.

 BK seems to be in the lead, which would be a cool win for Spike Lee (he previously received an honorary Oscar). Apparently the movie changed a lot, which I imagine was positive for movie action/plot intrigue. I feel like whatever the screenplay did with the romance didn’t really play, but I’m not really sure what else I would push alternatively.

 Matt is really hating on the romance angle in BlacKkKlansman. I’ll be honest, I barely remember that aspect of the movie, so the hate is probably warranted.

 Beale Street was a worthy effort, but I felt like the narrative was all over the place and wonder if Jenkins could have done a better job conveying the story in movie form. I don’t think it was an easy book to adapt, as I’ve heard with Baldwin fiction, but the product in the end doesn’t measure up to BK. As for Can You Ever Forgive Me?, I thought it was a stellar story, and also apparently people don’t think the original memoir itself was very good, so I guess it gets points for that!

 Go ahead and give Jenkins the win to make up for that L* L* L*nd/Moonlight mix up back in 2017.

 Best Documentary Feature: “Free Solo,” Jimmy Chin, Elizabeth Chai Vasarhelyi “Hale County This Morning, This Evening,” RaMell Ross “Minding the Gap,” Bing Liu “Of Fathers and Sons,” Talal Derki “RBG,” Betsy West, Julie Cohen

 I’m not a big documentary guy, but they have gotten more popular (Won’t You Be Me Neighbor, Three Identical Strangers, Free Solo, and RBG all were box office documentary hits this year), and I’ve ended up checking a few more out. Won’t You Be My Neighbor was one of the most noted snubs when nominations came out, and it’s a shame it didn’t get nominated. It was beloved and had a notable cultural effect last summer, and I thought it was terrific and charming. I didn’t see Three Identical Strangers yet, but I’ve heard it considered to be a snub too, which Alex can elaborate on.

 Shit I had this whole paragraph written up about Mr. Rogers, but Matt just reminded me that it didn’t get nominated. Basically the punchline was that I watched it with my parents and they just clowned Fred the whole time, which I think explains a lot.

 Three Identical Strangers was great, but apparently I’m the only person who either didn’t know about the second twist or didn’t think it was that shocking/big of a deal. I gotta say, capitalizing on your 15 minutes of fame by opening a celebrity restaurant in New York City is probably the most 1988 thing ever.

 Also, no love for the Pope Francis doc? Guess I’ll see the Academy in hell...as I look down from Heaven!

 The betting odds seem split between Free Solo and RBG, with Solo slightly ahead. I am all about Free Solo, and I hope it wins. It’s an incredible, fascinating story. Is this guy insane for making this climb? How do we feel about him with his girlfriend? How do we feel about his girlfriend with him? How do we feel about the documentary crew filming him? Are they enabling him? Deterring him? These are really interesting dynamics throughout the story. It’s helpful that everyone involved in the story is inherently likable, and they are wondering about these same dynamics. Also, although I think most people know the fate of Alex Honnold’s climb before watching, the feat is so extraordinary and ridiculous that you will still be stressed out, nervous, and fascinated watching it.

 The climbing footage is awe-inspiring. The filmmakers do a great job explaining the audacity and absurdity of the climb so that the average viewer can understand what’s going on. This is such a good documentary.

 RBG the person is awesome, and I’m a big fan. But RBG the documentary is just… good? I feel like voters must have been split between this at Won’t You Be My Neighbor, and it’s hard not to compare the two, since they came out around the same time and are both about revered figures. WYBMN has really good editing and panache, and an inherent charm in talking about Mr. Rodgers’ legacy and his past. RBG feels more by-the-numbers and with less impressive editing and focus. It felt a bit short and all-over-the-place. I could have used more time on her advocacy versus her time exercising or becoming a cultural meme.

 WYBMN also benefited from having tons of footage from the TV shows. RBG by comparison doesn’t have as much old footage, and with RBG alive, they do a lot more interviewing her or following her around. It’s an interesting glimpse, but doesn’t work quite as well for me. It’s a good film, and I enjoyed getting more of a look into RBG’s life. But I don’t want it to win.

 Minding the Gap is the other film I saw out of this batch, and it had caught my eye after being on a few critics’ best movies lists at the end of 2018. It’s on Hulu, and it definitely wouldn’t become a box office hit. It has an indie vibe for sure, as Bing Liu, a young filmmaker, follows two friends as they grow from teenagers to young adults, along with examining his own life. The film delves deeply into masculinity, physical abuse from childhood, and identity in the Midwest. It really builds and gets stronger and stronger towards the end. There are some deep emotions that this film can evoke in the viewer, and I really felt for the story by the end. Also, a bonus is that the footage of them skateboarding is really beautiful and whimsical.

 Best Foreign Language Film: “Capernaum” (Lebanon) “Cold War” (Poland) “Never Look Away” (Germany) “Roma” (Mexico) “Shoplifters” (Japan)

 Roma is the clear favorite here. I almost wish that if Roma was definitely getting best picture, they could just retract its nomination here so someone else could win!

 Ha that’s actually not a bad idea. These other flicks don’t stand a chance when Roma is going toe-to-toe with the entire field of movies.

 I really liked Cold War and Shoplifters. I didn’t get a chance to see Capernaum or Never Look Away. Never Look Away seemed to have mixed reviews, which makes me wish that Burning (South Korea! Steven Yeun!) got the nom instead. While in the lobby post-Cold War, my friend and I saw a bunch of people left Capernaum in tears, so… that seems like it must have been good and sad?

 Bro, people were crying because it SUCKED. Jk, I’m sure it’s wonderful. Also, has a foreign language film ever been nominated that wasn’t a totally depressing tearjerker? Do countries besides the U.S. and France make comedies? I know there isn’t much to laugh about in Turkmenistan or wherever, but I’m just asking.

 Cold War is by the previous winner of Ida, another excellent black-and-white film. While Ida was smaller scale in time, Cold War spans a romance of two musicians over some years. It similarly tackles the repercussions of WWII and the titled Cold War on Poland. The two main characters are really captivating and dynamic to watch. The music portrayed is super fun. The challenges of the times are fascinating. My one gripe is that the film felt a bit weirdly paced at times, partly because it was covering a multitude of years, and the characters’ decisions were sometimes a bit too dubious for me.

 I really dug Shoplifters too. It’s a lovely, beautiful film that ponders what a family is. The characters aren’t conventional good guys, mistakes are made, and these characters try to keep their version of a family together. Sometimes the movie is beautiful and optimistic, sometimes it’s sad and heartbreaking. I also liked how the movie was intentionally confusing about some details, to add to the storytelling aspect.

 Animated Feature: “Incredibles 2,” Brad Bird “Isle of Dogs,” Wes Anderson “Mirai,” Mamoru Hosoda “Ralph Breaks the Internet,” Rich Moore, Phil Johnston “Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse,” Bob Persichetti, Peter Ramsey, Rodney Rothman

 SPIDER-VERSE. All the way. That movie could have gone poorly. There is definitely a lot of Spider-man content out in the world in recent years, and the movie worked by both leaning into that and truly creating its own story to stand on. Miles Morales was an awesome main character. Peter Parker was a great side character (that was definitely a risk in storytelling). Miles’ family characters were well-portrayed (shoutout Brian Tyree Henry and Mahershala Ali, AGAIN. Those dudes kill it).

 Spider-Verse might be my favorite movie of the YEAR. #2 this decade behind Moonlight and all of the X-Men films. Everything about this movie is fantastic. The characters are well-drawn (emotionally and literally), the stories are engaging, and the humor, while appropriate for all ages, doesn’t include any lame juvenile shit (unlike this blog post). Folks (myself) were legit getting emotional in the theater. Looked like a screening of Capernaum in there.

 The animation was awesome. It was new and unique, making the movie feel like a comic book come to life. I think the movie had a poor box office opening because of market saturation, but it ended up grossing a respectable amount based on word of mouth and audience reception. Good! Can’t wait to see what’s next.

 I’d literally never seen anything like Spider-Verse. The animation was crazy dynamic, constantly shifting between more realistic and more cartoony depending on what the situation called for. Everything about this movie from the animation, to the music, to the voices is completely fresh and inspired.

 The Incredibles 2 seemed to take the box office by storm, and by the time I saw it a month or so later, I was a bit let down. The movie is a bit unsatisfying in originality after so many years. It’s still good! I had a lot of fun, and some of the action sequences were pretty exciting. It’s just not as good as Pixar’s best or the first Incredibles.

 No desire to see Incredibles 2. Incredibles 1 is massively overrated and all anyone wanted to talk about from part 2 is how hot the mom was. I’m good, homie.

 Isle of Dogs was really fun and charming. It was a solid Wes Anderson joint. I do wish it had more agency for some of the Asian characters, and it’s still sorta funny to me that Wes just kinda dropped in with his crew + one Asian writer for the script. But yeah, it was a really fun movie. I haven’t seen Ralph since I hadn’t gotten to the first one yet. Mirai looks like my kind of jam, but I haven’t gotten to it yet. Spiderverse all the way.

 Isle of Dogs is racist as hell! Why will no one talk about it??? I feel like I’m going INSANE

 Original Song: “All The Stars” from “Black Panther” by Kendrick Lamar, SZA “I’ll Fight” from “RBG” by Diane Warren, Jennifer Hudson “The Place Where Lost Things Go” from “Mary Poppins Returns” by Marc Shaiman, Scott Wittman “Shallow” from “A Star Is Born” by Lady Gaga, Mark Ronson, Anthony Rossomando, Andrew Wyatt and Benjamin Rice “When A Cowboy Trades His Spurs For Wings” from “The Ballad of Buster Scruggs” by David Rawlings and Gillian Welch

 Shallow is such a heavyweight here. That song is the classic from a soundtrack of lots of good songs. It’s perfect for their relationship in the story, and it’s the best scene in the film when she comes onstage to sing it. I hope they crush it live on stage. Get it, Bradley!

 Would’ve loved for “Why Did You Do That?” to get an ironic nomination here. Man that song was ass. “Shallow” is a good song and plays an important role in the movie, so I’m not upset at all if it wins, but yo that part where they’re just like “Sha-la-la-la-la-low” is weak as hell. Should’ve ponied up for Jason Isbell to get the late checkout time, maybe he could’ve done something there.

 Hot take: “When a Cowboy Trades His Spurs for Wings” is a MUCH better song.

 Man, the Mary Poppins’ new songs were pretty disappointing. Maybe they should have gotten Lin involved in the writing. The Buster Scruggs song is pretty goofy and funny, and All the Stars is a fun anthem.

 All the Stars is a fresh track, I wouldn’t be mad at it pulling an upset.

 Original Score: “BlacKkKlansman,” Terence Blanchard “Black Panther,” Ludwig Goransson “If Beale Street Could Talk,” Nicholas Britell “Isle of Dogs,” Alexandre Desplat “Mary Poppins Returns,” Marc Shaiman, Scott Wittman

 Feels like First Man got snubbed here bigtime. That score was really good, and it seemed like a favorite before nominations came out. I’d root for Brittell’s score. His work was beautiful in this (and in Moonlight), so a win would be cool. I generally like Desplat’s whimsy, but I don’t remember much about the score here. Black Panther’s was cool, though I feel like it was more about the songs on the soundtrack versus Ludwig’s score. Ludwig is the man though. I wouldn’t hate him getting it.

 Good point about Black Panther’s strength lying in its songs instead of the soundtrack. Really disappointed in Sicario 2 overall, but especially in its score. Sicario 1 had the hottest score of the year when it dropped, but much like everything else about Sicario 2, it didn’t deliver.

 Sound Editing: “Black Panther,” Benjamin A. Burtt, Steve Boeddeker “Bohemian Rhapsody,” John Warhurst “First Man,” Ai-Ling Lee, Mildred Iatrou Morgan “A Quiet Place,” Ethan Van der Ryn, Erik Aadahl “Roma,” Sergio Diaz, Skip Lievsay

 Sound Mixing: “Black Panther” “Bohemian Rhapsody” “First Man” “Roma” “A Star Is Born”

 This confuses me every year. Here’s a good article for the differences. Basically, sound editing awards effects (think, creating gunfire/explosion noise for a war/action movie). while  sound mixing awards the soundscape/all the sounds mixed together.

 So with that in mind… these categories seem to have less predictable winners, and I see that the sound editing leaders are currently First Man and A Quiet Place. I’d give props to First Man here, for doing work with the space exploration. A Quiet Place is interesting since it had to use its sound so effectively and specifically.

 How you gonna award A Quiet Place for its SOUND? Smh

 As for sound mixing, I really dug watching Roma in theaters. You could hear sounds, birds chirping, and it felt like you were on the street in the neighborhood of Roma.

 It’s almost like you can really *hear* the dogshit squishing between the kids’ toes on the pavement.

 Now, it appears that Gold Derby leans towards three options: A Star is Born, First Man, or Bohemian Rhapsody. I feel like BR relied a lot on pre-done recordings unrelated to filming, so I’m not sure about that one (though I suppose that’s the point of sound mixing, I dunno… look, I just don’t want it to win -- lmao same bro). A Star is Born had to deal with live music! It’s way more worthy.

 Visual Effects: “Avengers: Infinity War” “Christopher Robin” “First Man” “Ready Player One” “Solo: A Star Wars Story”

 This is easily Infinity War. Relying on Thanos as a main character meant a ton of work, and if you remember his cameos in Guardians or the Avengers post-credits, you know that he looked better here and much more fully realized. He was a mammoth, a threat, and the visual portrayal was well done. His fight against Hulk, his fight against Doctor Strange, some awesome FX. Having to weave in tons of comic characters was no easy feat too, with Falcon and War Machine fighting in the sky while Groot, Rocket, and Cap are on the ground against those bad guys.

 Avengers all the way. Having a lame-looking Thanos would’ve nuked the whole movie (people are STILL talking about Superman’s CGI shave), but they knocked it out of the park. Infinity War had to be a huge undertaking, as it’s a million superheroes pulling out all the stops for like 6 hours. Kinda surprised Black Panther didn’t get any love here for similar reasons.

 Ready Player One had a lot of fun effects too. It had to rely a lot on video game storytelling, and the adventure of it was pretty fun and well-done. Solo was fine.

 I honestly had to ruminate for like five minutes to remember if I saw Solo or not. I think “fine” is the most accurate possible description of any aspect of Solo.

 First Man was quality. I dug their comments on how there is no way they could have faked the moon landing considering how hard it is now to even try to demonstrate that in a fictional film.

 That’s what they want you to think, sheeple!!!

 Christopher Robin? Wasn’t that bear real?? What are you trying to say???

 Realest bear since the one that took Leo’s ass in The Revenant.

 Production Design: “Black Panther,” Hannah Beachler “First Man,” Nathan Crowley, Kathy Lucas “The Favourite,” Fiona Crombie, Alice Felton “Mary Poppins Returns,” John Myhre, Gordon Sim “Roma,” Eugenio Caballero, Bárbara Enrı́quez

 Costume Design: “The Ballad of Buster Scruggs,” Mary Zophres “Black Panther,” Ruth E. Carter “The Favourite,” Sandy Powell “Mary Poppins Returns,” Sandy Powell “Mary Queen of Scots,” Alexandra Byrne

 Black Panther was sick. Weaving in futuristic elements with African culture. The sets were wild. The costumes were fantastic. The Favourite did a good job doing the royal vibe too. The NASA production that they had to recreate in First Man made it feel really authentic. Same for Roma. Lots of good stuff here.

 Agreed on Black Panther for all the reasons Matt mentions, but I think you gotta go with The Favourite here. Those people looked like they STUNK. Just fucking gross all the way around -- and it was PERFECT.

 The Ballad of Buster Scruggs and Roma had great design as well. As an anthology, Buster Scruggs had the added degree of difficulty of making sure every story appeared distinct enough while maintaining the overall look and feel of the movie.

 Makeup and Hair: “Border” “Mary Queen of Scots” “Vice”

 I mean, you saw Christian Bale as Dick Cheney. Lock this up.

 Clink-clink!

 Animated Short: “Animal Behaviour,” Alison Snowden, David Fine “Bao,” Domee Shi “Late Afternoon,” Louise Bagnall “One Small Step,” Andrew Chesworth, Bobby Pontillas “Weekends,” Trevor Jimenez

 “Weekends” by Trevor Jimenez sounds like a banger of an R&B album.

 Best Documentary Short Subject: “Black Sheep,” Ed Perkins “End Game,” Rob Epstein, Jeffrey Friedman “Lifeboat,” Skye Fitzgerald “A Night at the Garden,” Marshall Curry “Period. End of Sentence.,” Rayka Zehtabchi

 Best Live Action Short Film: “Detainment,” Vincent Lambe “Fauve,” Jeremy Comte “Marguerite,” Marianne Farley “Mother,” Rodrigo Sorogoyen “Skin,” Guy Nattiv

 Bao was a fun, sweet short that had some nice Asian representation… that’s all I got.

 I’ll be watching the documentary shorts the night before the Oscars, but wanted to get this post up before then, so if you want my thoughts on those nominees, holla at ya boy.

 As for everything else? I probably agree with Matt.

[whorchataaa]

Five Steps White People (Myself Included) Can Take in Response to Systemic Racism

Here are some things that I am trying to do:

 Understand that Black Lives Matter. Some people are inclined to say that “all lives matter,” and of course all lives do matter. But as John and Ocean Robbins shared in a recent post (and I paraphrase): If a house is burning down, you don’t call the fire department and say “all houses matter”; instead you focus on and send help to the specific house that is burning. Black people have endured unspeakable individual and collective traumas of a nature that I/we (the privileged white) can never truly understand. This trauma has occurred in their past, AND it is a part of every day of their lives, in the injustices, disadvantages, discrimination and microaggressions they experience. When we say black lives matter we are acknowledging these facts and our need to take action.

Sit with discomfort. The recent events that have occurred are not just about police brutality against people in the black community. If so, it might be easy to distance oneself and think that the problem lies with a small number of very bad cops “out there”, and justice simply needs to be served. Instead these recent events are only a very small part of a very ugly reality. While, sadly, it has taken the recent and brutal deaths of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Ahmaud Arbery and so many others to begin to mobilize white people to action, people who are black have suffered systemic racism for centuries, and in many ways I/we — people of white privilege — have consciously and/or unconsciously played a role in this through our actions or inactions, our silence  or complacency — and have benefitted from the color of our skin in ways we often don’t recognize. There is a lot of discomfort in this, and it is easy to want to look the other way. If we are truly awake to this discomfort, I believe this an important place where change can begin.

Don’t be color blind. Many people with good intention think or say “I don’t see color. I see that we are all the same.”As author and Tedx speaker LeRon Barton poignantly shared in a recent conversation: “I want you to recognize my skin color, I want you to recognize my race… I want you to see all of that because when you are able to see that, you are truly able to see me.”

Listen deeply. Listen to the stories and voices of black people from all walks of life so that you may begin to really hear their experiences. A recent story in the Boston Globe is just one such account of a former Northeastern University athletic director pulled over by the police for simply walking out of his house at 5:45 pm to go to Whole Foods down the street. He was immediately surrounded by four police cruisers and one cop who drew his gun because he was presumed to be another tall black man they were pursuing. There is also the voice of a mother who is panicked about her young son not doing his homework and falling behind because she knows all too well the tremendous disadvantages he will face simply on account of him being black. And she is fearful every night of her older teen coming home safe and alive each night, praying every time he takes the car that he does not get pulled over by the cops and shot.

Take actions that matter and that make a difference to the black community. It can be easy to feel a sense of overwhelm and helplessness, in the face of such horrible atrocities that keep occurring, but sometimes this can lead to inaction. Instead, we can mobilize our energy toward small steps that matter. We can educate ourselves, and have conscious conversations that lead to generating action steps. (Below I share a list of resources that I have come across from various sources that may be one place to begin). We can vote for politicians at the local and national level who support strong positive, systemic changes in all aspects of life to address discrimination and racism. We can donate financially to organizations that support the black community, and we can support local black businesses. We can continue to work on our own behaviors so that we don’t unwittingly contribute to the climate of racism through our inherent biases, microaggressions or the use of seemingly “innocent” stereotypes.

Some helpful resources that I have come across:

Anti-Racist Resources from Greater Good Science Center at UC Berkeley

The Big Talk Round Table: A Conscious Conversation

I Don’t Need ‘Love’ Texts From My White Friends: I need them to fight anti-blackness by Chad Sanders

White Fragility by Robin DiAngelo, PhD (physical book is currently sold out, but the audiobook and ebook are available for immediate download)

10 Habits of Someone Who Doesn’t Know They’re Anti-Black by Cicely Blain

Why You Need to Stop Saying “All Lives Matter”  by Rachel Elizabeth Cargle

10 Books About Race to Read Instead of Asking a Person of Color to Explain Things to You

Writing by the The Psychology of Radical Healing Collective

 75 Things White People Can Do for Racial Justice by Corinne Shutack

CNN’s Chris Cuomo explains how America is “a tale of two cities” after the death of George Floyd.

This moment cries out for us to confront race in America, op-ed by former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice

Uncomfortable Conversations with a Black Man by Emmanuel Acho on USA Today

from https://ift.tt/2Yhbinw Check out https://peterlegyel.wordpress.com/

[ashley-unicorn]

Five Steps White People (Myself Included) Can Take in Response to Systemic Racism

Here are some things that I am trying to do:

 Understand that Black Lives Matter. Some people are inclined to say that “all lives matter,” and of course all lives do matter. But as John and Ocean Robbins shared in a recent post (and I paraphrase): If a house is burning down, you don’t call the fire department and say “all houses matter”; instead you focus on and send help to the specific house that is burning. Black people have endured unspeakable individual and collective traumas of a nature that I/we (the privileged white) can never truly understand. This trauma has occurred in their past, AND it is a part of every day of their lives, in the injustices, disadvantages, discrimination and microaggressions they experience. When we say black lives matter we are acknowledging these facts and our need to take action.

Sit with discomfort. The recent events that have occurred are not just about police brutality against people in the black community. If so, it might be easy to distance oneself and think that the problem lies with a small number of very bad cops “out there”, and justice simply needs to be served. Instead these recent events are only a very small part of a very ugly reality. While, sadly, it has taken the recent and brutal deaths of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Ahmaud Arbery and so many others to begin to mobilize white people to action, people who are black have suffered systemic racism for centuries, and in many ways I/we — people of white privilege — have consciously and/or unconsciously played a role in this through our actions or inactions, our silence  or complacency — and have benefitted from the color of our skin in ways we often don’t recognize. There is a lot of discomfort in this, and it is easy to want to look the other way. If we are truly awake to this discomfort, I believe this an important place where change can begin.

Don’t be color blind. Many people with good intention think or say “I don’t see color. I see that we are all the same.”As author and Tedx speaker LeRon Barton poignantly shared in a recent conversation: “I want you to recognize my skin color, I want you to recognize my race… I want you to see all of that because when you are able to see that, you are truly able to see me.”

Listen deeply. Listen to the stories and voices of black people from all walks of life so that you may begin to really hear their experiences. A recent story in the Boston Globe is just one such account of a former Northeastern University athletic director pulled over by the police for simply walking out of his house at 5:45 pm to go to Whole Foods down the street. He was immediately surrounded by four police cruisers and one cop who drew his gun because he was presumed to be another tall black man they were pursuing. There is also the voice of a mother who is panicked about her young son not doing his homework and falling behind because she knows all too well the tremendous disadvantages he will face simply on account of him being black. And she is fearful every night of her older teen coming home safe and alive each night, praying every time he takes the car that he does not get pulled over by the cops and shot.

Take actions that matter and that make a difference to the black community. It can be easy to feel a sense of overwhelm and helplessness, in the face of such horrible atrocities that keep occurring, but sometimes this can lead to inaction. Instead, we can mobilize our energy toward small steps that matter. We can educate ourselves, and have conscious conversations that lead to generating action steps. (Below I share a list of resources that I have come across from various sources that may be one place to begin). We can vote for politicians at the local and national level who support strong positive, systemic changes in all aspects of life to address discrimination and racism. We can donate financially to organizations that support the black community, and we can support local black businesses. We can continue to work on our own behaviors so that we don’t unwittingly contribute to the climate of racism through our inherent biases, microaggressions or the use of seemingly “innocent” stereotypes.

Some helpful resources that I have come across:

Anti-Racist Resources from Greater Good Science Center at UC Berkeley

The Big Talk Round Table: A Conscious Conversation

I Don’t Need ‘Love’ Texts From My White Friends: I need them to fight anti-blackness by Chad Sanders

White Fragility by Robin DiAngelo, PhD (physical book is currently sold out, but the audiobook and ebook are available for immediate download)

10 Habits of Someone Who Doesn’t Know They’re Anti-Black by Cicely Blain

Why You Need to Stop Saying “All Lives Matter”  by Rachel Elizabeth Cargle

10 Books About Race to Read Instead of Asking a Person of Color to Explain Things to You

Writing by the The Psychology of Radical Healing Collective

 75 Things White People Can Do for Racial Justice by Corinne Shutack

CNN’s Chris Cuomo explains how America is “a tale of two cities” after the death of George Floyd.

This moment cries out for us to confront race in America, op-ed by former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice

Uncomfortable Conversations with a Black Man by Emmanuel Acho on USA Today

from https://ift.tt/2Yhbinw Check out https://daniejadkins.wordpress.com/

[brentrogers]

Five Steps White People (Myself Included) Can Take in Response to Systemic Racism

Here are some things that I am trying to do:

 Understand that Black Lives Matter. Some people are inclined to say that “all lives matter,” and of course all lives do matter. But as John and Ocean Robbins shared in a recent post (and I paraphrase): If a house is burning down, you don’t call the fire department and say “all houses matter”; instead you focus on and send help to the specific house that is burning. Black people have endured unspeakable individual and collective traumas of a nature that I/we (the privileged white) can never truly understand. This trauma has occurred in their past, AND it is a part of every day of their lives, in the injustices, disadvantages, discrimination and microaggressions they experience. When we say black lives matter we are acknowledging these facts and our need to take action.

Sit with discomfort. The recent events that have occurred are not just about police brutality against people in the black community. If so, it might be easy to distance oneself and think that the problem lies with a small number of very bad cops “out there”, and justice simply needs to be served. Instead these recent events are only a very small part of a very ugly reality. While, sadly, it has taken the recent and brutal deaths of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Ahmaud Arbery and so many others to begin to mobilize white people to action, people who are black have suffered systemic racism for centuries, and in many ways I/we — people of white privilege — have consciously and/or unconsciously played a role in this through our actions or inactions, our silence  or complacency — and have benefitted from the color of our skin in ways we often don’t recognize. There is a lot of discomfort in this, and it is easy to want to look the other way. If we are truly awake to this discomfort, I believe this an important place where change can begin.

Don’t be color blind. Many people with good intention think or say “I don’t see color. I see that we are all the same.”As author and Tedx speaker LeRon Barton poignantly shared in a recent conversation: “I want you to recognize my skin color, I want you to recognize my race… I want you to see all of that because when you are able to see that, you are truly able to see me.”

Listen deeply. Listen to the stories and voices of black people from all walks of life so that you may begin to really hear their experiences. A recent story in the Boston Globe is just one such account of a former Northeastern University athletic director pulled over by the police for simply walking out of his house at 5:45 pm to go to Whole Foods down the street. He was immediately surrounded by four police cruisers and one cop who drew his gun because he was presumed to be another tall black man they were pursuing. There is also the voice of a mother who is panicked about her young son not doing his homework and falling behind because she knows all too well the tremendous disadvantages he will face simply on account of him being black. And she is fearful every night of her older teen coming home safe and alive each night, praying every time he takes the car that he does not get pulled over by the cops and shot.

Take actions that matter and that make a difference to the black community. It can be easy to feel a sense of overwhelm and helplessness, in the face of such horrible atrocities that keep occurring, but sometimes this can lead to inaction. Instead, we can mobilize our energy toward small steps that matter. We can educate ourselves, and have conscious conversations that lead to generating action steps. (Below I share a list of resources that I have come across from various sources that may be one place to begin). We can vote for politicians at the local and national level who support strong positive, systemic changes in all aspects of life to address discrimination and racism. We can donate financially to organizations that support the black community, and we can support local black businesses. We can continue to work on our own behaviors so that we don’t unwittingly contribute to the climate of racism through our inherent biases, microaggressions or the use of seemingly “innocent” stereotypes.

Some helpful resources that I have come across:

Anti-Racist Resources from Greater Good Science Center at UC Berkeley

The Big Talk Round Table: A Conscious Conversation

I Don’t Need ‘Love’ Texts From My White Friends: I need them to fight anti-blackness by Chad Sanders

White Fragility by Robin DiAngelo, PhD (physical book is currently sold out, but the audiobook and ebook are available for immediate download)

10 Habits of Someone Who Doesn’t Know They’re Anti-Black by Cicely Blain

Why You Need to Stop Saying “All Lives Matter”  by Rachel Elizabeth Cargle

10 Books About Race to Read Instead of Asking a Person of Color to Explain Things to You

Writing by the The Psychology of Radical Healing Collective

 75 Things White People Can Do for Racial Justice by Corinne Shutack

CNN’s Chris Cuomo explains how America is “a tale of two cities” after the death of George Floyd.

This moment cries out for us to confront race in America, op-ed by former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice

Uncomfortable Conversations with a Black Man by Emmanuel Acho on USA Today

Five Steps White People (Myself Included) Can Take in Response to Systemic Racism syndicated from

[goldenharryvol6]

This is something I wrote last night. I have been posting it on all my social media platforms and thought I should post it here too.

BLACK LIVES MATTER. They always have and they always will. The way black communities and other minorities have been and are still being treated is sickening. As a child I grew up listening to stories of racism from my dad who saw the social effects first-hand. My dad grew up as a white South African during apartheid; he would tell me horror stories of seeing black men lynched from trees and all non-white communities being forced into slums and shanty towns. He saw black women being raped and used because they were ‘easy targets’, military and police beating and murdering innocent black people in the streets. He saw black communities turning to gang crime and drugs because they had no other way of life; killing each other and leaving children orphaned. He told me of the racism and oppression and just how truly vile it was and still is. The last time he visited South Africa was in 2012, he came home and said he didn’t want to have to go back again. He talked about how things had changed but still felt the same; there were still shanty towns, there were still dead bodies in the street, there was still a massive disregard for black lives. These facts are still true to this day, 30 years on from apartheid. It is utterly heart wrenching to me that this still rings true in our modern society still.

What is currently going on in America is harrowing and has been going on for years. I am aware that the exact same issues are happening in the UK too, however given the recent murder of George Floyd and the protests that are currently taking place I want to talk about America. Systematic racism and oppression at the hands of the law enforcement in America is taking innocent lives. The American government is continuing to reinforce the narrative that black lives are less important than white lives every time they fail to persecute and punish officers of the law who wrongfully murder and abuse people of colour. They reinforce this narrative every time a person of colour gets a longer prison sentence than the white person who committed the same crime or, every time the police respond to peaceful unarmed black protests with mace, tear gas and violence, yet when white supremacists arm themselves with guns and protest violently in the street they do not take the same action. Its reinforced by the fact that black Americans are 30% more likely to be pulled over by police, that 40% of the prison populations are black. That black students are 3x as likely to be suspended and black graduates are 2x as likely to be unemployed. There are so many examples of how America are reinforcing this narrative and failing their own people. Racism is a prevalent issue in our society, anyone who argues otherwise is part of the problem. Many people brush past racial inequalities and injustices by saying ‘we have made so much progress’ and ‘we have come so far from where we were’ and while this may be true, it is clear that we have not come far enough and that prejudice is still deeply rooted in the bases of our society. A blatant disregard for black lives.

Education is the key to everything, no one can ever be ‘too educated’. I feel that we have all been let down by our education systems when it comes to the topic of racism. Trevor Noah wrote in his book ‘Born a Crime’ that the history of racism and apartheid in South Africa was taught to him the way that America teach the history of their own racism and slavery. He said it is taught without judgment or shame, no moral or emotional dimension. He says he was taught ‘Apartheid was bad. Nelson Mandela was freed. Let’s move on.’ the same way that Americans teach ‘There was slavery and then there was Jim Crow and then there was Martin Luther King Jr and now it’s done’. The sole purpose of teaching history this way is best described as saying ‘whatever you do, don’t make the kids angry’. I can truly say that in my 15 years of education I have never been taught about the history of racism or slavery. Black history is pushed to one side, it is confined and whitewashed into ‘black history month’. The notion of ‘black history month’ is crude and disappointing and further goes to show the systematic racism and oppression in our society. Black history month is incredibly important, it is the only time we are actively taught about black history. However it’s not enough, black history should be part of the curriculum all year round, it should be taught with the same if not higher importance than white history so that we are able to understand how deeply racism and oppression is rooted in the foundations of society so that we can work towards dismantling the maltreatment of POC and work towards a truly equal future, free of bias and prejudice.

The time to be angry is now and if you are not angry about what you are seeing, you need to ask yourself why. If your response to the black lives matter movement is ‘well actually all lives matter’ you are missing the whole point. Black lives matter doesn’t exist to say that all other lives don’t matter, it exists to bring light to the fact that black communities are being grossly discriminated against in our society. We don’t need a movement to say ‘all lives matter’ because white lives are not discriminated against. We are not attacked and murdered simply because of our skin colour; we are not oppressed for being who we are. A good analogy I saw is that if you had five children and five plasters, one for each child; should they get hurt. One child falls and cuts their knee so you give them a plaster to help them heal, you wouldn’t then give the other four children a plaster because it isn’t needed, they are not hurt. Anybody who does not understand the difference between black lives matter and all lives matter is wilfully ignorant.

I am unbelievably privileged in my life for a long list of reasons. The simple fact that I am white is the very reason that sits in the number one spot of why I am so unbelievably privileged. This privilege certainly does not mean that I have not experienced hardships in my life but instead means that the colour of my skin is not the dependent variable of the hardships I have endured, nor will it ever be. I see so many people feigning ignorance about their white privilege brushing it off by choosing to ‘remain impartial’ or simply stating ‘racism isn’t something that affects me’. This is simply not true. The truth of the matter is, being white means that you directly benefit from the oppression of people of colour. We are the majority; we are dominantly represented in media, we are dominantly represented in the workplace, we are dominantly represented in education and we are dominantly represented in positions of power. We have inherited wealth and power and with that, we have forced ourselves into cultures and whitewashed them to ‘fit in’ with our own. We have forced these minorities to conform to how we want them to look and behave all while stealing the aspects of their cultures that we think are ‘trendy’ or ‘cool’. White privilege is the fact that we are not questioned about our citizenship, we are not harassed or attacked for existing in public spaces, we are catered to and accommodated wherever we choose to be and most importantly; WE ARE NOT OPRESSED AND VILLIANISED BY OUR GOVERNMENT AND LAW ENFORCEMENT. We are thought of first, we are protected first and we are last to be held accountable for our actions. If you cannot see this then you need to open your eyes and look around. Consciously look at the media you consume. Look at the TV shows you watch. How many POC do you see? And how many of those POC are included just for diversity points? This is just one area where it is blatantly apparent that black lives and POC are branded as undesirable and less than in western society. IT. NEEDS. TO. CHANGE.

White privilege is having the option to turn a blind eye and be blissfully ignorant to what is going on without consequence. It is watching from the side-lines and not having to suffer ourselves. It is knowing that at any moment we can log off social media and act as if nothing is happening. Black communities and POC do not have this luxury, they do not have the option to turn a blind eye, they have no choice but to suffer the oppression being forced upon them.

Those of us with privilege need to do better. We need to use our privilege to enact a change and support minorities. Simply being not racist is not enough. If you do not speak out, you are part of the problem. If you do not educate yourself, you are part of the problem. If you are not actively anti-racist, you are part of the problem. Stand up to casual racism, even if its from your family members. Constantly educate yourself on what is happening. Sign and share petitions, donate if you can and protest if you are able to. Speak out about racism even when it is not all over the media. I will hold my hands up and say I have not been the best ally I could be, I have been ignorant in the past, I have and still am uneducated on a lot of the issues that minorities are facing, I did not actively look for petitions to sign and share, I remained quiet on social media about these topics and would often turn a blind eye feeling as though there was nothing I could do to help; which is not true. However, I am continuing to educate myself on these issues and starting to speak up about them. I am actively looking for petitions and organisations everyday and will continue to do so. I’m not going to be quiet about racism any longer.

There is so much more that I want to say and that is needed to be said, but for now, I wanted to open-up this discussion so that I can address these topics often without the need for introduction. With that I want to make one last point that; it is not the job of the oppressed to teach you of their oppression, go and read a book, watch a documentary, watch the news and pay attention to the media, educate yourselves, google is free so use it.

#blacklivesmatter #BLM #justiceforGeorgeFloyd

[96thdayofrage]

According to a survey released last year 52 percent of white Americans said they believe discrimination against them is on par with discrimination faced by black people and other minorities. In Canada, a poll taken in 2014 showed that most Canadians don't think they're racist—84 percent claim they have friends of different racial backgrounds—but 32 percent make occasional racist comments, and 27 percent agree with racial stereotypes. Those ideas are at odds with each other, demonstrating a lack of understanding of the basic concept of racism.

Last week, news broke that Democratic Institutions Minister Maryam Monsef was born in Iran, not Afghanistan, as she'd been led to believe her whole life. The Globe and Mail revealed the truth about Monsef's birthplace, prompting Monsef's mom to admit she'd lied to her daughter about where she was actually born. Consequently, some accused Monsef of being deliberately deceitful to the public and even suggested that her citizenship should be revoked and that she should step down from her job. While many journalists were quick to back up the story as legitimate—and aspects of it might be—there seemed to be a resistance to even entertaining the possibility that a white politician who'd been born outside of Canada would not have faced the same level of scrutiny. For suggesting as much, in a story VICE published, I once again found myself being accused of racism against white people.

My default reaction to claims like this is to roll my eyes. But seeing as it's no longer just Twitter trolls who believe in reverse racism—white fragility probably accounts for a large part of Donald Trump's popularity—I decided to reach out to some social justice advocates to ask why they think a certain segment of white people get so defensive when minorities vocalize their oppression. And why groups like BLMTO are being painted as divisive and race baiting when really all they're doing is fighting for equality.

"When you're so deeply invested in your privilege, and in this case white privilege, racial equality feels like oppression," said Anthony Morgan, a Toronto-based civil and human rights lawyer.

Simply put, Morgan said reverse racism doesn't exist and a person who claims otherwise is "outing themselves as someone who has little to no experience or knowledge of what racism is."

Read More: White People Explain Why They Feel Oppressed

Racism is based on a couple of things—historical, systemic oppression and power, Morgan explained. And as far as history goes, white people have never been persecuted for the colour of their skin—so there's no point comparing their experiences to those of black, brown, and Indigenous folks.

"It's slavery, colonialism, theft all kinds of violations on systemic proportions... versus feelings being hurt."

There's a difference, he noted, when white people who are in a position of power espouse a hatred of minorities than when it's done the other way around.

In April, BLMTO co-founder Yusra Khogali was highly criticized when a tweet of hers that said "Plz Allah give me strength not to cuss/kill these men and white folks out here today" was discovered.

But Morgan said even if all people of colour straight up said they hate white people, it wouldn't affect a white person's ability to get a job, an education, or increase the odds that they'd get carded or charged for a crime. "If all white people had that view [of black people], that would have a very dramatic life impact on the material reality of all those people."

The exclusion of white people in spaces created for minorities is another controversy that sometimes comes up in the media.

Last fall, flyers for a white students union popped up on a handful of Canadian university campuses. On its website, the group behind the campaign, Students for Western Civilization, claims schools are bombarded with the message that "only white people can be racist, because white people are the sole beneficiaries of this white supremecist (sic) system." To balance things out, a white students' union "would serve as a platform to promote and advance the political interests of Western peoples."

Meanwhile Ryerson University's Racialised Students' Collective received backlash for kicking two white journalism students out of a meeting because they weren't marginalized or racialized. Ditto when BLMTO refused to sell white Toronto musician Sima Xyn one of its protest T-shirts during this year's Pride Parade.

"Denying me service due to my race when I'm showing my support to the Toronto #blacklivematter movement is ironic and killing my human rights," Xyn tweeted at the time.

Debbie Douglas, executive director of the Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants, broke down why none of the above can be considered racism but is instead, again, about hurt feelings.

"It's interesting that as soon as you de-centre whiteness, it becomes about people being anti-white," she said, noting that at a panel for queer black people she attended, some white people were asked to move to the back to make space for black people. A few were offended.

"Why is it that in a place created for black people to have a conversation amongst themselves... to talk about what it means to be black and queer, that white folks felt they had to be at the centre?"

Morgan added that creating something like a white students union or having White History Month would be redundant.

"If you look at pretty much every profession in which folks have gainful employment or relative social prestige, it's overwhelmingly white."

As for the rise of the white victim narrative, both said issues like economic downturn—particularly in the US, where working class Americans are finding themselves struggling financially—play a role. Immigration and anti-Muslim sentiments that stem from falsely equating Islam with radicalization is another factor. But it's also just a response to more people calling out racism.

Douglas said the only reason we're talking about race more right now is because of blatant incidents that can't be ignored—the police beating death of Ottawa man Abdirahman Abdi, or the fatal shooting of Colten Boushie, an Indigenous man from Saskatchewan are two recent examples.

"As soon as we begin to interrogate issues of racism people get uncomfortable with it and hence the pushback we're seeing," she said.

If your default reaction to these discussions is to see white people as victims of reverse racism, Morgan has some advice: educate yourself.

"Anybody who would want to use or identify something as reverse racist, I would strongly encourage them to stop for a moment... and really think seriously about the last time they really have taken the time to study or get a deep understanding of what racism is and how it impacts different communities."