#naturally this post is very biased to my own taste in music so some genres are really under represented hehe

[daz4i]

i’m bored and i said i’d do it like a week ago so. what music i think bsd characters would listen to, brought to you from a guy who does not know that much about music

partially inspired by the character songs but not entirely

feel free to give your own hcs too! i imagine ppl would disagree with some of my takes which is extremely fair hehe so go ahead and share your own!! >:3

atsushi: mainstream pop, but generally the more gentle and acoustic stuff, even rock or folk leaning pop. also bubblegum pop he’d still jam to anything that’s fun tho

dazai: mainstream pop but the obnoxious annoying stuff. hyperpop also. but he’s generally okay with any genre. likes checking out experimental indie stuff

kunikida: dad rock, oldies. also hot take he’s enjoy lo-fi stuff (one of the other ada members introduces it to him and he tries working with it to block out noise other members *cough*dazai*cough* make and it works wonders)

ranpo: pop but slightly older stuff like 70s 80s vibes, and jazz but the more upbeat and intense sort of jazz. extremely picky about what he likes and gets bored of songs p quickly, so he enjoys more complex and interesting songs

yosano: pop-rock or indie stuff. smooth jazz. sometimes in the mood for more violent rock and metal in part to drown out noises while working lol

tanizaki: this is 100% bc he occupies the same space in my brain as yosuke hanamura but 00s rock. nickelback and linkin park sort of music. some emo stuff

kenji: would it be cliche to say country. lmao but really i think he’d be chill with anything, but prefer acoustic and indie stuff

kyouka: i think she’d hear modern pop songs involving classic japanese elements and ascend. she’d vibe with bubblegum pop but prefer quieter stuff

fukuzawa: classic japanese stuff ofc. doesn’t particularly dislike anything but prefers quiet/mellow music if possible

akutagawa: do i even need to say goth rock + emo. look at him. that guy inhales symphonic metal for a living and you know it. his guilty pleasure is musicals but like, the old classic extra dramatic sort of musicals

chuuya: classic rock + heavy rock and even hardcore stuff i’d say. punk and its subgenres as well. likes some pop songs as a guilty pleasure but hides it vehemently

higuchi: bubblegum pop and pop punk. kinda similar taste to atsushi as in she prefers quiet and acoustic pop more

tachihara: rock, pop punk, loud and violent

gin: emo. warped tour-esque music. kinda similar to tachihara but edgier

hirotsu: classical music, smooth jazz, quiet and mellow

kajii: exprimental. i don’t need to explain myself

kouyou: classic japanese music

mori: orchestral stuff and smooth jazz. opera even

lucy: musicals and dramatic indie pop (i swear i can’t think of a better way to describe it. i’m sure what i mean has a specific name i don’t know unfortunately but if you know it you probably know what i mean). if anyone likes disney osts it’s her

poe: dramatic orchestral stuff, lots of organ and harpsichord sounds. on the flip side, likes lo-fi chill stuff too

steinback: country lmao

nathaniel: church music. amen

louisa: folk, acoustic, quieter and more mellow pop, as well as some more classic musical stuff

mark: mainstream radio pop no doubt no doubt. doesn’t go too deep into genres he just likes fun songs and whatever he can sing along to

melville: i say oldies and i mean OLDIES like 20s 30s sort of music. classical music as well

francis: oldies, rock n roll specifically. claims to like jazz to sound fancy but does not really get it

fyodor: i mean he’s p much the only character with a canon music taste, so. makes my job easier. he likes classical music

nikolai: realistically, classical music (based on how he doesn’t know the word “band” and asks if it’s like an orchestra in that one omake). emotionally, he would thrive on scene kid music, electroswing, hyperpop, and clowncore stuff. he would unironically enjoy penis music

sigma: indie pop. the most basic music you can imagine that is not quite fully mainstream. kinda bland stuff but that’s the way he likes it

fukuchi: classic old stuff but like, marches and orchestra music. while putting up his friendly persona, he’d scream along to dad rock music

sorry hunting dogs besties i don’t have any takes on you. yet

[ginnyzero]

Trusting Yourself as a Writer

It's Writer Wednesday, let's talk about writerly things!

Back in 2013, thewritelife.com posted an article about "The Worst Ways to Begin Your Novel: Advice From Literary Agents."  And excerpts of it have most likely been making the rounds on tumblr ever since. The post that crossed my dash had over 30,000 notes. I reblogged it with a few I felt were relevant to my own feelings. Before you read, remember, agents are human beings with tastes, preferences and biases like everyone else. They're expressing an opinion not a fact. The problem with an agent's opinion is that they hold a modest amount of power over writers who want to be traditionally published. (Problem 2, they often express their opinions as facts.)

One of the quotes is by Kristen Nelson of Nelson Literary about how the worst way fantasy novels is that they open up in the middle of action scenes (or people gathering herbs.) And her preference, directly contradicts the old adage advice of opening up in the middle of the story (and in science fiction and fantasy, that's usually some sort of action scene unless it's leaning towards the heavily political.) And Peter Miller of PMA Literary and Chip MacGregor of MacGregor Literary don't want you to open with lengthy exposition and description. These are contradictory pieces of advice in the same article. (Because what else is there?)

All writing advice from agents ends up being like this. Contradictory.

Changes quickly and mostly negative. Agents very rarely use the internet platform as a message board for what they really want in a story. (They are overloaded with queries already, why solicit more? I mean, if they posted their preferences more clearly and not "the next Tolkien or GRR Martin, they might actually get something suited to their taste.) It becomes easy to be blown about in every direction from every piece of advice you read and soon as a writer, you might have six drafts of your story and be so overwhelmed and befuddled not knowing which one is the best. Because you've lost your best temperature gauge when it comes to your writing, your own gut and instincts. The head becomes so filled with "professional" advice and self doubt about living up to that advice it drowns out your own voice!

(Really, read the bios of some of these agents. Most of them don't have English Degrees or come from any sort of storytelling background. Their advice is that, opinions and advice. They just happen to have industry contacts that an aspiring writer who wants to be published needs. There are no qualifications for writing a good novel and sometimes you have to wonder if there are any qualifications for being a good literary agent.)

So, when it comes to the best writing for your story, it all really comes down to how much do you trust yourself as a writer?

Your writing style and voice is unique. It's an expression of your inner self and it can't be forced and shouldn't be pushed to bend to fit some sort of "this is what is selling right this minute" box.

I'm not talking about bad writing such as purple prose, lack of any grammar skills, the inability to use spell check, lack of story structure and conflict and have flat characters. Because there are stories that are technically bad. There is no way around it. And it's sad. Not all of them can be edited to greatness either. Though enough of those still manage to get professional published through the big houses.

I'm talking about writing that is an expression of your creative process, thoughts and comes naturally to you without reaching for a dictionary or a thesaurus. Where the characters come to life on the page and the story has tension and questions to answer and is legible. (House of Leaves notwithstanding, legible is important.) The type of story that sucks you in and makes you want to curl up with it until it's done. And I don't really care about the genre, I've read just about everything at least once. A good mystery or romance novel can keep me just as enthralled as my favorite fantasy or science fiction novel.

I'm afraid that Kristen Nelson and I are never going to get along, because she doesn't post publicly on her website where it is easily found that she dislikes speculative fiction books that open with action scenes. Both of my books open with action scenes. Why? Because I'm an action adventure writer. Let's get this out of the way. You open my book, you read the first chapter, you know what you're getting into, fighting, explosions, people making hopefully funny quips.

I had to rely on my instincts when choosing the first paragraph for the Lone Prospect. Where was I going to begin this story? In the first draft of the Lone Prospect, chapter two was actually the first chapter, and chapter one was, oh, a third to halfway through the story? A third I think. I'd written the story chronologically. But was that really the best way to draw in the reader?

Here is the first paragraph of Chapter Two:

Brand leaned closer to the table. His nose almost hit the glowing green projection that rose from the table's surface. The motion made his black leather vest, covered in patches and a few studs and pins, gape open. His dark brown hair fell across his face and was slightly gray at the temples, feathered at the ends. His two-day growth of beard on his square jaw was going gray too.

Really, it's not very grabby. It didn't feel grabby to me as a writer or as a reader. It's mostly description, that tired old exposition and prose. Hey, we know Brand is older, he's wearing leather and has longer hair so he's probably some sort of rebel type. Oh, and there is some sort of green projection over a table. What's that about?

And here is the first paragraph of current Chapter One:

Pande-fucking-monium. Gideon jumped into the air over the chaos. Rockets built into his armor kept him above it all. Soldiers shouted and waved their arms. The back of Gideon’s head still echoed from explosions. Music, like a psychotic backdrop, blared out of the enemy camp’s speakers from Blake’s earlier hack. Conflicting smells of gunpowder, chemicals, animals, and the smell of humans living together in packed quarters overwhelmed his nose. And ahead of Gideon, an enemy soldier pulled a truck into the middle of his flight path.

Hey, not only do I drop you into the middle of a fight, there's more description. But in this paragraph, we've got some more questions, why is Gideon flying in the air with rockets in his armor? Who is Blake? Why is Gideon's nose so sensitive? It's more likely to grab the reader's attention for more than one reason.

The opening paragraph of The Lone Prospect is a deliberate homage to one of my favorite science fiction novels, Starship Troopers. By making this homage to Starship Troopers, the reader may or not pick up on it, but it will feel familiar to them if they like old school science fiction. It will feel familiar and they'll, hopefully, be more likely to pick up and read the book because of that familiarity. "Hey, maybe this is like Starship Troopers."

It's also a shout out the Expendables movie that also opens up in the middle of a mercenary job.

Maybe Kristen Nelson doesn't like Starship Troopers. (No idea.)

I can't afford fancy editors. I don't have a lot of friends who enjoy science fantasy or reading for that matter that I would entrust with a book to go "hey, this is good." I have myself, my decades of reading experience and another decade of writing experience writing character driven, action adventure, romantic comedies. That's it. I have no choice but to trust my gut and my instincts.

My guts and instincts are still my biases, opinions, preferences and likes. Just like an agent. Unlike an agent though, I have complete control over my work. I have complete control to say whether or not changing the opening scene is really the best way to go or not. I have complete control to reject or accept advice depending on how it fits the story, tone, mood and message of what I'm writing. It took a lot of time for me to build those skills and those instincts to find a story with a message that I truly wanted to tell. I abandon those instincts at my peril. Abandoning them can make me paralyzed with fear and when you are paralyzed with fear you don't write and nothing gets done.

All an agent can do is tell me, "No. I'm not going to represent this book to my publishing contacts." And I can then go, "Then you aren't the agent for me. Thank you for your time." If another person doesn't understand your writing, then they don't deserve you. It's time to move on, politely, especially if all they gave you was an "I'm not excited about this concept and I'm going to pass," as a response. (This is the standard agent rejection outside of silence.)

I don't appreciate it when agents put out blanket statements that tell me that they aren't willing to give an entire story a chance if the writing (such as the style, prose, grammar and concept) are good over something that's pretty standard in the genre. It's easy to tell someone "this is wrong, this is a problem" when it's something concrete, like bad grammar, purple prose, the story is too long to fit spec. But when it's an opinion like "I don't like stories that open with action sequences, thus, it's wrong and the worst way to open a story." They take an opinion and make it fact and then dismiss everything under that umbrella. It's much more difficult to give advice that is more along the lines of "in my opinion, I'd like to see more of..." or even making a positive comment about the concept or the writing or the voice of the story. It's easy to tear something down. It's hard to build something up.

There's a mode of thought that you have to tear something down in order to rebuild it. That's all well and good if you've joined the military. Here is my experience, that most of the time people go ahead and do the tearing down and completely forget about the building back up. That's what that article was about. It was all tearing down. It was about stating opinions as facts. There wasn't any building up. It would have been a better, more balanced, article that would have made me rant a little less if it was the "worst and best" ways  to open your story. That way, a writer can compare the opinions about best and worst and test their own instincts and opinions. (Or at least find an agent that their writing might actually appeal to.)

Look, I have been on the end of the constant tearing down. I've been to art school. I've sat through the critiques. I've bit my tongue and swallowed the misery of being torn apart on something that the school never taught me. A five minute demo about markers doesn't really count as teaching. (And there wasn't anything available in the major specifically for what we were doing at that time. These were supposed to be FAST illustrations. They instituted a class later, I took it and felt like I got worse.) As a result, I know I'm a decent designer. I'm not expressly innovative, but I design clothes that people would most likely wear. I can do a line drawing. I can do technical flats. My coloring skills to me, look and feel like shit. I don't bother coloring my fashion design drawings anymore because I can't get them to look the way I want them to look. I'm doing it for fun. Fun shouldn't be frustrating.

Maybe if someone had said to me, "Hey, Ginny, it's okay to have flat color. Maybe that's your style." Or. "It's okay to have thick colored pencil outlines. Those are strong enough on their own." Then, maybe, maybe, I'd trust myself on my drawings. My instincts wouldn't be so messed up on my coloring skills. Because I can do simple shading. Not always good on light source, but I can do shading. Rendering patterns and different fabrics, not really, but I can SHADE. I don't trust myself to do so anymore.

And that's what happens when you constantly tear someone down without supporting them in other ways and building them back up.

Your instincts and gut as a writer are there for a reason. Listen to them. The more experience you have in reading and writing and your own preferences when it comes to writing and knowledge of your writing style, the stronger and better your gut and instincts will be to push back against "this is a horrible way to write" that is stated like fact instead of opinion.

Of course, this is coming from someone with about 55 dollars worth of sales. Take from it what you will.

[ktbensondc]

Post Modernity & Visual Culture

Post-modernism can be difficult, slippery, and infuriating to define. It dates roughly from the 1980′s to present day (therefore making everyone living through this age Post-Modernists). To say something is ‘post-modern’ is to say that it is trendy or fashionable. However, because we are living through this period, it is difficult to step outside the now to truly understand it. For example, some theorists say it does not exist.

Post-modernism is defined by what it isn’t: modernism. It can be:

anti-modernism

after-modernism

hyper-modernism

Modernism roughly dates from the 1850′s to the 1970′s. It was a sustained period of innovation in the arts. Science and art worked together during this time of overarching political power structures and two world wars. The Second World War disrupted Modernism in Europe and saw it move to America. Modernism is rationalism - the combining of science and art (scientific industrial determinism - what happens in science and industry influenced art).

Key themes in visual culture:

Crisis of representation. Taking an image and correlating it with something to change/give it meaning.

Foregrounding of high (elitist) culture

Belief in grand naratives - modernism is about telling a great story

Modernism as determinism:

Charles Darwin - Origin of the Species

Theory of Relativity - Einstein

The idea of God is scientifically challenged during this time.

1889 Paris Universal Exposition saw the union of science and art

Any account of history is always biased. Within Modernism, we know about cubism because key note collectors pushed up the price. People from different time periods will push for certain trends and tastes, thus leaving us with a certain idea of that time, but we are seeing it through very specific lenses.

After-Modernism Post-modernity reacts to all of this. In Robert Hughes’ The Shock of the New (1980), he announced Modernism was finished. The idea at the time, was that there was nothing left to be ‘modernized’.

Today, we are living in a post-industrial, post-Fordian economic age.

Computerisation - the digital age

Global markets (liberalisation) - You can work for anyone, anywhere

Turbo capitalism vs Post capitalism - we’re in the dying stages of capitalism

No more over-arching story, no grand narrative - are we living through fragmentation? Now there’s no story as Post-modernism displaces it all. There are now individual stories that can be followed through the rise of the Vlogger on social media platforms such as Youtube, or the rise of the Instagram Model. Instead of an overarching story, we see smaller narratives and tune into the day-to-day life of particular people

When we look back, will this time period be a mess? Or will it have structure?

Artists have begun to promote the idea of the ‘individual narrative’. Simon Patterson’s The Great Bear saw him turn the infamous London Underground Tube Map into a map of his interests, thus creating his own personal narrative. Tracy Emin’s My Bed saw her turn the private public. She was promoting the individual in that moment. TV shows like Love Island promote this individual narrative too.

Are we anti-modernist? Lyotard expressed that “Reason has been shaped by a dishonest pursuit of certainty”. Life is too complicated and has a multitude of outcomes. It’s a complex reaction to the failures of Modernism: the holocaust, ecological disasters, for example. How can we look back on this time and think it good?

Anti-foundational - no universal truth, rejection of rationalism

All history is a story, History is written by the victors

Scepticism 

Contradictory attitudes to modern media. Trust in correspondents to tell the truth but the news is packaged for entertainment value so there will always be slippage

Feminists put forward anti-patriarchal perspectives. People who write and promote particular Modernist artists, do so with ideology. Feminists aim to trace back on that time period and write back in artists who were written out

No more rules & Post-truth politics - Emotion is now more reliable than expert opinion, Trump is a key example of how the truth can be denied - Brett Kavanaugh’s recent scandal is another example of how the truth can be denied

Institutional Patriarchy

Modernism Rational (Rules, targeting an audience)

VS

Post-Modernism Experimental/ Iconoclastic (All about the look, the text, being an artist)

Hyper-Modernism Is modernism really dead? Or are we living in an age of accelerating modernism? Is it still constant? A natural unfolding of modernism.:

Modernism is incomplete

Cyclical

Technological advancements

Cyber-Culture

Post internet -> Cultural Hybridity

Technological determinism -> Apple company.

Post internet is a potential name for our time period. Dealing with the ramifications of the post-internet age. Other names include: Post modernism, post capitalism, post structuralism.

Cultural hybridity - In the 50′s you are influenced by what is directly around you, but now you can look all over the world. Global and local ideas come together to make something new. 

Cult of technology i.e. Apple products became a symbol for wealth and high-earners in society. Regardless of the news stories coming out that Apple does purposefully make their products to break them around the time of new releases, people are willing to ignore this for having something deemed trendy and is acts as an icon for their worth.

Where is post-modernism? Merging of high and low cultural forms. High culture:

depth

high value

elitist

long lasting

politically motivated

Low culture:

surface

low value

gimmicky

mass-produced

politically influenced

They merge into one thing

Mutations of public space: Urban or fantasy architectural spaces - sampling of different historical period styles.

Global/cultural hybridity

Turbo consumerism

Hyper Reality

Nostalgia

Mutation of public space in shopping malls built to look the same all the way around. It is false and creates facades. Theme parks such as Disneyland mutate the vast public landscape and build a fictional reality. This is the ‘hyper-real’ in between fiction and reality.

The Unstable Image:

Hyper-real (semiotic overload)

Order of the simulacra

Bricolage

Parody + Pastiche

Intertextuality + Decoding

Hybrid genres and form

Irony

Retrovision

We are now living in the age of images, where there are more images now than ever before. Can this be defined as semiotic overload?  What happens when you have so many images?

Proliferation of images - we can no longer trust them as a result of the advancements of technology- namely, Photoshop which digitally alters an image. We can only look at the surface of the photograph and not dig deeper. The photograph used to mean reality and truth but now it is something to be questioned.

The degradation of the image- the more you copy, a copy, a copy, the further you get from the original. You are manipulating the image. The real is produced and the hyper-real is reproduced.

Reality television is a form of the real being retouched. It is formulaic and offer a falsified version of real life. American reality TV is often faked.

Andy Warhol was interested in celebrity culture and found that by repeating an image of famous actress Marilyn Monroe, he was able to get further away from her image being a photograph of her to something else entirely. The more you copy, the further away you get from the original.

Stage 1 - Reflection of reality Stage 2 - Masks and perverts reality Stage 3 - absence of reality Stage 4 - no relation to reality

Bricoalge - Sampling of images and ideas from the past (design, pop music etc) to create something new. Clash cover deliberately sampled Presley’s first album cover.

Parody - Referring to the original text and making fun of it. Putting new meaning to the original.

Pastiche - Images presented without reality or meaning. Taking the original but do not shine any new light. There’s no meaning, thus it is totally blank.

Intertextuality & Double coding - A text that refers to another text. References to other cultural sites/texts and appeals to different audience demographics i.e. The Simpsons - looking at 2 audiences, in this case, children and adults.

Hybridity & Irony - (Within film) Crushing genres together to create something new. Irony plays with the familiar models.

Retrovision - Nostalgic culture. Reinterpreting or repackaging the past in our own image. Taking all the hits of a previous time to look back on, but also stripping it of its original meaning as a side effect.

Society of the Spectacle:

Mediation - life lived on or through the screen

Multi-medialtiy

Complexity and simulation is the new reality

News is mediated.

Post-modernism - Why bother diffing for the truth? New media technologies means intense personal narratives. The general public are constantly over-dramatising and self editing what they share online, digitally altering the memory of the real life event.

However, in the end, post-modernism is a contested term. It could mean anything.

[if-only-angels-could-prevail]

here’s my LONG ASS POST where i talk about my favorite movies of the year!* i included 11 favorites, 6 alternate choices, a list of my favorite performances, and a list of my favorite music in these movies.

*in this case, “year” means “awards season”

THE BEST ONES (11 picks because I couldn’t narrow it down to 10)

20th Century Women

After Mike Mills’ masterful ode to fatherhood in Beginners (a movie that changed my life as much as any movie ever has), he matches his predecessor and then some with 20th Century Women. This is a brilliant, moving, and funny rumination on womanhood and motherhood, on what it means to be a woman, and even an examination of what feminism means in America’s constantly-changing cultural landscape. Partly based on Mike Mills’ own childhood, he described the movie as a love letter to the women who raised him, and the affection and honesty is on full display. It examines three very different women, played by three wonderful actresses, and their effect on the adolescent Jamie, Mills’ own self-insert. It’s timely, political, charming, and full of stunningly relevant dialogue about gender conformity and what it entails. This is a movie about womanhood, for everyone.

American Honey

This is a movie best described by contradictions. It’s intimate and it’s epic, it’s dreamlike and it’s realistic, it’s devastating and emotionally fulfilling. There is very little story to speak of--Star is an 18-year-old woman who joins a ragtag group of young people who sell magazines across the country. The whole movie is meandering, but Andrea Arnold (a brilliant director, also check out Fish Tank) fills this simplistic storyline with so many quiet observations and confrontations that by the end, one feels both completely full and all the more curious. It is contemporary filmmaking at its most poetic and immediate.

Arrival

This is a movie that will leave (or rather, has left) everyone talking, which is exactly my type of science fiction. It’s a quiet testament to critical thought and language, and how thrilling it can be. My only quibble is that as wonderful as Amy Adams was (and she really was pitch-perfect), I think I might have enjoyed it more with unknown faces playing these characters. But that’s not the point. The point is there was one single moment--literally down to the very second--immediately before the end credits rolled when the entire movie clicked for me, and I was overjoyed. Such moments are extremely rare in film, and I can only hope other audiences experience (or did experience) the same ecstatic epiphany that I did in that final moment. 

The Handmaiden

A Korean gothic lesbian revenge story. I was sold as soon as I heard the description. This movie reminded me of all the most exciting plot-twisty mind-bending Hollywood creations (Gone Girl came to mind a lot), but the thrills were propelled even further by the sheer visual panache and gorgeous design work that are sometimes lacking in said genre. The acting was extraordinary as well. Another movie that’s probably best knowing very little about before you see it. It’s thrilling, violent, beautiful, and passionate storytelling. 

Hell or High Water

I’m slightly biased because I love the idea of the contemporary western (True Grit and The Homesman are two of my recent favorites), and this is a prime example of old-fashioned western filmmaking with a strong contemporary sensibility. Like 20th Century Women, it seems to exist in multiple generations, and even as the characters talk about something completely unrelated, I was acutely aware of the divide, of the fascinating visual contradictions. To me, this cultural conversation was the underlying force behind the way this old-hat story was told. But don’t get me wrong: this is a pitch-perfect screenplay, possibly the best of the year. And the cast is insanely good. 

Hidden Figures

I wanted to stand up and cheer at multiple points. I teared up during at least five different scenes. This is Hollywood filmmaking at its most shamelessly crowd-pleasing, and I ate it all up. I think when you have a story as worth telling as this one, a little crowd-pleasing is earned. It’s entertaining from beginning to end, and its cultural imprint (highest-grossing of all the best picture Oscar nominees) will be empowering from years to come.

Jackie

The best biopics are about more than one person. The best biopics both relate someone’s story with accuracy and use their story to confront the audience with their own selves. This is exactly what Jackie does: it’s an unsettling movie that gets under your skin, asking questions about celebrity, about luxury, about culture, about womanhood, all the while offering a stunning character portrait of one woman. This isn’t just a history lesson: this is a confrontational masterpiece, using this figurehead as a lens to examine our own selves. Jackie Kennedy passed away when I was less than a year old, but by the end of this movie, I felt like I knew her, and I felt like I knew myself better than I had before.

Lemonade

Beyonce casually reinventing the movie musical genre. Lemonade celebrates black femininity in a revelatory and empowering way. And yet, speaking as a white boy, it can be adored by anyone with an appreciation for aesthetic beauty, and anyone who loves music. (Seriously. Amazing music.) Like some other movies on this list, the narrative is thin, but it’s thematically tight, gripping, and always exuberant to watch. It will move anyone who’s struggled through an adult relationship, and even those who haven’t will feel privileged to watch this raw and emotionally naked portrait. It also proves that movie musicals need not be nostalgic fluff pieces (*cough*)--they can be current, they can be iconic, they can be culturally relevant, they can be hot-blooded, angry, sensitive, thrilling, poetic, feminist, and last but not least, unapologetically and exuberantly black.

Miss Sloane

I’m biased because I love Jessica Chastain. But his movie delivered. It’s about a fast-talking political lobbyist and how she navigates the political sphere, confronting her coworkers, her enemies, the law, and (most significantly) her own conscience. Its conversations are timely, as one would expect. But I found it most interesting as a contemporary morality play. Like Jackie, Miss Sloane is a character study which isn’t content being a mere character study--it confronts the audience on well-worn but ever-timely questions of how we define morality, happiness, and success. Some of the dialogue comes across as cheesy faux-Aaron Sorkin, which has drawn some criticism. The critics are right, but I ate it all up. This movie is more entertaining than any movie about a political lobbyist has any right to be, and even when it veers toward the unbelievable, it’s an awesome ride.

Moonlight

If I keep going back to the phrase “visual poetry,” it’s because this year in movies was an embarrassment of riches in that regard, Moonlight being a prime example. Every shot, every frame, felt so vital, deliberate, and beautiful. Moonlight is many things--a careful rumination on masculinity, a testament to parenthood, an artfully-crafted coming-of-age movie--but above all else, it’s a love story. A black gay love story, told with sincerity and a lot of heart. Quietly groundbreaking and cathartic.

Silence

Is it too bold to suggest this could be Scorsese’s masterpiece? It’s certainly among his most ambitious. And it’s painstakingly crafted, and dramatically tight. Andrew Garfield and Adam Driver (both acting up a storm) play 17th-century Jesuit priests who experience extended religious oppression in their efforts to spread Christianity throughout Japan. I know that sounds boring. But Silence is a force of nature, jaw-droppingly epic in scope. And yet for all its hugeness, for all its passion and melodrama, there is a stinging intimacy throughout that keeps one caring for these characters as if they’re longtime friends or brothers. And like every good period drama, it feels achingly contemporary, and the story feels heartbreakingly current. It’s a behemoth of a movie that my own paltry superlatives can hardly scratch the surface of, but trust me: it’s incredible.

ALTERNATES 

Allied

Great old-fashioned filmmaking without pandering to nostalgia. It’s an extremely handsome movie, and it’s dramatically taut, but the story still manages to defy your expectations at every turn. Brad Pitt and Marion Cotillard are wonderful movie stars, perfectly cast in this old-fashioned yarn. I wish it had managed to find more of an audience, because it’s top-tier Hollywood storytelling.

Fences

Fences is indisputably a great play, so even a version that feels like a self-conscious adaptation is still going to be awfully good. Viola Davis is perfect, as we all know. Denzel Washington's performance felt too big for my taste, as if he didn’t do much in terms of translating his performance from stage to film, but obviously he’s a wonderful actor and charismatic as hell. Since not everyone can see Fences onstage, this movie is a damn good substitute.

Hail, Caesar!

The Coen brothers are likely my favorite movie directors working today--their last three movies in particular have all been extraordinary (A Serious Man, True Grit, Inside Llewyn Davis). Hail, Caesar! seems like an unusual next step for them, going back to some of their zanier antics, with a loving tribute to old Hollywood. But this isn’t cheap nostalgia--this is a deliciously original story, full of wacky surprises, a LOT of kooky characters, and some completely unexpected gags. It’s pure entertainment, if you’re buckled up for a lot of weirdness.

The Jungle Book

Another “pure entertainment” entry. I was awed by this live-action remake of the Disney classic. The artistry in the CGI was mind-blowing, and it had such an awesome power on the big screen. The classic story was told with care and economy, but the design and visual beauty was the main draw. And I always support unprompted musical numbers in non-musical movies.

Kubo and the Two Strings

Beautiful, beautiful designs, and a wonderfully original and twisty story. In retrospect, I wasn’t sold on all the plot elements, and the mostly-white cast playing Japanese characters seemed indelicate for several reasons. But it was visually stunning, the music was gorgeous, and the story was laudably original and full of imagination.

The Lobster

What makes dystopian stories so appealing is they offer the audience a lens to look at their own society through a foreign and fictional concept. The Lobster is a great example, offering a look at society’s expectations for how we treat romance and sex. The script starts to verge toward too much concept at points, but I found it compensated for its heavy plot turns with a treasure trove of wry observations. The acting and the execution is good, but in this instance, the script is the main draw, and one that left me thinking long after I had finished.

INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCES I LOVED

Annette Bening and Greta Gerwig in 20th Century Women

Amy Adams in Arrival and Nocturnal Animals (despite my quibble about casting movie stars in Arrival, she delivered a brilliant performance)

Viola Davis in Fences

Kim Min-hee and Kim Tae-ri in The Handmaiden

The always-brilliant Jeff Bridges in Hell or High Water

The entire cast of Hidden Figures

Natalie Portman in Jackie

Beyonce in Lemonade

Joel Edgerton and Ruth Negga in Loving

Michelle Williams in Manchester By The Sea

Jessica Chastain in Miss Sloane

Ashton Sanders, Andre Holland, Jharrel Jerome, Naomie Harris, and Mahershala Ali in Moonlight

Nathan Lane in No Pay, Nudity

Andrew Garfield in Silence

Paul Dano in Swiss Army Man

MUSIC I LOVED

Hail, Caesar!

Hidden Figures

Jackie

The Jungle Book

Kubo and the Two Strings

La La Land

Lemonade

Moana

Moonlight

Silence

Swiss Army Man