#but woody allen only did one good thing in his shitty life | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

youremyheaven · 3 months

Text

Moon Dominance & Manipulation pt 2

TW: murder, rape, genocide, violence, assault, death etc etc

Here's part 1

In part 1, I spoke about the manipulative nature of Moon dominant people, in this post I will be exploring it further and providing more examples.

I think its interesting that the Moon dominant nakshatras, namely, Rohini, Hasta & Shravana are Manushya gana (Rohini) and Deva gana (Hasta & Shravana). It is very telling because even though these natives say and do terrible things, they enjoy squeaky-clean reputations and people usually perceive them as angels. If they were Rakshasa gana people would see through their bs more quickly.

Ariana Grande- Hasta Moon conjunct Jupiter

Ariana has said and done numerous problematic things over the years, from cheating scandals, blackfishing, donutgate, being extremely rude and arrogant, changing races every few years, to cringe ass over-sexualised lyrics, to being a homewrecker, Ariana is super duper messy YET she enjoys public and media support and is seen as America's sweetheart. Other people have lost their careers for less but Ari gets away with absolutely everything. She publicly admitted that Pete was her rebound guy (she was engaged to him) which is such a shitty thing to do to someone?? Like imagine if the genders were reversed lol

Ariana is a solid example of always seeming like the innocent person even though she's the messy one. Even with her latest album, its pretty obvious who cheated on who but she's been subtle enough with her music to make it seem like her ex cheated on her (she made him sign an NDA upon divorce which in itself is SOOO sketchy like what is she afraid of him revealing????) to imply things like that when you've put the other person in a position where they literally cannot speak for themselves is peak Moon dominant manipulation. She then posted a half assed story on IG asking fans to stop attacking "people in her life",,, its so apparent that she incited the whole thing in a super calculated manner and once she got what she wanted, she tries to pretend to be the good guy whose fans did all the terrible stuff🙄

Selena Gomez, Pushya Stellium, Mercury in Ashlesha atmakaraka (they both lie in Cancer which is Moon ruled)

I wouldn't have included rashi rulership but Selena is an exception. She's the queen of playing the victim and is second only to Meghan Markle. Selena sets her fans on different hate trains every other week. She's very wary of showing support to social causes. She worked with Woody Allen. She treated her best friend & kidney donor like shit, was a terrible gf to Justin Bieber, treated Demi like shit during a really tough period of Demi's life, can't sing at all yet, produced a whole TV show (13RW) that is extremely triggering for people with mental health issues and was advised by MANY to change things but she just didn't??? honestly, if you watch her documentary you can see how she's the most self-absorbed narcissistic person, every single thing has to be about her all the time.

Despite all this, Selena is almost universally loved.

Amy Dunne from Gone Girl is THE best example of a Moon-dominant person and the extent to which they'll go to ruin your life. Amy Dunne was played by Rosamund Pike who has Shravana Sun conjunct Mars

Amy had such a squeaky clean image that it was impossible to convince anybody that she was the sociopath who tried to fake her own death.

Leonardo DiCaprio- Hasta Moon

Leo is a creepy middle aged man who only dates women under 25, lives for the yacht life and spends his free time partying and doing drugs, all of which is fine but these are things that other Hollywood men come under fire for ALL the time, yet Leo is pretty much everyone's favourite, he's the environmentalist humanitarian even tho he's private jetting to his private island to party with models, even tho he's received flak in the last couple of years for dating women much younger than him, its still more of a running gag than anything serious. He hasn't suffered because of it in any way. His reputation is still intact.

John Lennon- Hasta Sun, Shravana Moon

John was a wife beating, child beating, abusive to multiple women, made fun of people with disabilities, pretended to be an anti establishment hippie even though he accepted an MBE from the Queen of England (he returned it years later in protest) and yet he is remembered as a counterculture icon and one of the most talented musicians ever. He was a violent abusive man who preached peace. Although he was a philanderer himself, he was obsessively jealous and possessive towards the women he became involved with. Lennon was an extremely wealthy man who lived a rich lifestyle, but he said that we should "imagine" a world with no possessions or greed. In short, he was a hypocrite. Yet he is still remembered fondly unlike sooo many other figures in history.

Amal Clooney, Shravana Sun conjunct Venus

speaking of hypocrisy, here's Mrs Clooney, the human rights lawyer who wears $34,000 worth of clothes while championing the poor. She attends gala and balls wearing clothes worth thousands of dollars to "raise money for charity" whilst being married to a man who has a net worth of $500 million. Like I'm sure he could just write a cheque?? The Clooneys throw a lot of charity balls/dinners/parties etc as well and its so funny to me because its obvious they're doing it to keep a certain image before the media, whilst also getting all glammed up and having fun, without doing anything tangible to actually help anybody. imagine your job is to represent refugees, unfairly imprisoned heads of state and advise the UN and you also split time between 5 different mansions all over USA and Europe in private jets lol yet Amal enjoys a good reputation for being a girlboss

Gwyneth Paltrow- Rohini Moon

Lady Goop is a nepo baby and has a net worth of $200 million yet she feels the need to make money off of people by selling bullshit wellness products like $55 sex oils, $400 meditation mats, mouth tape, vibrators, theraguns, vitamins, health supplements and god knows what else?? She's one of the many westerners who sell commercial spiritual nonsense to the masses but coming from someone as rich as she is?? like maa'm?? she promotes so much alternate medicine bullshit on her podcast as well, there is obviously real actually helpful alternate herbal treatments/medicine etc etc BUT that's not her focus she talks about getting rectal ozone therapy (not kidding) and shoving garlic in her ears to clear her chakras and spreads misinformation. there are plenty of people in america who can't access health care, imagine how you're endangering them by suggesting that rose quartz and mouth tapes and candles will cure you. She promotes a eating disordered diet as a "healthy one". all in all, she's sketchy but people just make fun of her and don't see her as someone manipulating innocent people into buying super expensive "alternate medicine" from Goop.

Helena Blavatsky- Hasta Moon & Venus

Helena is the co-founder of the Theosophical Society and was an international leader figure in the Theosophical community. She basically helped promote eastern spirituality and philosophy in the West except that she's lied about pretty much her whole life, so its hard to confirm literally anything about her. She died in 1891 so at the time when she was alive there was no way for others to prove whether or not she was lying, they just had to take her word for it. She lied about training with sages in Tibet and lied about her mystical experiences, plagiarised ancient eastern texts to write about her "spiritual discoveries" etc There's plenty of proof that she was nothing but a charlatan yet I find it interesting how she still has a devoted following and even in her lifetime enjoyed a good reputation as a mystic medium lmao

Ranbir Kapoor, Hasta Sun & Mercury, Shravana Moon & Rohini Rising

Ranbir gets a lot of hate as of late but for the most part he has enjoyed a really good reputation despite being a shitty person.

Jeane Dixon- Rohini rising

She was a psychic and astrologer who predicted the JFK assassination.

John Allen Paulos, a mathematician at Temple University, explored the tendency of Dixon and her fans to promote her few correct predictions while ignoring the larger number of incorrect predictions, naming this habit "the Jeane Dixon effect."

Many of Dixon's predictions proved erroneous, such as her claims that a dispute over the islands of Quemoy and Matsu would trigger the start of World War III in 1958, that American labor leader Walter Reuther would run for president of the United States in the 1964 presidential election, that the second child of Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau and his young wife Margaret would be a girl (it was a boy), and that the Soviets would be the first to put men on the Moon. (excerpt from her wiki)

basically she had no real powers but managed to convince others she did, her clients included Ronald and Nancy Reagan lol

Jordan Peterson, Hasta Moon , Rohini Mercury & Shravana Ketu

He is a good example of the worst type of Moon dominant man. He has said among other things:

That class conflict is a natural and eternal struggle for existence that no political or economic revolution could ameliorate. The individual must develop an aggressive, alpha-male attitude in order to climb the social ladder. Peterson is kind of obsessed with power (all Moon dominants are lol) acc to him only a strong will, exercising itself against a contingent and meaningless world — and against the weak — can one ever hope to flourish.

Jordan Peterson endorses the idea that some men are purposely denied sex by women and that conventionally attractive men are 'taking all the sex' from other 'deserving' men. As a result, he suggests that by assigning women to men and pressuring them to 'settle' and have sex with isolated men, they wouldn't be so "angry at God" and commit acts of mass violence and murder. This, as well as criticizing birth control and saying that women would be happier if they just "allow themselves to be transformed by nature into mothers," is dangerous rhetoric that reinforces patriarchal violence against women.

He's a manipulative asshole who propagates his sexist harmful chauvinistic views as pseudoscience or psychology ew

Freud- Rohini Moon, Hasta Mars

i couldn't make a post about Moon dominance and manipulation without mentioning the godfather of promoting his fucked up worldviews as science, Mr Sigmund Freud aka the most successful Moon manipulator who has caused permanent lasting damage to society

Sigmund believed that homosexuality in men is neurotic but not particularly problematic. Lesbianism, however, he considered a gateway to mental illness.

This (according to Sigmund) is because only men have moral sense. We all evolve from apes, so no human is born with it. But boys acquire morality through the castration complex—the fear that their fathers will emasculate them for their misbehavior.

Having nothing obvious to neuter, girls and women are essentially amoral, lying and conniving to get what they want. Girls must be guided through civilized life by a father, and a woman by a husband. And because they choose not to marry, lesbians remain loose cannons, fundamentally untrustworthy and unstable.

His daughter Anna was his closest intellectual and emotional companion. Yet she was a lesbian.

Freud taught that lesbianism is always the fault of the father and is curable by psychoanalysis.

Freud cautioned followers that analysis is an erotic relationship. Analyst and patient together must scrutinize the amorous feelings that flow between them. This being the case, by rules he asked his followers to honor, Freud could not attempt to cure his own daughter’s lesbianism.

he also overgeneralized a lot of his “findings” such as the oedipus complex to apply to all people, which was harmful in the early stages of the formation of psychology. today most of his theories are disproven and widely considered problematic. Freud was obsessed with sex and made everything about sex (Moon men are sex addicts and every Moon man I've mentioned so far has a weird relationship with women)

he is credited with being the first psychologist to actually listen to women's problems but when he did listen to them, and many of them told them of their SA experiences, he changed the narrative to "women want to screw their daddies so they have these dreams/fantasies of sexual encounters in childhood" (the Electra/Oedipus Complex) to sell his books. He LIED basically, he manipulated the truth into something disgusting.

Freud is credited with making psychology a legitimate field and for it gaining attention worldwide but he literally manipulated, lie, overgeneralised and in general spewed a lot of toxic nonsense in order to get attention, like Gwyneth with Goop or Helena with Theosophy.

Sobhita Dhulipala- Rohini stellium

Sobhita like most others bought a brand new face for herself yet masquerades under the "im not like other girls, i read" nonsense, she talks about acting, art and self love like she's some committed thespian when girlie cannot act to save her life. she says she does not work out just cleans her house and does chores to stay fit :) bc she's not like other shallow actresses, she does her own chores :) compared to most other people on this list she's harmless but I find her super pick me and pretentious

Moon dominant people are very good at picking up on lies, and understanding human behaviour because they're liars themselves lol, it takes one to know one.

Azealia Banks- Rohini Sun

she's truly unhinged af and a very vile person but some of the people she's called out are also terrible people and tbh her insults are so poetic lmfao

dont get me wrong i think she's a terrible person but there is some truth to some of the things she says which is what i meant by how Moon dominant people understand human behaviour. also Moon dominant people are HATERS dont expect them to say anything nice about anyone lol

I had a friend who would deliberately compliment every other girl we were friends with (Rita is sooo pretty, Lily is so stunning etc etc) but would never say ANYTHING nice about me EVER and when others complimented me she'd act like she didn't hear it or something lmao (it was wild) and one day I straight up asked how come you never say anything nice to me and she said "oh I didn't know you needed compliments from me, I thought you got enough validation from others, I didn't know you were desperate for more" 😭😭😭😭LIKE GIRL WHATTT, honestly making these posts and exposing the dark nasty side of Moon dominant people is helping me heal from all the toxic abuse I endured at the hands of this shitty girl and some others ughhhh that's the reason why these posts have more personal anecdotes than any other post i've made lol

Oprah Winfrey, Shravana Sun & Venus

Her show was pure exploitation of peoples problems and also gave a platform to the equally exploitative Dr. Oz, the king of fake science, and Dr, Phil, the king of fake psychology.

It's a well known fact that she's friends with Harvey Weinstein & Jeffery Epstein despite being a "supporter" of the Me Too movement. Not to mention, she gave a platform to the phony Michael Jackson accusers from Leaving Neverland (do the research, they're liars) while turning a blind eye to the actual sexual predators of Hollywood, like Weinstein.

Her style of journalism seems to favour the shock value of a breaking news scandal rather than actually seeking the truth.

Several celebrities have come forward to talk about how poorly they were treated on the show. Oprah loves to relish in the misery of other ppl and ALWAYS makes others deeply uncomfortable with the straightup rude and hurtful questions she asks them.

Ellen DeGeneres, Shravana Sun & Venus

the fact that two of the most sociopathic TV hosts to ever grace television has identical placements is so telling. Ellen has been exposed in the last couple of years for being a terrible person to work with and treating her guests like shit. What I find even more interesting is the fact that the person who sort of initially exposed Ellen for being a manipulative liar is Dakota Johnson who has Hasta Sun & Mars, when I tell you that Moon dominant people deeply understand human behaviour and the psychology behind people acting the way they do, this is what I mean, it takes a Moon dominant to understand the manipulation of another one.

Kristen Bell, Hasta Moon

she probably has one of the most toxic marriages ever and yet speaks of it so glowingly and always talks about "how much work" it is to stay married like girl💀💀maybe exit the marriage then?? she has such a sweetheart image but she has admitted that she gives her children non-alcoholic beer, locks them in their room at night, makes them shower with her to "save water", talks to them about their father's addiction and their sex life??

"We make funny videos but we also go to couple's therapy because we disagree on 99.9 percent of issues," she said at the time. "There are days when I'm completely sick of him, and there are days when he is completely sick of me. But we've chosen to love one another and to be a team. We've learned how to communicate and argue in a really healthy, respectful way."- Kristen said this about her marriage like girlie nothing about it sounds healthy, if its this much work then it probably isn't love lol

Kate Winslet, Hasta Sun, Moon & Rising

Winslet has worked with predators like Woody Allen, Harvey Weinstein & Roman Polanski and after Me Too, she shifted her narrative as public opinion regarding these men, whose crimes and accusations have been well documented for decades, has thoroughly shifted to the point where associating with them is no longer good for her and would like to join the right side of history. She & Leo have partied on Jeffrey Epstein's private island as well and she's one the many signatories who signed a petition to free Roman Polanski ewww

This is one example of how image conscious Moon dominant people are, she has no moral compass and had no issue working with all these predators for decades but once it became apparent that she wouldn't benefit from associating with them anymore she's suddenly all "omg terrible men i wish id known better" lol what a liar

She also played a sociopathic Nazi in the movie The Reader

Josephine Baker, Rohini Sun

Josephine Baker was a dancer known for her banana skirt dancing. Later in life, she adopted 12 children from different ethnicities and spent the rest of her life raising them. She is remembered as an icon and for her activism but her children have come out to describe how abusive she was to them.

During her participation in the civil rights movement, Baker began to adopt children, forming a family which she often referred to as "The Rainbow Tribe". Baker wanted to prove that "children of different ethnicities and religions could still be brothers." She often took the children with her cross-country, and when they were at Château des Milandes, she arranged tours so visitors could walk the grounds and see how natural and happy the children were in "The Rainbow Tribe". Her estate featured hotels, a farm, rides, and the children singing and dancing for the audience. She charged an admission fee to visitors who entered and partook in the activities, which included watching the children play.

She created dramatic backstories for them, picking them with clear intent in mind: at one point, she wanted and planned to adopt a Jewish baby, but she settled for a French one. She also raised them in different religions in order to further her model for the world, taking two children from Algeria and raising one child as a Muslim and raising the other child as a Catholic. One member of the Tribe, Jean-Claude Baker, said: "She wanted a doll".

Baker forced Jarry to leave the château and live with his adoptive father, Jo Bouillon, in Argentina, at the age of 15, after discovering that he was gay. Moïse died of cancer in 1999, and Noël was diagnosed with schizophrenia and is in a psychiatric hospital as of 2009. Jean-Claude Baker, the unofficial addition to the Rainbow Tribe, committed suicide in 2015, aged 71.

Angelina Jolie, Rohini Sun

Jolie was clearly inspired by Josephine Baker. she adopted children from different ethnicities and even bought a Chateau in France to raise them in (just like Baker did). For many years Jolie received a lot of flak for her unconventional parenting, like frequently travelling, homeschooling all her kids and not giving them a bedtime or any kind of stable daily routine. I can't comment on it too much because there's not that much about their personal life on the internet but what I do find very interesting is how Jolie has always used the paparazzi to push a certain image and stay relevant. We know that paps only come when you call them, even Beyonce never gets papped, so its very much possible to live a lowkey life. Angelina gets papped absolutely all the time for the last 20yrs, it was especially bizarre because it was obvious that she was trying to shed the "homewrecker image" by always being photographed with her kids doing mom things and its a bit problematic to think that she's using her children as pap fodder to push an agenda. Again, I think Brad is an abusive person but he often spoke back in the day about his desire to keep the children out of the public eye but Angie had to shed her weird punk goth who kissed her brother and was addicted to bad men and drugs image so she tried to present herself as the kind humanitarian and loving mother, I'm not saying that she isn't those things, except that girlie will make sure the paps are around to photograph her doing these things like she called the paps to her daughter's first day of college bro likeeee

Here's a very old article about how smart she is at crafting her image. Again this is not in and of itself a bad thing but it's kind of bizarre to realise how image conscious people can be and how something that seems so "real" and "natural" is actually a well calculated move on their part.

Angelina also played the sociopath Lisa Rowe in the movie Girl, Interrupted. people often associate this character with her Revati Moon but i assure you this is all on her Rohini Sun

Russell Peters - Hasta Sun

Russell is really good at studying people, accents, mannerisms etc which is what makes him a really good comedian but he's also fckn rude and disgusting from time to time.

Honestly Moon dominant men always spew the most vile shit, they talk about people especially women in THE most disgusting way. actual psychopaths ew especially the cocky self assured way in which they say all this bullshit???

Errol Morris- Shravana Sun

he is a documentary filmmaker whose work focuses on the epistemology of the subject, he's obsessed with human nature and trying to understand why people do what they do, all of his docus focus on vvv unusual people, death row prisoners, defence secretary instrumental in the vietnam war, insurance frauds, a man who designs death machines, pet cemeteries etc Morris focuses on people who are questionable to say the least, he tries to humanize people perceived as evil or bad (Moon dominant af lol bc who else would be interested in the motives of bad ppl??)

This preoccupation with human nature is deeply tied to the nature of Lunar people. They have a need to understand "motivations" and what drives people to do what they do. There is an innate tendency to pathologize or pick apart behaviour. This isn't inherently a bad thing but it is something I have noticed among Lunar people.

James Randi- Rohini rising

He was a magician and skeptic who spent his life exposing other people and their paranormal and pseudoscientific claims.

Moon dominant people are skeptical of everything and the least likely to believe in anything, they're always looking for the truth because they deeply understand human ugliness and believe everybody else is like that (they see themselves reflected in others, which is to say that if they're capable of it, then so must others).

Roman Polanski- Hasta Rising

pedophile and child rapist Polanski has directed movies like Rosemary's Baby, Chinatown, The Palace, The Pianist etc,, all of his movies have heavy elements of deceit, lies, manipulation etc all of his characters are looking for the truth.

Claire had mentioned in her video about wealth as to how Rohini (Venus is domiciled in Taurus) (Moon exalts in Rohini) creates contentment and this leads to stagnation because dissatisfaction is what creates growth. If someone is content where they are they decay. I think this can be broadly applied to all 3 Moon naks because they have no other motives, nothing to dry them so they start rotting on the inside and doing terrible, horrible, evil things. Venus and Moon embodies the ugliness of humanity.

Josef Mengele- Hasta Moon

He was a Nazi doctor who conducted abhorrent and deadly medical experiments on the prisoners at Auschwitz and administered the gas to gas chambers. He was nicknamed "Angel of Death"

Lenin- Shravana Moon

if you're familiar with the history of the soviet union you will know that Lenin wasnt exactly a sweetheart

Heinrich Himmler-Hasta Sun, Shravana Rising and Ketu in Rohini

he was a prominent Nazi leader who is "credited" with "designing the Holocaust"

Edward Teller- Rohini Moon

This is the guy who betrayed Oppenheimer and is called "the father of the hydrogen bomb". he later expressed guilt over his involvement in the dropping of atom bombs over hiroshima and nagasaki

Henry Kissinger - Rohini Sun & mercury

he was a warmongering asshole who i hope is rotting in hell. he's one of the worst human beings to have ever existed due to the sheer scale and capacity of crimes he enabled and the millions of people who died as a result. i have extensively talked about how Moon dominant people lack empathy, they literally do not care about others, they are selfish to the point where its actually disgusting and pathetic and this guy is one of the worst examples

During the 1968 presidential election he was in the Johnson administration but wanted to get in good with Nixon. So he leaked information about peace talks with North Vietnam to Nixon. They then went on to use this information to sabotage the peace talks and in turn the election.

He committed treason to extend the Vietnam War, ultimately by seven years. That alone makes him a rare breed of terrible. But it’s also damning because it shows how he ultimately believe in anything other than that he deserves to be close to power. He was willing to play games with millions of human lives over a job. And he would have been in the Humphrey administration if Nixon lost, so it was just a job he wanted more. He didn’t care about fighting communism, the rule of law, patriotism, anything. His death toll alone puts him on a short list of the worst people to ever live, but most of the people on there did what they did for an ideology.

He’s also been described as “the Forrest Gump of war crimes.” He just shows up for no good reason in the history of so many atrocities. Often he ordered them, but he also installed dictators who would carry out genocides. There’s worse people in history, but none who have been involved in so many separate crimes.

just read anything about this vile shitty man and you will understand the kind of cruelty and apathy Moon dominant people are capable of.

moon dominant people are "good" with political & military strategy because they dont care about anybody's well being except their own lol

one time i spoke to a Moon dominant guy and he said that there's no such thing as altruism or selflessness and that everybody behaves in their self interest, i found that very cynical and disturbing and he said even people who do charity or appear to be kind are only doing it because they want others to see them that way and that really says more about the nature of Moon dominant people than anything else. he also said he loved attention of any kind and would do anything to trigger people just so they'd react and give him attention lol basically he admitted to having sociopathic tendencies. He was Rohini Moon. imagine being so morally bankrupt and soulless that you cant believe there's goodness in this world or that people are good with no agenda lol I feel bad for people who have to live life being that bitter, imagine rotting on the inside like that

Herman Kahn- Hasta Moon

He was a military strategist and developed the nuclear strategy of USA during the cold war. which is to say his entire job revolved around manipulation. He is quoted as saying:

"At the minimum, an adequate deterrent for the United States must provide an objective basis for a Soviet calculation that would persuade them that, no matter how skillful or ingenious they were, an attack on the United States would lead to a very high risk if not certainty of large-scale destruction to Soviet civil society and military forces." 💀💀💀(avg moon dominant man be like)

In Kahn’s book, the Doomsday Machine is an example of the sort of deterrent that appeals to the military mind but that is dangerously destabilizing. Since nations are not suicidal, its only use is to threaten.

ok thats it for now besties whewww

i am not claiming that all moon dominant people are terrible people so if you have these placements dont take it to heart. i do however think that the dark side of the moon dominant native is truly terrifying. all i wanted to do was shed light on that.

#astrology notes #astrology observations #sidereal astrology #nakshatras #astrology #vedic astro notes #astro notes #astro observations #vedic astrology #astroblr #jyotish #rohini #hasta #shravana #moon

252 notes · View notes

my-own-lilypad · 8 months

Note

Just wanted to follow up on The Art of Selling Out not being a surprise to me. When it was announced he would star in A Rainy Day In New York I was shocked because even then there was enough negative information available about W.A. that non-celebrities could say, “Something is not right with that man.” Yes, he donated his salary afterwards but that was when I realized his ambition for fame was great. When the “dating” announcement broke earlier this year I realized more distance was needed; just admire his work but not follow his every move.

You don’t have to post but just wanted to add a bit more as you responded. Today was the first day I saw your blog and like what I have seen so far. Have a great day! 😎

That's ok, I don't mind follow ups! And thanks for the compliment.

Yes, I agree - when I read about the drama around A Rainy Day in New York, I did start to wonder, why did Timmy get involved, it must have been purely for his own personal gain. Then I watched the film and I was not comfortable with the misogyny. Why would any young man claiming to represent people of all genders, colours, sexualities etc, an intelligent artist like him, ignore all of the old-fashioned sexism? Did he think it was funny? Did he think it wasn't gratuitous that the girl was naked by the end? Did he not see how that was some kind of perverted Chekhov's gun -like, here is a cute blonde - don't worry, by the end of the film you're gonna see her in her underwear, for no real reason. Not to mention the whole mother/hooker story line. I thought, Timmy must not have been thinking about the implications when he agreed to star in this rubbish. I passed it off - but part of me did wonder how far he was willing to go to further his career. Yes, he gave the money away, but it would have been better not to have starred in the film at all. Like, just don't support this shit. I don't know what he got out of being in a Woody Allen film but it must have been worth the drama.

And now of course he is supporting Kylie Jenner - coming out to the public as being in a relationship with her is implicitly supporting everything she stands for, whether it's PR or true love. And not only did he come out as being in a relationship with her, it had to be a big media reveal - someone's filming, quick let me suck your face and grab your ass and then look smug at the camera. That flummoxed me. I was like - what is this shit? Grabbing a plastic model's ass in public? Groping her? - what are you THINKING? - how dare you normalise this shitty chauvinistic behaviour - you of all people!

That was when it fully dawned on me. No principles. Even if he's pressured into things, he's got a tongue in his head hasn't he? A brain in there too somewhere? Not a very intelligent lad in the end, as it turns out. But making a shitload of money, so that's ok then.

The last part of your message about 'more distance is needed'. I agree, that is what I want and need now. I have loved and admired him (in a fandom way, you know 'fandom Timmy' not the real person obviously) for two years and I need to pull away because that person that I thought existed is not there. I mean, real-life relationships are hard enough to break away from, I don't need a fantasy one to be the same, lol!

If there is a film out that I want to see and he happens to be in it, then I will go and see it, but I'm not going to follow him the way I did.

Anyway, enough of me rambling, but it did feel good to get all of that off my chest to someone who isn't blinded. Thank you for reading my blog, wish I could return the compliment. 🤓 Have a great day. ☺

5 notes · View notes

mermaidsirennikita · 6 years

Note

Ok, but why do people act as if it's only ScarJo who is the problem. I mean people were drooling over Jared Leto and Eddie Redmayne playing trans characters. Some people were critical, sure, but it never got half of backlash like ScarJo did. Is it because they are men and since some women find them hawt they got a pass, but not a ScarJo?

Okay, not really into the implication that Scarjo is getting railed against because she’s a woman. For one thing, she was famous long before Eddie was; for another, she’s been much more sought after and discussed for her looks. I think that depends solely on what you’re reading. I remember seeing a ton of backlash against Eddie; the mainstream media didn’t pick up on it like they are with Scarlett because he was less famous than she is (and still is tbh) and he also wasn’t coming off of playing an Asian character.

I think that the backlash is more severe against Scarlett because while she and Eddie are equally wrong for playing trans people, she was already preeeeeetty unlikable for other reasons. She just played an Asian character. She’s defended Woody Allen publicly. And she didn’t help herself by issuing a whiny response about how other actors did a bad thing and got a pass (which... they didn’t, the issue is just being more discussed as time is going on; back when Felicity Huffman played a trans character, for example, trans issues weren’t as discussed in the media at all).

I don’t know if Eddie is an otherwise good person who did a shitty thing; I don’t know much about his personal life. But he has maintained a much better public image than Scarlett did prior to taking on her role. And I don’t have much sympathy for her, because the choices she has made that taint her image (playing an Asian character, defending Woody Allen) are entirely her own. She strikes me as fucking idiot, to be honest with you. And frankly, she’s lucky that SHE has her sex symbol status to fall back on because it’s not as if she’s knocking performances out of the park, and she isn’t a major box office draw if she’s not playing Natasha. There’s a point where, even if you want to be an asshole in your private life, you have to start considering your public image if you’re in Hollywood. This is barely a backlash--I’ve largely seen sites like Buzzfeed reporting. It’s not as much as she’s cumulatively deserved imo because she’s still had 0 issue finding work or being lauded as a feminist since playing an Asian character and defending Woody, sooo.

#Anonymous

7 notes · View notes

omegangrins · 6 years

Text

Attack the Block - The Hulk Deconstructs the Modern Hero

The full movie:

undefined

youtube

Rewatching this movie because of our new love of Jodie Whittaker, and I was reminded of this review from the Hulk. It's strangely worded but takes a refreshing perspective on the idea of a protagonist. This is what he says about John Boyega's character Moses, and heroic characters overall.

My favorite bit is from the end though:

**OKAY NOW FOR WHAT MOST SPECIAL OF ALL: ATTACK THE BLOCK DONE SOMETHING THAT HULK CAN NO REMEMBER A SINGLE OTHER FILM.

IT GOT MOSES RIGHT.

TO CLARIFY, HULK NOT TALKING ABOUT THE COMMANDMENT GUY, BUT INSTEAD THE LEAD CHARACTER OF ATTACK THE BLOCK AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, THE KIND OF CHARACTER HE IS AND WHY IT SO IMPORTANT.

HULK NOTICING THAT SOME FOLKS SORT NOT REALLY GETTING WHAT MAKE MOSES GREAT. THEY CERTAINLY GET THE FEELING AND UNDERCURRENT OF WHAT OCCUR (IT SO WONDERFULLY ENGAGING IT HARD NOT TO), BUT THE COLLECTIVE SUMMARY OF MOSES’ CHARACTER’S JOURNEY SEEM TO BE MORE OF A “HE TAKING RESPONSIBILITY NOW!” KIND OF THING… AND THAT TOTALLY FAIR BECAUSE HULK NOT ENTIRELY SURE IT OBVIOUS:

MOSES IS AND ALWAYS WAS THE KIND OF PERSON WHO WOULD RISK HIS LIFE FOR SOMEONE ELSE. AND IN REAL LIFE, THOSE KIND OF PEOPLE EXTREMELY COMPLICATED.

LET’S GET ONE THING STRAIGHT. MOST SCREENWRITERS HAVE A PRETTY SHITTY CONCEPT OF HOW HEROES WORK.

undefined

youtube

1) MOST OF THE TIMES THE AUDIENCE IS TREATED TO AN ENDLESSLY REGURGITATED JOSEPH CAMPBELL VERSION, WITH THE SAME PAINT BY NUMBERS ANSWERING THE CALL BULLSHIT WE SEE TIME AND TIME AGAIN. HULK TOO THOUGHT IT A NOBEL CONCEPT ONCE… IN 8TH GRADE. ANYONE WHO CITES THAT STUFF AS GOOD STORYTELLING HAS TO TAKE SCREENWRITING 102 NOW. YES, IT A HANDY ARCHETYPE AND UNDERCURRENT OF ALL HEROES (EVEN MOSES), BUT SOLE DEPENDENCE ON IT FOR STORYTELLING WILL RENDER ANYTHING YOU TRYING TO DO COMPLETELY ROTE AND POINTLESS. STAY AWAY WRITERS. STAY AWAY.

2) MOST REAL LIFE HEROES ARE ALPHA PERSONALITIES. MOST SCREENWRITERS ARE BETA PERSONALITIES. A.K.A. PEOPLE WHO POSSIBLY SPENT THEIR FORMATIVE YEARS BEING TERRORIZED BY ALPHA PERSONALITIES.

TO COMBAT THIS OBVIOUS PROBLEM HEROES ARE WRITTEN BY BETA PERSONALITES IN SEVERAL WAYS:

A) THE BETA BECOMES THE PASSIVE HERO, WHO MEANT TO REFLECT DECENCY AND EVENTUALLY GET THE GIRL JUST BY BEING DECENT GUY! (HINT: THIS ACTUALLY NOT HOW IT WORKS AND SAID HERO WHO THINK THEY DECENT GUY NOT ACTUALLY A DECENT GUY. JUST UNDERDEVELOPED AND LIKELY WILL TURN INTO BITTER ASSHOLE ONCE THEY ENCOUNTER THE TERRIFYING EQUALITY OF ADULTHOOD). OH AND ALL THE WHILE THEY TERRORIZED BY IDIOTIC ALPHA PERSONALITY VILLAINS. THEY WILL LIKELY BE RICH OR FOOTBALL PLAYERS. HULK JUST DESCRIBED 99% OF 80S MOVIES. MOVING ON…

B) THE BETA IMAGINES A HERO NOT BASED ON HEROIC QUALITIES BUT INSTEAD JUST THE ANTITHESIS OF ALL THEIR WEAKNESSES. PERFECT EXAMPLE? JAMES BOND. THE IMPOSSIBLY SUAVE GUN-TOTING LADY-FUCKER EXTRAORDINAIRE WHO NEARLY NEED TO SLAP A GIRLS BUT TO SHOW HER WHAT’S WHAT… HULK KNOW LOTS ABOUT BOND. AND NEEDLESS TO SAY THERE PROBLEMS WITH THE CONCEPT.

C) IGNORE ALL THIS AND CREATE YOUR HERO CENTERED AROUND A LARGER SOCIAL CONCEPT. IT CAN BE ANYTHING FROM FEMALE EMPOWERMENT TO CIVIL RIGHTS TO WHATEVER. POPULAR IN COMICS, DISNEY FILMS, BLAXPLOITATION AND OTHER STUFF.

AND D) THE MUCH MORE INTERESTING AND SUCCESSFUL RECENT SOLUTION HAS BEEN THE ADVANCEMENT OF THE MODERN ANTI-HERO. AT BEST THEY REPRESENT THE HUMANE AND UN-PERFECT QUALITY OF THE SEMI-HEROIC FIGURE THE AUDIENCE INVESTS IN… AT WORST THEY REFLECT THE BETA WRITER’S OWN SHORTCOMINGS, BUT WITH BETTER LINES THEY WISH THEY SAID IN REAL LIFE AND A FORCED AUDIENCE TO ROOT FOR THEM… HULK PRETTY SURE WOODY ALLEN IS THE ONLY ONE WHO EVER DID THIS WELL (BTW, HULK KNOW A LOT ABOUT ALPHA AND BETA PERSONALITIES. WHY? CAUSE HULK THE FUCKING HULK. HE BEEN DEALING WITH THIS BANNER/BIG GREEN GUY SHIT FOR LIFE. SO HULK GOT IT DOWN).

BUT WOULDN’T YOU KNOW IT? THERE’S ACTUALLY THAT RARE ANSWER E)… ONE SO IMPOSSIBLY RARE HULK CAN ONLY ACCOUNT THE HANDFUL OF TIMES HULK SEEN IT.

THE ACTUAL, REAL HERO.

WHAT WOULD IT TAKE FOR YOU TO PICK UP A GUN, SWORD, WHATEVER THE HELL, AND RUN OUT IN FRONT TO DEFEND YOUR FRIENDS? TO LEGITIMATELY SACRIFICE YOURSELF.

… THINK ABOUT IT.

IT SOMETHING PEOPLE SEE TIME AND TIME AGAIN IN MOVIES AND YET IT SOMETHING WE NEVER REALLY QUESTION WITH OUR OWN LIVES. WHAT WOULD IT TAKE FOR YOU TO DEFEND YOUR FRIENDS? THE MOST OBVIOUS EXAMPLE IS THE MILITARY. GRANTED, THE MILITARY AND THE REASONS FOR JOINING OFTEN PAINTED IN ROSES. IN BRUTAL HONESTY, LOTS JOIN BECAUSE THEY WANT TO KILL STUFF, IT WAS FORCED ON THEM, OR MOST OFTEN THEY JUST NEED THE MONEY. BUT LOST IN THESE CYNICAL REASONS ARE THE THOUSANDS OF MEN AND WOMEN FROM ALL WALKS OF LIFE WHO JOIN TO CONTRIBUTE TO SOMETHING BIGGER THAN THEMSELVES. IT’S HEADY, HONORABLE STUFF. SOMETHING THAT THE POSH, LIBERALLY MINDED WORLD OF HULK AND EVERYONE ELSE FORGET. SACRIFICE = REAL. BUT IF OFTEN TAKE A FLAWED, INTERESTING, AND DEEPLY WOUNDED KIND OF PERSONALITY TO GET TO THAT PLACE OF SACRIFICE. IT RARELY A WHOLLY NOBLE PURSUIT.

AND HULK HATE TO BREAK IT TO YOU, BUT YOU ALSO MEET A LOT OF THESE HEROIC PERSONALITIES IN INNER CITIES.

AND OFTEN THEY IN GANGS.

THIS ALL SOUND VERY COUNTER INTUITIVE HULK KNOW, BUT HEAR HULK OUT. THERE ARE INNER CITY ALPHA MALES BUILT UP AROUND POMP, CIRCUMSTANCE, AND POSTURE (THIS ALPHA MALE WELL REPRESENTED BY THE LEAD, BAD DRUG CHARACTER IN THE FILM). THE OTHER ALPHA MALE IS EQUALLY COMPLICATED. BUT THEIR PERCEIVED STRENGTH COMES NOT FROM FEAR, BUT SURVIVAL INSTINCT. THAT BECAUSE THIS KIND OF ALPHA MALE OFTEN BROKEN BY HOME LIFE. THEY ARE OFTEN ABUSED. AS SUCH, THEY WILL LIKELY BULLY OUTSIDERS. THEY WILL OFTEN GET INTO SELLING DRUGS. THEY DON’T HAVE THE SOCIAL TOOLS FOR EDUCATION AND SCHOOL. THEIR PAIN OFTEN BROUGHT ON THEMSELVES AS MUCH AS IT IS DEALT TO THEM. IT CYCLICAL.

BUT IN THAT NEED TO SURVIVE, THEY WILL BE WHOLLY TERRITORIAL. THEY WILL DEFEND THEIR FRIENDS TO THE DEATH. AND THEY WILL DO SO IN THE MOST HEROIC TERMS THAT TOTALLY INCONCEIVABLE TO YOU AND HULK. THEY WILL DEAL WITH ADULT CONCEPTS OF RESPONSIBILITY OFTEN BY AGE 8 OR 9. THEY TAKE THE WEAKER UNDER THEIR WING. THEY WILL POSSESS A STRENGTH AND A WILL SO BEYOND WHAT WE HAVE AS TO ONLY BE DESCRIBED AS SOLDIERLY; ONE THAT IS OFTEN UNCHECKED, UNREGULATED, AND UNCARED FOR AS TO RENDER THE VERY CONCEPT OF SUCH A PERSON TO BE TERRIFYING.

THEY ARE THE HEROIC ALPHA MALE, JUST NOT WHAT WE ENVISION. THEY ARE THE MOST EXTREME VERSION OF THE SAME PSYCHOLOGY THAT CAUSE SOMEONE TO JOIN THE FIRE DEPARTMENT OR THE ARMY… IT JUST IN THE HAZE OF TRUE, HORRIBLE PEOPLE THAT GET INVOLVED IN THE INNER CITY NIGHTMARE, WE OFTEN HAVE HARD TIME SEEING THE GOOD PEOPLE WHO JUST DOING BAD THINGS.

WHY HULK KNOW ALL THIS SHIT? WHY HULK FEEL SO STRONGLY ABOUT IT? HULK’S FAMILY SPENT THEIR LIFE DEALING WITH IT. IT THE SUBJECT OF MAMA AND PAPA HULK’S LIFE WORK. HULK KNEW DOZENS OF MOSES’ (MOSII?). THEY IN EVERY CITY, ALMOST EVERY GROUP OF FRIENDS LIKE THIS. THEY NOT UNDESERVING OF OUR ATTENTION OR OUR COMPASSION. THEY OFTEN DO ALL KINDS OF WRONG, BUT THEIR PLIGHT FUCKING MATTERS. THEY MAY NOT GIVE A SINGLE SHIT ABOUT YOU, OR I, OR ANYONE WHO TRY TO HELP THEM. BUT THEY WILL MAKE A FAMILY IN THEIR MIND. AND THEY WILL PROTECT IT TO THE DAY THEY DAY. WHICH WILL LIKELY BE AT A VERY YOUNG AGE.

AND HULK SITTING HERE, RACKING BRAIN, TRYING TO THINK OF ANOTHER MOVIE THAT UNDERSTAND THE MOSES’ OF THE WORLD (THERE PROBABLY ONE. IN TELEVISION THERE THE CHARACTER OF MICHAEL FROM THE WIRE… THAT ALL HULK GOT). AND WHY THEY MATTER MORE THAN ANYTHING TO PEOPLE OF THE COMMUNITY. HULK LOOK BACK AT ATTACK THE BLOCK AND IT BRINGS TEARS TO HULK’S EYES. TRULY. IT SOUND IMPOSSIBLY DUMB, BUT HULK SWEAR. IT NOT DUMB. THE MOVIE AND CHARACTER OF MOSES COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND THE WORLD AND PSYCHOLOGY THEY TALKING ABOUT. JOE CORNISH BRILLIANTLY USE THE OUTWARD ALIEN THREAT THEY EXPLORE THE HEART AND STRANGE HEROISM OF THESE CONCEPTS. AND THE YOUNG ACTOR, JOHN BOYEGA SO TOTALLY BRING HIM TO LIFE. HE HAVE THIS AMAZING STOIC SCREEN PRESENCE THAT JUST GRAB YOU.

SO WHY THE STRANGE TITLE ATTACK THE BLOCK? BECAUSE THIS A FILM ABOUT TERRITORY. AND TERRITORY BEST MEANS “HOME” AND “COMMUNITY” IN THIS CASE; BEST EXPLORED THROUGH THAT SINGLE, AMAZING CHARACTER.

HULK SIMPLY CANNOT BELIEVE SOMEONE MADE A MOVIE ABOUT MOSES."

And the final, and best, scene of the movies.

undefined

youtube

#attack the block #edagr wright #joe cornish #jodie whittaker #john boyega #nick frost #the hulk #film review #protagonist #deconstruction #nira park #aliens

0 notes

sambinnie · 7 years

Text

All links mentioned are clustered at the end, if you’d like to read/listen to them too.

I’ve never been one for the middle road, in habits, emotions or tendencies, but if there’s one thing 2016 has taught me — I hope — it’s that it’s possible for me. At last. I’ve been more willing, as I’ve grown fractionally older, to welcome the change of heart that time and experience bring; I’ve been more likely to say, ‘Well, this is how I feel at the moment, but who knows,’ rather than, ‘No! Never! Impossible!’ Only there have been some hold-outs from this: some political groups, some voting histories, some educational choices, anti-freedom groups, hate groups. Thankfully, they could all be bundled up in my mind as Big Bads, so I didn’t need to ever fear that I could be wrong about any of them: and if someone had expressed those choices, even once, even in error or misunderstanding or drunkenness or foolishness, or ever been associated with anyone who’d expressed those choices, then great! Into the barrel of doom with them, and good riddance!

I have loved so much of social media, so much of the quickness of thought to make the jokes, dark or otherwise, because that’s how I see the world. The kindness, too: those people who tap a “xxx” or a digital embrace to someone suffering. I’ve been at both ends of that, and it feels good.

2016, however, and everything we’re seeing unfold from that and the last few years before it, has made me wonder at the meaningfulness of these interactions. Other people than me have written about this, probably better than me, and research can show whatever we want it to (also known as ‘2016’s catchphrase’) but some gut instinct in me has hollered louder and louder than social media does nothing, for me, in quite a major way. I’m sure anyone who’s reading this can give me some counter arguments — friendships, business contacts, social and political movements — but there is a hollowness to my life on there. On here, I suppose I should say. Having been mostly off it for several months now, I can see with greater clarity that the time I spend with friends and family on sofas and bar stools and around kitchen tables, without photos, or hashtags, or tagging, or comments, just ephemeral conversation and moments that are gone forever: these times have been better for me, and have filled some deeper need.

And of course social media can be an educational, fascinating place. It’s hilarious to suggest otherwise. So congratulations and a big shiny medal to me if I now understand that Black Lives Matter, or grasp the violence that faces the average transgender man or woman, or see that even the most supportive, feminist man occasionally uses language and jokes that chip away at the average woman. Those fights are easy to understand and easier to engage in.

But – and here’s the tricky bit – how much time did I give, really, to thinking about why someone would support and vote and fight and hurt people for beliefs opposite to mine? It’s not comfortable to defend these people, to acknowledge that they are human and have family they love and interests they believe to be best. It’s not easy to say, in my circles, But What About Straight White Men, when we’ve had such a bloody great time turning them into the butt of every smart, knowing, accurate, deserved joke. But the number of people I know on social media who are actively trying to make the world better (could count on two hands) rather than just spitting into someone’s online soup (thousands) is worth my consideration, if I’m spending hours a day with them. And the things we’ve hated in those hours! We hate this film. This politician is trash. That TV programme is shit — look at this gif about it! The readers of those newspapers are just a dumpster fire of burning garbage.

So this is what I’ve concluded, after much thinking and reading and listening: that there are two issues here. Two things that tie my feelings about social media and my feelings about what’s on social media together: firstly, nuance, and secondly, opportunity versus morality.

Nuance, as Jon Ronson (a man who’s had his share of online kickings) says on the Guys We’ve Fucked podcast*, is wildly unfashionable now. Pick a side! Quickly! Don’t worry about circumstance, or history, or mis-readings, or context! Just go go go get our boots on and pile in! My online bubble that I’ve been happy to cosy up in seems the same: straight white guys: be quiet. Leave voters: racists. Republicans: racist misogynist climate-change deniers who should also be quiet. It doesn’t matter why they feel that way. Let’s just remind them as forcibly as we can that they are hateful humans we don’t want to dirty our hands with, and that’ll teach them a lesson they’ll never forget! After seeing our scorching memes, they’ll be thinking like we do in no time! Except: they are actual people. Everyone’s frightened of something, and whether or not I agree with the veracity of the source of that fear, they’re still feeling afraid. They still have goals, which I may or may not agree with, but those goals won’t change if I tell them their goals are trash. In an episode of the Invisibilia podcast* called Flip the Script, Hanna Rosin visits Aarhus to talk to the police who decided to stop prosecuting young Muslim men travelling to Syria to fight for Isis, and instead engaged with them, offering them care and support, employment and housing. They made them feel like they were welcome in Denmark, that this was their home, and in 2015, even when traffic was spiking from Europe, only one individual left Aarhus to fight. In the programme, Jamal, a young Danish muslim, says of his feelings before this positive intervention received him, ‘I thought: they call me terrorist? I will give them a terrorist.’ Treat those we disagree with as racists, as misogynists, as bigots, as fascists, and guess how they’ll be tempted to behave. (Side note: It’s also really worth listening to the Adam Buxton conversations* with Richard Ayoade, Iain Lee and Jon Ronson (again!) talking from various different angles about kindness, nuance, context, and how it feels to be a Woody Allen fan these days. Also, there’s a stand-up routine by Louis CK – helloooo, problematic public figure – which also covers nicely the idea of correctly using The Right Terms but having not great goals with it, and being pummelled for using Incorrect Language but wanting to communicate positive ideas. I can’t link to it as it autoplayed on Netflix while I was painting the hall, but the thought was pretty smart.)

As Oliver Burkeman said in his This Column Will Change Your Life piece*, it’s moderation that’s key to a better world, not battling for victory. No one really ever wins a war. As This American Life’s podcast* on Reconsideration showed, it’s giving people a chance to be listened to that offers that chance to change minds, not shouting them down with facts that will only make them dig their heels in harder. Anger is a vital political tool, but my anger too often feels like hatred, or disdain, or dismissal. It serves no purpose. It’s a toxic, pixelled sledgehammer. It makes the world worse. I’ve really been doing a shitty job at making things nicer, guys.

Secondly: opportunity versus morality. As part of my feminist beliefs, I’ve been pro-Instagram; why should some dude tell me what I can and can’t photograph? If people like my lunch pic, what’s wrong with that? If I look great and want to record and share it, what the hell is your problem? Only suddenly, as I’ve been using it less and less, Instagram looks so lonely to me. I think of the humans at the end of Wall-E, tapping their screens and never looking up, and that’s how it feels: I like the sunset someone else has photographed while I’m missing it because I’m looking at my phone. And even if I’m snapping it myself to share — what am I missing by not just looking at the damn thing, and letting it pass through me, a beautiful gift to warm my soul? Do I really believe the tech ads about how much better a father’s night in the woods is with his kid because he brought their tablet along? I know the feeling in me when I pick up my phone to take a picture of something with the intention of sharing it, and it feels like a greasy, dizzy dilution. For me, it’s not about the over-curation of our perfect online lives, but about the inability to live in my offline life without outside approval. I’m not having real fun until 20, 50, 1000 people have liked it too!

And putting that smartphone opportunity up against my moral code: just because we can do something, should we? If I can live-tweet a couple arguing on a train journey, does that make it not nightmarishly intrusive? If I Instagram a photo of someone in a terrible outfit, does that make me a warrior for underprivileged rights? If I pause every lunch with friends to take photos to post online for others to view and like or not like, am I connecting more, or less? Am I making the world a more claustrophobic, judgemental, short-sighted place if I collude in this weird global surveillance?

And god knows, I’m a hypocrite. I’ve been mean as mean can be, online and off-, about people whose political views I disagree with. I’ve Instagrammed my Christmas day lunches, my children’s artwork, my brunches with friends, my views from a train. But why have I interrupted the flow of conversation or silence before the play started to post a picture of the theatre stage and ceiling? Why have I unintentionally asked my family to hold off from eating because I wanted a picture of the meal I’ve just made? Why did I stop thinking about whatever I was thinking about just to snap an image of the sky? I’ve thought and thought and can’t get any further than Because other people might like it. Which is, to me, right now, at this moment, fathomlessly sad. (But who knows how I’ll feel next week, a year from now, twenty years from now?)

Have some ideas on social media changed me? Of course. People and articles have educated me hugely in ways that have hopefully made me a better person. But do those new, positive and instructive ideas warrant staying on social media? Not at the moment. Twitter is a thousand people shouting apocalypse at me, Facebook is an algorithmic sink and Instagram is an endless time-suck scroll of kids I’m not playing with, art I’m not making, trips I’m not taking, food I’m not cooking, homes I’m not helping people into, chances I’m not helping others receive, political aspirations I’m not supporting because I’m just swiping my finger along this screen tap tap tap swipe tap swipe tap swipe swipe swipe…

But right now, I’m trying to make changes. I’m off twitter, I’ve deleted my Facebook profile, I’ve turned my Instagram to private and am slowly weaning myself off it (I still hit like at what I’m seeing, but the (v good, v scary) Moment app is also making me realise how much of my day — my life — is lost to tapping a heart icon on a flat screen next to a photograph someone else has taken that ultimately means nothing to me as pixels on a screen). The cards, notes, emails and texts I’ve sent and received over the last month or two have made me realise how much more valuable these quiet interactions are to me at the moment. I think about the adults I’d like our kids to grow up into: outward-facing, forward-looking, clear-eyed, generous with their time, generous with their thoughts, independent, handy (all the way from cooking and cleaning, through to crafting and mending and building), confident, kind. And it doesn't matter that I’m thinking of it in terms of my kids: like those men we laugh at for only finding feminism once they have a daughter (who cares why they found it! they found it! they're engaging!) it’s not about whether or not I have children. It’s about which adults we want to share the world with. Adults we might disagree with, but whom we could hopefully rely on for respectful conversation, thoughtfulnesss, retreat on either side, apologies, space for error, learning, growth, change.

I’m not saying we should forgive anyone who asks for it — only maybe I am, because what does the alternative produce? And I’m not saying we should love everyone in the world, no matter what they’ve done in the past or continue to do in the future — only I guess, I suppose, perhaps, maybe I actually am, because hating people feels shit, does nothing, and makes the world boring and hate-filled and dead. We’ve tried that! We’ve tried telling men/cis/white women/privileged feminists/baby boomers/Tories/right-wingers/Brexit supporters/homophobes/transphobes/racists/abusers/Cameron that they’re just a crapsack, nothing but a punchline, should get pushed off their soapbox or fixie or 4x4 or youtube channel into the fiery pits of hell! We’ve let the warmth of righteous indignation warm us at night and not minded the language we use against our enemies because look at the way they’ve treated us! Look at the terrible things they’ve done! So we hurl insults and craft jokes and smash bridges with our pixel sledgehammers and wait for the likes and retweets and thumbs up and YEAH comments to flood in, and if they do then our point is proved, good work, and if they don’t then maybe we up it a bit more next time.

(Or sometimes, I wonder if it’s all a handy distraction from the way we’re treating our planet at the moment, like gum we can replace at the corner shop once we’ve chewed all the goodness from it. That’s frightening. That’s genuinely sick-in-the-night, silent panic-attack terrifying. But we buy new phones and new phone covers and charge them up and snap a picture of ourselves with them in the mirror and grind our teeth that some dude took up too much space on the tube and Steven Moffatt can’t write women. Yes! Those things might be true! But, to play the card we all dislike the most: haven’t we got other things to worry about? Not necessarily bigger things, or better things, but fractionally more pressing things? Shouldn't we all be hurling money as hard as we can at scientists and policy makers in the hope we can stop sawing down and burning up the only home we’ve got? Shouldn’t we be campaigning against companies who design their products with built-in obsolescence, rather than grabbing those products as fast as we can so we can use them to tweet our rage at companies who use unreliable delivery companies? And I understand that climate change isn’t a stand-alone issue — capitalism, our lifestyles, our conditioned social priorities, corporate power over government, dissolution of employment rights, exploitation of workers — all of this feeds into climate change and the terrible way we’re treating our planet. I understand this. And all of it feels slightly more pressing than how I can correctly display my individualism to people who don’t or barely know me.)

The fact remains, the basic philosophies of most major religions (if we put aside meat specifics and some potentially dodgy sex/marriage stuff) throughout human civilisation probably have a point: care for the needy; practice humility; think of others; show forgiveness; show respect; love everyone.

If the future looks scary, the answer isn’t to build the wall higher and sharpen our words. It’s so painful, and it’s so difficult, and it’s so simple. Right now, if we can take the time to type our disdain and disgust, we’re in a privileged enough position to take a deep breath, dive into life, and make a better choice.

1. *Jon Ronson on Guys We’ve Fucked

2. *Invisibilia, Flip the Script

3. *Richard Ayoade on Adam Buxton

4. *Iain Lee on Adam Buxton

5. *Jon Ronson on Adam Buxton

6. *Oliver Burkeman, ‘Moderates are the real tough guys’

7. *This American Life, For Your Reconsideration

#change #hope #social media #nuance #reconsideration #moderation #screens #privacy #intrusion #consumerism #recommendations

3 notes · View notes

theliterateape · 6 years

Text

Problematic Movies of the ’80s | Fast Times at Ridgemont High (1982)

By Don Hall

Recently, on a night when I simply couldn’t sleep, I turned my iPad on to Netflix and searched for something to watch. You know, something to just play until my eyes finally weighed like lead and I crashed. I landed upon the 1998 Samuel L. Jackson vehicle The Negotiator. In addition to being a fun potboiler, I was reminded how goddamned good Kevin Spacey is as an actor. I realized that in this particular case, I was not bothered by his real life sexual proclivities and simply enjoyed the movie.

I’m frequently stuck in mental overload trying to weigh the artist’s real life from his or her art. Say what you will but Altas Shrugged has it’s merits. Ayn Rand doesn’t, and if you, like me, read the book before knowing anything about her awful politics, you might’ve been able to separate the two. I still love Woody Allen’s earlier films, although Manhattan now gives me a bit of the skeeves. I also recently got sucked into a conversation about the dark toxicity in play in the (apparently) no longer funny, twisted morality tale known as Caddyshack.

Then Kavanaugh referenced some classic comedies of the ’80s in his bizarre, angry, hyper-partisan defense. He claimed his yearbook was attempting to emulate “Animal House, Caddyshack and Fast Times at Ridgemont High.” Again, it got me thinking: are these touchstones of my (and his) youth to be discarded on a pile of old VHS copies to be set ablaze? Are they really that problematic? And wouldn’t it be fun (and maybe a little depressing) to rewatch them as much through the lens of 2018?

I set up some rules for myself: they had to be comedies, they had to be made in the ’80s (my coming of age) and they had to be movies I could recall loving at the time.

Here we go.

First up:

Fast Times at Ridgemont High

Written by Cameron Crowe; directed by Amy Heckerling Released in 1982.

I was 16 years old when this hit the theaters. What I remember of this movie was that I liked it, thought it was funny and mostly loved the character of Brad (played by a young Judge Reinhold.) The Spicoli character, played with stoner perfection by Sean Penn loomed large, and the fact that I got to see Phoebe Cates’ tits was a big plus. I saw it in the theater only once but it left a good impression upon my teenage brain. It felt authentic in many ways to my own high school experience as it was unfolding.

Upon rewatching it to see how potentially problematic the thing was, here are some takeaways:

Problematic Moments & Themes

In the first two minutes of the film, we see a high school guy tape a sign on the back of another guy that says “I Am A Homo” and later, Spicoli, in a dream sequence as he has won the big surfing competition calls his competitors “Fags.”

There are only two black characters in this thing: Charles Jefferson (Forest Whittaker) and his brother (known only in the credits as “Jefferson’s Brother”) This film is overwhelmingly white.

In the first 20 minutes, Stacy (Jennifer Jason Leigh), a 15 year old mall worker, has sex in an abandoned baseball dugout with a 26-year-old dude. She subsequently has sex with Damone in her parents’ pool room, gets pregnant, has an abortion by herself and hides it all from her parents.

Does It Hold Up?

For me, yes.

While the film contains two instances of anti-gay language, there is no malice contained in the Spicoli comment. The first (the sign) is an example of simple assholery and is in no way central to the plot of characters in the intwining stories. No question that it gives pause (if it were the n-word, the discomfort would be worse, which says more about our acceptance of gay slurs than our apathy toward them) but the reality is that the movie taken as a whole, is not in the least homophobic.

The fact that there are no black characters is troubling, but there were and are high schools with few POC students. In the ’80s my high school had exactly four black students in the entire student body. This was a result more of geography (middle of nowhere, Kansas) than anything else. The fact is that the only high schools in America with more diverse populations are urban rather than suburban. Perhaps, because I am white and I went to a mostly all-white high school, it simply didn’t seem out of the ordinary in this case. Again, no racial animus is present in the film and Jefferson’s brother (unfortunate that the character was not given a name) is a stoner friend of Spicoli’s in several scenes.

If there is a difficult theme present, it is the pursuit of sex and the fact that most conversations in the film are about it. A 15-year-old girl having sex with a 26-year-old dude is troubling until you see that, in every case, it is the women in the film who are calling the shots, who have the most agency in the interactions. Stacy make decisions to have sex without coercion in every case. The boys are all fumbling idiots when it comes to the women and, in the case of the Faux Alpha Make that is Damone, his skill at sex with Stacy is so inept and premature that he seems flummoxed at the very idea of sex. Unlike, say, Sixteen Candles and its obvious date rape themes with the Geek, these are just American kids doing what we did in the ’80s — hanging out at the mall, trying to get laid (without having any concept what that might mean) and working shitty minimum wage jobs.

I understand that the idea of young people having sex makes you uncomfortable but the facts on the ground is that young people think about and get busy constantly. This isn’t new or unusual — high school is the pit of hormones, the very circle of hell when hair sprouts and boobs suddenly appear. Get over it.

Fast Times began as a Rolling Stone story by Cameron Crowe. He spent a year secretly embedded at Clairemont High School in San Diego, California under an assumed name (and in cooperation with the school’s administration) to gather stories for a non-fiction book with the same title. It feels like it, too. Unlike the spoofs of teens in high school and despite that fact that Nicholas Cage (credited as Nicholas Coppola in his first on-screen appearance) was the youngest actor on set at age 18, Fast Times isn’t a case of a bunch of adults making fun of the high school experience. It has an authenticity lacking in so many films about high school (in the ’80s or otherwise) that feels grounded in the real.

Watching this 36 years later cemented its charm and enduring quality. Like American Graffiti was a touchstone film about (some) high school kids in the ’50s, this is a pretty accurate snapshot of (some) kids in the ’80s. Additional plusses go to a woman director, a ton of the stars of the future in relatively unseen roles and the reminder that one could once get tickets to Van Halen for $15.

Overall

Scale of 1 to 10 1 = Classic 10 = Burn all VHS copies of it

Fast Times at Ridgemont High gets a 3.

Next Up

The Cannonball Run (1981)

#Fast Times at Ridgemont High #Problematic Movies of the ’80s #Caddyshack #Atlas Shrugged #Ayan Rand #Kevin Spacey #The Negotiator #Animal House #Sixteen Candles #American Graffiti

0 notes

funnythingshere0-blog · 6 years

Text

The creator of 'BoJack Horseman' comes from a home of funny Jews

New Post has been published on https://funnythingshere.xyz/the-creator-of-bojack-horseman-comes-from-a-home-of-funny-jews/

The creator of 'BoJack Horseman' comes from a home of funny Jews

SAN FRANCISCO (The Jewish News of Northern California via JTA) — While growing up in Palo Alto, Raphael Bob-Waksberg was a serious consumer of popular culture. He would watch TV for hours on end and view movies over and over until he memorized them. In particular, he was a huge fan of “The Simpsons.”

“We used to talk about Bart and Lisa at the dinner table as if they were real people,” said his mother, Ellen Bob.

Nowadays, the conversation around American tables is more likely about “BoJack Horseman,” a successful Netflix animated series created by Bob-Waksberg. The show’s fifth season premiered on September 14.

Get The Times of Israel’s Daily Edition by email and never miss our top stories Free Sign Up

In addition, Comedy Central recently acquired the rights to reruns of “BoJack Horseman,” reportedly making it the first Netflix show to enter TV syndication in the United States. Season 1 reruns are scheduled to begin on September 26.

The show is an adult drama-comedy set in an imaginary Hollywood populated by humans and anthropomorphized animals (the eponymous main character, BoJack Horseman, has a horse’s head and man’s body), and has catapulted Bob-Waksberg’s career to new levels in the real Hollywood.

In addition to his work as head writer and showrunner for “BoJack,” Bob-Waksberg is developing new shows for Netflix and Amazon. He’s also writing a book of short stories scheduled to be published next year by a major imprint.

Raphael Bob-Waksberg is the creator of “BoJack Horseman,” one of Netflix’s most successful original TV series. (Netflix via JTA)

The 34-year-old’s success has come as no surprise to family, friends, rabbis, and teachers in the Bay Area who nurtured his creativity and independent thinking from an early age.

“I think Raphael was really headed in that direction since his teen years,” said family friend Nechama Tamler, a longtime Jewish educator who early on recognized his writing and performing talent.

Simultaneously sad and funny, but mostly funny, “BoJack” is a satire about the elusive nature of happiness. It has gained praise for its intelligent writing that does not adhere to the typical sitcom formula, and there is no emotional closure at the end of each episode. It’s an ongoing, frustrating effort for characters to learn and grow from their mistakes, and to grapple with the meaning of existence.

The titular character, the deeply flawed BoJack Horseman (voiced by Will Arnett of “Arrested Development”), struggles after his successful acting career flounders. Fans still recognize BoJack for his role as a young, single guy who adopts three orphans in a popular late 1980s sitcom called “Horsin’ Around.” However, now he’s a 50-something depressive addicted to alcohol and drugs. Critically, he lacks the required self-awareness to stop from hurting himself and those closest to him.

When Todd (voiced by Aaron Paul of “Breaking Bad”), a slacker who lives on BoJack’s couch and suffers the equine actor’s constant indifference, has had enough of BoJack’s apologies, he yells at him: “You can’t keep doing shitty things and then feel bad about yourself, like that makes it OK. You need to be better … You are all the things that are wrong with you. It’s not the alcohol, or the drugs, or any of the shitty things that happened to you in your career, or when you were a kid. It’s you.”

[embedded content]

The message is that there are no easy answers, and that making amends takes hard work. Ultimately, actions speak louder than words.

Bob-Waksberg’s father, David Waksberg, recognized the Jewishness of this value immediately.

“When a friend asked me about it after the first season, I said it was about teshuvah,” he said, using the Hebrew word for the Jewish concept of repentance.

For his part, Bob-Waksberg wasn’t quite sure how to answer when asked whether his Jewish identity influences his writing, and in particular the melancholic humor of “BoJack.”

“Asking me that question is like asking a fish how much being in water has affected it,” he said.

Bob-Waksberg grew up in Palo Alto in the late 1980s and 1990s with two younger sisters, Becky and Amalia, in a family that was — and still is — very involved in the Jewish community. David Waksberg worked to free and resettle Soviet Jewry, and is now the CEO of the San Francisco-based Jewish LearningWorks, the central agency promoting Jewish education in the Bay Area. Ellen Bob ran a Judaica store (Bob and Bob) with her mother for 26 years, and in 2011 joined Congregation Etz Chayim as executive director.

The Bob-Waksberg family at a bar mitzvah in Westchester Country, N.Y., in 2000. Raphael, right, was 16 at the time. From left: Ellen Bob, Amalia Bob-Waksberg, David Waksberg, Becky Bob-Waksberg, and Raphael Bob-Waksberg. (Courtesy of Raphael Bob-Waksberg via JTA)

Humor was always central to life at home.

“We like to laugh … big belly laughs,” Ellen Bob recalled. “David is a great storyteller and joke teller. He would regale the kids with routines from Steve Martin, Woody Allen … and songs from Tom Lehrer. I’m more of a wisecracker. Like my son, nothing gives me more pleasure than to make someone laugh.”

She said she is always pleased when her son makes a point of telling his interviewers (and there are many) that his was a happy childhood, and that BoJack’s family is not based on his family of origin.

“I’m delighted to be known as Raphael’s mother, as long as people don’t think BoJack’s mother is based on me,” she said, alluding to Beatrice Horseman (Wendie Malick), a neglectful and abusive heiress to a sugar cube company who appears primarily in flashbacks.

In looking back on his childhood and adolescence, Bob-Waksberg pointed to Mid-Peninsula Jewish Community Day School (now Gideon Hausner Jewish Day School), the Palo Alto Children’s Theatre, and the Gunn High School drama program as other outlets where his creativity was rewarded.

“In school, there were a handful of teachers who understood me. And there were many who didn’t. I didn’t make it easy for them,” he joked.

Rabbi Sheldon Lewis, rabbi emeritus at Congregation Kol Emeth in Palo Alto, recalled Bob-Waksberg as “not an easy student” in the religious school.

“It was because he was so clever and beyond his years in creativity, humor and mischief,” he said.

Despite having grown up in the Palo Alto academic pressure cooker, Bob-Waksberg was never saddled with any expectation that he would become a doctor, lawyer, or founder of a startup. His parents were always supportive of his creative leanings.

“It was pretty clear to me that he was going to need to figure a way to make a living through the arts because it was the only thing he knew how to do,” his mother said.

Like “BoJack Horseman,” the shows Bob-Waksberg is writing for Netflix and Amazon are also animated. It’s not a format the graduate of Bard College in New York originally planned to work in when he moved to Los Angeles after trying his hand at comedy writing in the Big Apple.

In his spare time, he collaborated off and on for a decade with his high school friend, illustrator Lisa Hanawalt, on a cartoon featuring human-like animals, which became the basis for “BoJack.” Hanawalt is now a production designer and producer for the show.

The program was in development with Michael Eisner’s company, Tornante, for a couple of years before it went to Netflix, which wanted it to be put into quick production for a summer 2014 premiere.

“I didn’t know I would get into animation. I was initially writing for live action, but ‘BoJack’ is the one [project] that went,” Bob-Waksberg said.

He said this decade has been an exciting time to be working in animation, and that he has an appetite for more.

“Animation is a format, not a genre,” Bob-Waksberg said. “There is a lot to do in animation for adults. What has been done in the past has been limited in scope and has lived in the shadow of ‘The Simpsons.’ The new shows I am developing are about women, which is really fresh.”

A scene from the fifth season of “BoJack Horseman.” (Netflix via JTA)

Much has changed for Bob-Waksberg in the past few years. On the personal side, he was married a year ago.

Bob-Waksberg and his wife have not yet found a synagogue in Santa Monica that feels like the right fit for them, but they welcome Shabbat on Friday evenings at home.

“My wife grew up more observant than me, so she has been a good influence and has helped me reconnect to Jewish practice,” Bob-Waksberg said. “We even had benchers [blessing booklets] at our wedding, which surprised my parents.”

Professionally, Bob-Waksberg has become more aware of his role and responsibility in the pop culture universe. First, he checks himself as to whom he hires, ensuring that he brings in writers and cast members of diverse backgrounds.

Additionally, he doubts he would now make some of the jokes he made about anti-Semitism, the Holocaust, and Nazis in the show’s first season.

“Those jokes were made in the spirit of Mel Brooks, in the sense that you have to laugh at the things that scare you,” he said. “But now I think a lot about how what is said on ‘BoJack’ will be perceived by the audience.”

Speaking to that point, Bob-Waksberg recalled how, as he was growing up in Palo Alto, other kids would tease him with anti-Semitic taunts they had heard on the Comedy Central animated series “South Park.” The writers of that show meant it to be satirical and did not intend to actually be anti-Semitic, but that was lost on Bob-Waksberg’s young tormentors.

He would hope that viewers take dialogue from “BoJack” in context, understanding that it is not what the writers are saying, but rather the flawed characters’ thoughts or opinions. However, Bob-Waksberg said he is more averse these days to taking a writing risk, lest the point be lost or weaponized.

“If we make jokes that are bad for society,” he said, “then it is on us.”

Source: https://www.timesofisrael.com/the-creator-of-bojack-horseman-comes-from-a-home-of-funny-jews/

0 notes

fieldsofplay · 6 years

Text

“Everything but the Inflammatory Remarks.” Kanye, Bowie, & Bad Things from Good Artists

When Kanye first started showing affection for Trump during his aborted Life of Pablo tour I didn’t really bat an eye. Besides perhaps being the greatest living musician (the Rolling Stones are still alive and kicking lest we forget) Kanye is known for two things: being provocative, and unrelenting egomania. The interrelation of those three things isn’t accidental. No one becomes a star by hiding their art and avoiding the media, well, except for your Jeff Mangum types, but then again he hasn’t released an album since 1997. Kanye married into America’s most vapid family, so it’s hardly surprising he would admire the patriarch of the second-place finisher in those rankings.

The elephant in the room of course, as it always is, is race. We can understand the egomaniacal affection, but how could the man who wrote New Slaves embrace the klan loving President of Amerikkka? As a privileged white male I’ll leave this side of the matter to Ta-Nehisi Coates, who of course already said everything far better than I ever could, but I will just add, as a brief aside, that when Kanye again started tweeting out his love for Trump, my first thought was also, “I’m not Black, I’m OJ.”

What I want to investigate here in this little slice of essayistic navel-gazing are the complicated and contradictory emotions I experienced the first time I unwittingly encountered Kanye’s music following his latest spat of agitprop self-expression. I think the first instance was a bit of Power playing in the background of some NBA playoff game bumper music, and then hearing some bars of All of the Lights streaming out the window of idling auto. My first unreflective emotional response to hearing those beloved songs was “man, fuck Kanye,” and I have to admit, I was startled by that reaction.

I built my (failed) academic career on the attempt to separate fiction from reality, text from context, art from artist. In advocating for transhistorical interpretation I alienated myself from my department at the University of Michigan and ultimately shiprwrecked my career upon a deserted intellectual island of my own making. I mention that by way of saying I’ve invested a lot of (das) kapital over the years in defending the unpopular opinion that you shouldn’t judge a book by its by-line or copyright date. Surely Kanye should be my greatest cause celebre, for what does Yeezus have to do with the embrace of a bigot years after its release? Yeezus was great before anyone ever wore a dumb red hat proclaiming to the world their small-mindedness. And yet there it was, I heard the bars, and I couldn’t help but think “I miss the old Kanye.”

What I want to know is, can we hate Trump and love Kanye? Is it a different question if I ask, can we hate Trump and love Kanye’s music? What about, can we hate Kanye and love Kanye’s music? I think the answer remains a very strong “yes,” but not perhaps for the most obvious reason. There is a dangerous trend in America today, where rather than grapple with art made by problematic artists we are turning instead to censorship. Louis CK did some pretty shitty things to his female employees and his film was pulled from theaters. R. Kelly did some truly awful things to children and his songs were removed from Spotify’s playlists. Some applaud these moves, some condemn them. I see both sides, but I still come down squarely against censorship.

One side will say you can like Ignition (remix) without liking R. Kelly the (despicable) man, and the other side will say your eyeballs and dollars support the man whether you want to or not. Fair debate. However, removing the art because of the artist only further places us in a cultural silo of our own creating. Again, some will say this isn’t a bad thing, for who wants to be in a silo with sexual assaulters and child molesters? Clearly no one. But who wants to be in a silo with only ideas they agree with, that don’t challenge them, that pretend there is only beauty in what is in actuality a very ugly world? To put my proverbial cards on the desk, I’m all for you burning your R. Kelly records and saying enough is enough, but I’m not for some corporate entity removing the ability to decide for yourself all together.

This article isn’t about R. Kelly because R. Kelly is an entirely different matter. This article is about Kanye and his avowed love of Trump. I hate Trump and everything Trump stands for and all who stand with him, does this mean I now hate Kanye? Does this mean I now hate My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy? In order to think through this I want to pose you a historical example, and let you come to your own conclusions as I come to terms with mine.

In a series of interviews in the mid ‘70s David Bowie said some truly despicable shit. Now that the years have gone by and he has unfortunately passed out of this world it doesn’t really come up anymore. When he died there was no handwringing about his problematical utterances. He was praised as a hero. If the things he said about fascism and Hitler come up at all anymore, they are brushed aside as indicators of just how much cocaine he was doing while recording Station to Station, instead of held against him as the earnest musings of an open fascist whose records should be burned and who should be cast out of the cannon.

In a 1975 interview with NME Bowie said the following:

"Like the original aim of rock and roll when it first came out was to establish an alternative media speak voice for people who had neither the power nor advantage to infiltrate any other media or carry any weight and cornily enough, people really needed rock and roll.

"And what we said was that we were only using rock and roll to express our vehement arguments against the conditions we find ourselves in, and we promise that we will do something to change the world from how it was. We will use rock and roll as a springboard.

"But it's just become one more whirling deity, right? Going round that never-decreasing circle. And rock and roll is dead."

Does he really believe that?

"Absolutely. It's a toothless old woman. It's really embarrassing."

So what's the next step?

"Dictatorship," says Bowie. "There will be a political figure in the not too distant future who'll sweep this part of the world like early rock and roll did.

Along those same lines Bowie said the following in an interview with Playboy in 1976:

Christ, everything is a media manipulation. I’d love to enter politics. I will one day. I’d adore to be Prime Minister. And, yes, I believe very strongly in fascism. The only way we can speed up the sort of liberalism that’s hanging foul in the air at the moment is to speed up the progress of a right-wing, totally dictatorial tyranny and get it over as fast as possible. People have always responded with greater efficiency under a regimental leadership. A liberal wastes time saying, “Well, now, what ideas have you got?” Show them what to do, for God’s sake. If you don’t, nothing will get done. I can’t stand people just hanging about. Television is the most successful fascist, needless to say. Rock stars are fascists, too. Adolf Hitler was one of the first rock stars.

#54: PLAYBOY: How so?

BOWIE: Think about it. Look at some of his films and see how he moved. I think he was quite as good as Jagger. It’s astounding. And, boy, when he hit that stage, he worked an audience. Good God! He was no politician. He was a media artist himself. He used politics and theatrics and created this thing that governed and controlled the show for those 12 years. The world will never see his like. He staged a country.

Despite saying these things we don’t think of Bowie as a “problematic” artist. There is no movement to expunge Hunky Dory from Spotify, no AntiFa anger spills out when Fame starts playing on the dancefloor. Why? Is this nothing more than further proof of the old adage “tragedy plus time equals comedy”? Why does Bowie get a pass but Kanye gets raked over the hot-take coals?

Perhaps if I were a better writer I’d have an answer for you, but this isn’t really an essay with a pithy moral at the end. I spent a lifetime separating art from artist, but we are finally having a reckoning about what it means to tacitly endorse awful people (spoiler: it means we perpetuate the very horrors we claim to stand against). The Civil War Monuments are coming down, and to that I unequivocally say: thank fucking god. But, isn’t there a difference between a celebratory statute in a town square honoring Robert E. Lee, and an unequivocally good piece of art (Ignition (remix), Hannah and Her Sisters) made by an unequivocally awful person (R. Kelly, Woody Allen)? Some will tell you Hannah and Her Sisters is a Civil War Monument celebrating sexual assault, others will tell you the movie has nothing to do with the awful deeds of the man who made it. What if Robert E. Lee made a statute that was objectively beautiful, had nothing to do with the civil war, but we still knew precisely who made it? Should that come down too? Some will tell you yes, any badge or symbol of slavery should be blighted from the face of the earth along with the horrendous system it signifies. Others will say no, if the statute itself is not racist the racism of its creator does not automatically imbue it with the politics of its maker. Finally others will suggest a third way, keep up the statute made by Lee, but put a little placard next to it saying it’s a good thing made by a bad man, think of it precisely what you will.

Obviously I’ve used a very loaded example, but it’s easier to grapple with the idea of a non-racist statute made by a racist than it is to think about the current status of New Slaves. Not only is New Slaves not a racist song, it’s an anti-racist song. It’s a song of beneficial empowerment. We don’t have to struggle over the meaning of New Slaves because New Slaves unequivocally says something we (by which I mean, non-assholes) can not only get behind, but advocate for, fight for. When Yeezus came out in 2013 we had to question many things about Kanye West, but we didn’t have to question his support of a racist regime. In 2018 that no longer holds true. New Slaves is still New Slaves, but now Kanye is wearing a MAGA hat, making us ask, what does it all mean?

This brings me back to Bowie. Kanye is the hard example because Kanye has always been hard to love, even before he wore that stupid fucking hat. Kanye wrote a song called I am a God, and he meant it. No one ever loved Kanye more than Kanye, and that turned a lot of people off, all the while his music was turning a lot more people on. Bowie has been many things, Ziggy Stardust, the Thin White Duke, but he has never been a figure of scorn the way Kanye at times has been. And yet, some other Bowie quotes from those same interviews perhaps shed more light on the Kanye-conundrum than Kanye (or myself) ever could. From that same Playboy interview quoted above:

#26: PLAYBOY: Do you ever have trouble deciding which is the real you?

BOWIE: I’ve learned to flow with myself. I honestly don’t know where the real David Jones is. It’s like playing the shell game. Except I’ve got so many shells I’ve forgotten what the pea looks like. I wouldn’t know it if I found it. Being famous helps put off the problems of discovering myself. I mean that. That’s the main reason I’ve always been so keen on being accepted, why I’ve striven so hard to put my brain to artistic use. I want to make a mark. In my early stuff, I made it through on sheer pretension. I consider myself responsible for a whole new school of pretensions–they know who they are. Don’t you, Elton? Just kidding. No, I’m not. See what I mean? That was a thoroughly pretentious statement. True or not, I bet you’ll print that. Show someone something where intellectual analysis or analytical thought has been applied and people will yawn. But something that’s pretentious–that keeps you riveted. It’s also the only thing that shocks anymore. It shocks as much as the Dylan thing did 14 years ago. As much as sex shocked many years ago.

If I took the name off the answer I’m pretty sure you would be willing to believe that Kanye said that. This is the contradiction that lies at the heart of the art-artist conundrum. We cannot take art at face value, because art is intentionally designed to elicit a response. It is fiction, which isn’t to say it’s false, but is to say it’s designed with a point in mind. Many have said Kanye’s tweets are designed preciously with this theory in mind, and still others have said “nope, he’s just an asshole.”

I’m not here to tell you what to think. If you want to stop listening to Kanye because he supports an awful man, go for it. If you can separate the rap from the (w)rapper, you do you. The whole key is just think about why you judge the way you do. Some hate the player, and some hate the game. The one thing this piece is meant to advocate against is merely uncritically disengaging with anything you disagree with. I’ll probably take a break from Kanye for a bit, but I’m willing to wager when this is all said and done, we’ll remember him just like Bowie. Then again I’m a terrible gambler. I’ll just leave you with Bowie’s last line from that Playboy interview:

#77: PLAYBOY: Last question. Do you believe and stand by everything you’ve said?

BOWIE: Everything but the inflammatory remarks.

#kanye west #david bowie #trump #facism

0 notes

lindyhunt · 6 years

Text

Everything That Upset the Internet This Week

As always, there were lots of hot topics creating buzz on the web this week. So if you feel like “getting into it” with a friend, family member, or total stranger over the next couple of days, here is everything you need to know. Isn’t controversy fun?

Selena Gomez gets spray tanned for the MET Ball

THE STORY: Selena Gomez arrived at the MET Gala red carpet in a custom Coach night gown and a darker-than-normal spray tan.

THE REACTION:

People really let selena gomez go looking like an oompa loompa in a night gown oh my god girl fire whoever gave you that spray tan #MetGala pic.twitter.com/HCSX32tP2j

— Angela (@angela747_) May 8, 2018

@selenagomez did blackface at the #metgala that is not ok

— QueenSarah (@Sarah645Stupid) May 8, 2018

Selena Gomez proves time and time again that she’s a shitty person (cough, working with Woody Allen) but she basically wore blackface to the Met Gala like HI you’re not that color. Why do people still stan her 🙄

— Noodles Loon (@gremilylane) May 8, 2018

RIGHTEOUSNESS OF THE RAGE: Was this a bad spray tan? Yes. Even Gomez seems to realize she didn’t nail the look. After receiving some harsh Internet judgement, Gomez meme’d herself on her Instagram feed with a video of her “running away” from her MET Gala photos. So she’s in on the joke guys, it’s okay!

But, was this blackface? I really don’t think so. This is just a bunch of people trying to create controversy where there is none. Gomez is more tan than we’re used to seeing her, but she is in no way painting her skin to mimic or mock a different ethnicity. There is a whole spectrum of skin tones between black and white.

Brooklynn Nine-Nine is cancelled

THE STORY: After five seasons, Brooklyn Nine-Nine has been canceled by Fox.

THE REACTION:

What? No. I refuse to believe this. https://t.co/9IwRlGjzWU

— Matt Friedman (@mattfriedman4) May 10, 2018

HOW DO YOU CANCEL THE BEST SHOW ON TELEVISION? ARE YOU KIDDING ME????!!! https://t.co/BzfLEtzD6T NINE-NINE! #Brooklyn99

— Rainbow Rowell (@rainbowrowell) May 10, 2018

THIS IS WHY WE AS A SPECIES DESERVE TO BE OVERRUN BY RACCOONS https://t.co/msPxR2pfWY

— Anne T. Donahue (@annetdonahue) May 10, 2018

RIGHTEOUSNESS OF THE RAGE: I haven’t watched this show, but I can relate to this feeling. Why exactly is there only one season of Freaks and Geeks? And why hasn’t Netflix somehow brought it back to life? Lucky for Brooklyn Nine-Nine fans, NBC swooped in to save the day, and will bring the series it into season six on their network. Sometimes good things happen, even in 2018.

Muslims find acceptance in the latest episode of Roseanne

THE STORY: Last weeks episode of Roseanne, ABC’s most controversial revival series, Roseanne recoils from her new Muslim neighbours: she spies on them, insists to her sister that their huge supply of fertilizer could mean they’re “a sleeper cell full of terrorists getting ready to blow up our neighbourhood,” and suggesting that their wifi password would be “deathtoAmerica123.” But by the end of the episode she learns that they might just be people after all!

THE REACTION:

Roseanne thinking her Muslim neighbors are terrorists isn't funny. Not even for a second. Muslims deal with that bigotry on a daily basis. And it's dangerous.

— Elham Khatami (@ekhatami) May 9, 2018

Are we really at the point where we’re thanking Roseanne for “humanizing” Muslims in the same episode that she insulted us and called us terrorists? Thought we’ve moved past that low bar of wanting acceptance and representation.

— Danna (@danna_nano) May 9, 2018

RIGHTEOUSNESS OF THE RAGE: I haven’t watched this show either… but I have read a lot of tweets and think pieces addressing the controversy. The best explainer I saw came from Arab American Institute: “The attempt to humanize an Arab Muslim family through acceptance by a bigoted white person implies that Roseanne, as a white American, is needed to certify either the Americanness or humanity of the Arab Muslim family. ”

A movie-goer live tweets Greta Gerwig watching I Feel Pretty

THE STORY: When Greta Gerwig attended an afternoon screening of I Feel Pretty on Wednesday, a fellow moviegoer took it upon herself to live-tweet the Lady Bird director’s reaction. It wasn’t all laughs, but it was all loud. In a now viral thread, Twitter user Jaye Hunt narrates the experience of sitting behind the Oscar-nominated filmmaker and her friends in a New York theatre.

THE REACTION:

This… really sucks? People, even public figures, deserve to exist without their actions being liveblogged. https://t.co/MeOrSEhI2O

— Daniel D'Addario (@DPD_) May 10, 2018

Greta Gerwig allegedly bashed I FEEL PRETTY loudly in a theater. I would expect a director to have more respect for audience and filmmakers. https://t.co/bEP0p82QQK

— David Lawrance (@davidlawrance) May 10, 2018

Everyone in this story, from the subject of the story to the live tweeter, is completely fucking intolerable. https://t.co/5QnbR653ic

— Sonny Bunch (@SonnyBunch) May 10, 2018

RIGHTEOUSNESS OF THE RAGE: Who’s in the wrong here? Is it Gerwig, the acclaimed filmmaker who allegedly disrupted and disrespected the moviegoing experience? Is it Hunt, the live-tweeter, who came across a celeb in the wild and shared the shocking encounter with her followers? Speaking loudly in a movie isn’t cool—but neither is typing on your phone throughout the entire thing. You can read Busy Phillips—who stars in I Feel Pretty and is buddies with Gerwig—reaction to the drama here.

0 notes

firstjustgoin · 7 years

Text

An (About to be) Overheard Conversation

4. Start with a conversation. One you’ve overheard, or at least pretended you have (you’re always doing that). Start with a sentence that can never be taken back or a l’esprit de l’escalier moment or whatever.

By the time I leave work the rain is coming down hard –– one of those mid-August deluges that makes New York seem small and humble, at the mercy of water that might just wipe it off to sea. I don’t mind when it rains like this usually because the restaurant gets slow, only a few huddles of folks ordering another glass to wait out the rain, and it takes half the time to close as usual.

Juan pretends to look away and polish the glasses along the bar while I turn the sign to Closed 15 minutes early. It’s a game we play, he and I. He might be running the joint now, but I know I can push him because I remember when he was just a kid bar backing after class. He’s grown now with kids of his own but we’re both still here, closing up on rainy August nights while the lights off Canal bounce across puddles and women in high-heeled boots skate along, giggling and screaming.

I like New York in the rain, but I’m never prepared for it. It’s been weeks of the sky holding its breath, the clouds heavy with moisture but stealing themselves against release. This heat has gotta break eventually, I hear moms whisper to each other on street corners, their faces full of the same kind of desperation I imagine on moms in cities ravaged by war. In the city of Broadway and Breakfast at Tiffany’s, it’s no surprise that we’ve got a penchant for the dramatic. Even the rain here wants to be immortalized in the neon signs above the Majestic.

After I say goodnight to Juan, I open the door with an extra force as if I’m pushing back a hurricane. In moments like these, I always wonder why I refuse to read weather reports. Daniel hated this about me, he always hated women who didn’t take care of themselves but then complained about the results. If I got Freudian on him, I’d try to make it about his mom, but he hated when I got philosophical too. Those were the days when I read Camus and Heidegger and quoted them in dark corners of the Brooklyn loft parties I never get invited to anymore.

Everything begins with consciousness and nothing is worth anything except through it. A truly New York philosophy. All of the struggle, everything Woody Allen romanticized –– the fifteen strange hands gripping the same sticky pole on the subway, the thick smoke of garbage that settled along every street during the summer, the fifteen dollar cocktails and twenty dollar hamburgers, the grime that lived between everyone’s toes no matter how much you isolated yourself on the fiftieth floor of a Central Park West co-op building –– this was the pain we had to work through to get real satisfaction from life. My friends who have long since abandoned the signal problems in the tunnels below the East River for sunnier, more temperate climates don’t ascribe to this philosophy anymore –– Why not just be happy? Couldn’t that be satisfying too?

All this to say, I find myself more often than not fast walking to the subway from the restaurant, as if I could outrun the pellets of water speeding down 1000 times a millisecond. So here I am, careening through the cobblestoned sidewalks, holding my apron above me like it can protect me from anything more than flour stains on my pants.

I don’t quote the Myth of Sisyphus too much anymore. After I dropped off the Master’s track and stayed working at Galli for eight years too long, thinking about why people don’t just kill themselves in the face of a cruel and unrelenting world hasn’t kept up the same appeal as it once did. None of it has really. The books and articles I was going to write, all of the shitty plans Daniel and I made to learn German and move abroad, bicycling around Brooklyn late at night in search of the perfect slice. I’m lactose intolerant now, like everyone who lives south of Greenpoint and north of Park Slope. I wonder what Sisyphus would think about higher consciousness if he was rolling his boulder towards a pizza parlor he couldn’t eat at.

It’s less than four blocks to the Canal Street station from the restaurant, and after almost a decade of taking those steps to the station, I don’t need any road markers to find my way there, even in a flash flood. It’s barely 11 and Mercer’s dead, which is eerie on a Friday but it makes me feel like I’m in a Murakami novel –– alone in a crowded city, a bubble of quiet amidst the clamor. I transitioned from existentialism smoothly into surrealist fiction for awhile, but I’d be lying if I said I’d read a book in the last 16 months. I keep them around me for show, of course, in case I get a visitor who asks me what I’ve been up to, I can just gesture to my dusty friends. The kinds of visitors I get these days don’t usually ask that many follow-up questions. It’s hard to pin down the irony of life as an adult in New York –– the same kinds of people who as kids teased me about being a book nerd grew up to be snobs who can’t wait to get their manicured nails on the latest Zadie Smith.

After I swipe myself through the turnstyle, I can feel the rumbling underbelly of the subway station as the J train spits its way away from the platform. It’s late enough that I’m certain another won’t be coming for at least fifteen minutes, so I prepare to settle in against a pole in this sauna. I’ve spent enough time leaning against this pole late into the night, I feel like I should get a plaque to commemorate its allegiance to me.

It doesn’t matter how long you’ve been living here, you’ve got to take the small things that you can feel ownership over, since most of this city feels like it could crumble through your fingers at any moment. When I first moved to New York in a fit of passion and wide-eyed idealism only possible in the first couple months after college graduation, I saw New York as a grand stepping stone. This was not a place you could get mired in. As soon as it no longer held any value for you, you could springboard out towards a million new points of light. Daniel used to say that he loved that about me –– how I mirrored the city’s frenetic energy with my own, desperate to see more, do more, be more than I had been the day before, how I wanted to be constantly reincarnated without having to die.

My world is much smaller than it was ten years ago and even five. My world is the 600 steps from my apartment to the subway and the 400 steps from the subway to the restaurant. It is the 10,000 steps I run twice a week going nowhere, overlooking a rare parking lot in Bushwick. The 500 steps from the gym to the grocery store where I walk a couple hundred steps in circles looking for the best price on whole grain bread and oranges and penne noodles. Even the worlds I live in while I’m sleeping are smaller than they used to be. I’ll be replaying the same conversation I had with the Italian family who are visiting New York only to eat at an Italian restaurant, helping them decide the best wine for the fish, except the children will be wearing matching light blue frilly frocks and pink bows tied around the middle instead of whatever sparkly I heart New York crap they actually wore the previous afternoon. I’ll wake up and remind myself to stop watching The Shining before bed, but at least it helped me decipher my dreamworld from reality.

I lean forward off the platform in search of a light. Sometimes I feel a great sense of adrenaline from this act –– shuffling the tips of my toes towards the past the cautionary yellow line, craning my neck over the edge so my head balances magically over the tracks a few feet below. It would be so easy to just fall, for a rushed stranger to bump my side or a gush of wind from a train on the adjacent track and then to become a member of a statistic displayed on every subway car.

In 2015, 476 People –– including A 32-year-old Woman Who Didn’t Really Mean To Fall, But Also Didn’t Really Try to Stop Herself From Falling –– Were Hit By Subway Cars.

I see the light growing from the cavern, coming into focus as it nears the station. I step back from the yellow line and wait like the good socialized New Yorker that I am for the train to come to a full stop before the crowding the door to scan for open seats. The train car that pulls up in front of me is nearly empty, which usually is the sign of a broken air conditioning system or the smell of death, but I step in anyways. Cold air and a neutral subway scent greet me. There’s only one other person in the car, sitting a couple sections away. As the subway doors close and I settle into my plastic bench, I hear a quiet muttering that first sounds like gibberish but I begin to pull out full sentences.

“To love, to life, to your happily ever after…”

0 notes