#zeitgest

[rollercoasterwords]

#do not even get me STARTED on the overlap w zombie media godddds

I for one am very here to get you started on the overlap with zombie media if you’d like 👀 I love your meta and I think you’d have some really interesting thoughts!

omg omg omg ok kissing u on the mouth first of all second of all i don't even think this is going to be coherent it's just gonna be me rambling but it'll probably get way too fucking long so i'm gonna put it under a cut

okay so the thing about zombies is that they are the perennial "other," right, even more so than most other types of monsters, because the defining feature of the zombie is ego death. like--werewolves, vampires, frankenstein's monster...even creature features like alien or the thing, all these horror movie monsters still have some form of subjective identity, some sense of self, and usually the conflict comes because these monsters live in ways that cannot coexist with human life.

zombies have no identity beyond consumption. like, i would argue that the core feature of a zombie even moreso than just "reanimated corpses" is this violent need to consume--and, in that consumption, to reproduce, to create more zombies. (this gets played around with in a lot of more recent films but i'll get into that later). so, in a way zombies are the antithesis to humanity, because humanity requires coherent identity, and zombies do not have that. in a way, it's almost utopic; zombies are genderless, sexless, without race or capital or religion or politics or any of the things that creates conflict between humans. zombies typically have no issues with each other; theoretically, in a world with no humans and only zombies, there would be absolute peace.

but, ok. hang on. let me back up a bit. because the thing about trends in horror is that they reflect societal fears of the time, and zombies have changed quite a bit throughout history. like, most people agree that the original zombie movie was White Zombie in 1932, which i haven't personally watched but i have read about and like. my interpretation is that a lot of the fear the movie speaks to is fear of the foreign, particularly foreign men/the masculinized foreigner, and as much as i want to go on a rant about like the historical context surrounding that and the gendered dynamics that arise from the movie and how it can be read onto a war story (particularly since we're dealing with the lost generation here, like all these young people who are traumatized from wwi), i am going to reign myself in. and just say: in the original zombie movie the core focus of the zombie was not consumption--in fact, as far as i'm aware (again, haven't actually watched the movie), eating people wasn't even part of it. instead, the zombie was just a mindless puppet being controlled by somebody else, and this is because the zombie mythology that White Zombie was drawing from originated in Haiti, where the zombi was a reanimated dead body that was used as a slave (which really illustrates like. the colonial overtones of White Zombie, where a cultural figure representing the fear and pain of slavery was essentially taken and pasted into a story where the primary monster is the foreign threat to white americans).

SO it's not until 1968, Night of the Living Dead, that romero introduces cannibalism to zombies, and also introduces like...the concept of The Horde. like, in White Zombie, the focus is really just on a single zombie (although there are a few more), but i don't think it's until romero that we get this like cultural image of a horde of cannibalistic ghouls crowding in and attacking.

and so like--this is 1968, right? fear of the Other looks a bit different but is still very much swirling in U.S. politics--like, we've got the cold war, the civil rights movement, the vietnam war, the space race. and the monsters in Night of the Living Dead are actually tied to both fears about aliens and nuclear radiation--supposedly they were created by the radiation from an exploding space probe or something. so in a lot of ways, these mindless hungry monsters are standing in for any number of broad, "evil" forces that the American public is being constantly warned about. but at the same time, there is an argument to be made that romero critiques that fear in the survivor dynamics he portrays and especially in the way he ends the film with Ben's character (again, refraining from another sub-rant within my rant).

okay so THEN after Night of the Living Dead we see the rise in this cultural figure of the zombie, and in the later half of the twentieth century the zombie is normally portrayed as these hordes of reanimated, cannibalistic corpses. but we don't really get this boom in zombie media until the late 90s/early 21st century, particularly post 9/11 with the rise of the war on terror. once again, a lot of these nebulous fears about the "Other" are in the foreground--we've got the advent of the internet, which begins to globalize and connect the world in unprecedented ways; we've got the AIDs crisis and fear of disease and contagion; we've got the war on terror and fear of the cultural Other who takes the form of violent, mindless hordes in the american imagination. and we get not just movies like the 28 Days Later franchise but also other media like The Walking Dead comics (debuted in 2003) which will eventually become staples of the zombie genre.

and so by the early 2000s we've got the zombie established as a horror monster + cultural figure, which opens things up to start pushing the borders of what makes a zombie a zombie and sort of exploring with new forms of zombiism. and we start to see this more in a few different ways--one is the simple physical conventions, which i'm less concerned with, but i think 28 Days Later is the best example of this--suddenly, you not only have fast zombies, but also zombies that haven't died and come back to life at all, but rather have a monstrosity rooted in disease. but then you also have movies like I Am Legend, where we're starting to explore not only different physical forms of zombiism, but also the possibility of sentient zombies.

(sidenote--i know that we saw sentient zombiism explored somewhat before the 21st century, with movies like Day of the Dead, but i feel like it wasn't really until the 21st century that the concept started to take root. just let me have this one lmao)

and now the thing is--remember what i said earlier? a core feature of zombiism is ego death, and it's that ego death that is key to making a zombie a zombie and separating them from humans. so what does it mean when zombies suddenly become sentient--when they can communicate and form their own societies? where is the new line between human and zombie?

we start to see the sentient zombie really take root in the 2010s--2013 is a big year, with both the release of Warm Bodies and the initial air date of In The Flesh (an AMAZING show if you haven't watched it you should. i will forever be bitter that it was canceled). and we start to get a lot of movies that really, really blur this boundary between zombie and non-zombie. a non-comprehensive list of just ones i've seen that come to mind: All Cheerleaders Die (2013), Raw (2016), The Girl With All the Gifts (2016), Zombie For Sale (2019), and now, most recently, if you think about Netflix's Army of the Dead (2021), we see this growing trend of zombie media blurring the boundaries between human and zombie. and i've limited myself to movies for the most part here--this trend can also be found in zombie TV shows (think Santa Clarita Diet or even Z Nation--one of the most atrocious shows ever made which i think absolutely everyone should watch), books, probably even video games (although that's one area of zombie media i really haven't consumed, so honestly i'm not sure). like, at this point we've got zombies that can fall in love (I Am Legend, Warm Bodies, In the Flesh, All Cheerleaders Die, Zombie for Sale, Santa Clarita Diet), zombies that can build their own societies that mirror human ones (The Girl With All The Gifts, Army of the Dead), zombies that literally live and function alongside humans (Santa Clarita Diet, In the Flesh, The Girl With All the Gifts), even zombies that sire or give birth to children (Z Nation, Army of the Dead).

of course, there's still an abundance of zombie media making use of more "traditional" zombie monsters, too. but i think this steady increase in zombie media eroding the boundary between zombie and human has ultimately left zombies with only one uniting feature that holds true across almost every distinct form of zombie media from the latter half of the 20th century onwards (at least, i can't think of any exceptions): their cannibalistic hunger.

and so like this is where we start to hit the sweet spot of crossover with cannibal movies and zombie movies, because not all cannibals are zombies, but all zombies seem to be cannibals. and what does it mean that zombies, over the past fifteen years or so, have become monstrous less for their mindlessness and ego death and more for their violent consumption?

like, at the end of the day i feel like what's happening with the zombie genre and also the growing popularity of cannibalism as a horror trope (and the changing form it's taken--oh i could write a whole 'nother essay about the sexification of cannibalism. like, remember when cannibalism was very much "the hills have eyes" grossness? and now it's timothee chalamet in a romance movie?) are both spinning around this centerpoint of our own growing horror with the culture of consumption that late-stage capitalism has trapped us all in, where we are no longer individuals but instead only consumers. and, simultaneously, products to be consumed. and we are beginning to see more and more that the only forms of connection available to us are through consumption, and just like sentient zombies, we might be horrified of what we're becoming, but we cannot rid ourselves of this hunger for connection, even if the only avenues left to seek it are by consuming or being consumed.

so like, to summarize, i sort of see the evolution of the zombie as: monster representing fear of slavery -> monster representing fear of the proverbial Other -> monster representing fear of ourselves

like i think we are beginning to see a cultural shift in zombie media where it's less blatantly nationalist propaganda (or propaganda against whatever x group is being Othered in the cultural consciousness of the moment) and starting to turn towards these questions about the blurry lines of humanity as late-stage capitalism looms larger as like the Monster of Cultural Consciousness. which is!!!! so interesting to me!!!!

[astrologista]

anyone else notice that the closer you get to 30, the more gender-conforming you have to be, and the less people accept you being non-gender-conforming

[brf-rumortrackinganon]

“She played the "you can only see parts of the baby and not his face" game that all celebs play when they want a People payday for their baby. We didn't get a clear photo of Archie's face until the christening.” I’ve written in to other blogs but one of the reasons she failed her is that People has never paid for Royal baby photos so why would they start now? If I recall correctly, the Jolie Pitt twins were one of the highest paydays People might have paid for pictures. Alas with People’s new owners, the pockets aren’t that deep anymore. It’s been YEARS since they’ve paid any significant amount of money for baby photos. Unless they can sell more copies and circulation numbers have declined significantly, this never will be an option. Long story short, People will not be paying photos of non-Royal babies.

I didn't mean People Magazine literally. All the American supermarket tabloids bought celebrities' baby pictures in the late 90s through the mid-00s. People was just the more prolific one, having gotten Tom/Katie/Suri's pictures and Brad/Angelina/Shiloh's pictures.

And yes, the royals have sold their baby pictures before. Zara and Mike sold their pictures with Mia to Hello, which is the UK edition of People Magazine. So there is/was precedent for Meghan and Harry to have sold their baby pictures and People would've most likely considered buying them except the price Meghan was asking was probably too high. (The gossip suggests she was asking for William-and-Kate-level prices, which would've also been Tom/Katie and Brangelina prices.)

Then with the advent of social media, celebrities stopped selling their kids' pictures and started sharing them themselves. The whole act of selling baby photos to the magazines was to take power from the paparazzi - that's actually how it started. These were huge celebrities, pop culture zeitgest celebrities, that no one expected to get married (let alone to each other) and have children so the paparazzi/tabloid culture of the mid-00s were out in full rabid force for any crumb of information, any trace of a photograph about them and their new kids. So to make the paparazzi go away, and to make the paparazzi/tabloid photos worthless, these celebs made deals with magazines like People and Hello. It worked, until social media came along.

And it's because of social media that publications like People aren't buying any baby photos these days. The whole thing was moot to begin with. Meghan was barking up non-existent trees in the first place. She might've had better luck for a payday if she went back to Vanity Fair with Wild About Harry 2.0 or used her British Vogue edition for motherhood instead of ripping off an Australian publication with forces of change. (I think it was Australian. Don't remember and I'm too lazy to look it up at the moment.)

[morsesnotes]

Whenever I read reviews about Endeavour, either by critics or regular viewers, there's often a point where the complaint comes in about the ridiculous episodes. You know, the tiger episodes.

And I get it, Endeavour can be very silly. I have my issues with S3 (not as keen on Ride as most), but I have a couple thoughts on this.

I think the dreariness of the early seasons makes people underestimate how zany it was from the very beginning. Like, you've got a main character called Fred Thursday who looks and sounds as if he just stepped out of a 1940s noir film. There was an opera serial killer, two different Michael Caine guys, sketchy Masons, and the whole plot of Nocturne.

I always got the impression they were self-aware and leaned into camp because it's fun, and there's certain things you can only get away with in a period drama which they took full advantage of. Lewis referenced things like the Carry On films, Terry Pratchett, The Day Today, and Alan Partridge. He has a sense of humor!

This isn't to say any criticism of these types of episodes isn't warranted. S7 for example showed how they got carried away sometimes. But I feel like a lot of people misunderstood Endeavour as something it wasn't? That it was only trying to be a highbrow detective series, and then fell off the rails.

Endeavour isn't gritty or a cozy mystery - it's a secret third thing (and maybe this is why it never hit the cultural zeitgest the way other detective shows did). It's theatrical and vibrant while hitting on dark and significant themes. I can't think of anything else quite like it.

Is it ridiculous that there's episodes like "What if Jaws but in the middle of Oxford"? Sure, but I absolutely love that they exist. That kind of thing made Endeavour stand out and only added to the enjoyment for me.

Tl;DR:

[anonymoushouseplantfan]

I have always thought had Diana lived she wouldn't be as revered as she is now...

This is true - the tide was already changing for Diana with the divorce. She was getting called out for all of her jet-setting vacations and for leaving the boys to travel with her boyfriends. Her friendships with certain journalists were under scrutiny, and her affairs and the way she treated her lovers' families were becoming public knowledge. She wasn't getting the gushing press she was used to in 1997.

What saved Diana from the villain edit was her death. By dying so young and so tragically, all of her flaws and shortcomings were erased instantaneously. She had a longer legacy of good work (about 15ish years) that immediately overshadowed and obscured the 2ish years of problems that preceded her death.

Had Diana lived, she absolutely would not be anywhere close to being as revered. She would probably have continued to be a public figure, but her presence would be more like the other stars who arrived in the zeitgest of the '80s and '90s - still there, still well-known, but not as relevant and a mainstay in the tabloid "celebrities they're just like us" press. I hate to bring politics into it but I see Diana as being Clinton-like: she'd have supporters who wished she did more and haters who wished she did less but they would balance each other out and at the end of the day, everyone would care more about what she wore when she went out and how she got along with her sons' wives. And because of that, she'd continue to rank high in the public opinion polls, but only as long as she kept her messiness below Sarah's level.

Good points.

[reflections-in-a-critical-eye]

Did you see that Vogue article on rise of babygirls in men's fashion? They included Jimin Felix on the cover pic but then in the writeup mentioned RM has earned the moniker of babygirl ???? I mean out of all 7 of them I'd argue RM is the one who least exudes babygirl energy (but idk if they're including any and all gender neutral or feminine leaning fashion pieces as " babygirl " ) but anyway I digress... Thought you'd enjoy it!

Anon is talking about this article

And this is the definition

I find it not that suitable, especially if we think of the label itself. I know it's already understood that way in the pop culture zeitgest, but to me, the term evokes plays on gender traditional understandings of Lolita-like figures while simultaneously bringing a twist to it when assigned to men. I don't know if that makes sense. It's like taking the playful/cocky nature and you mix it with a bit of fragility. It's an archetype that gets transformed, it has another dimension added depending on the gender and the subsequent effects it has on gender expression. But maybe my definition is about something else and not the 2023 baby girl term as explained in Vogue. It being about hotness and how interesting a guy is seems pretty basic/simplistic to me and perhaps not a very appropriate moniker.

RM is not a babygirl for carrying a Bottega Veneta bag when he's just promoting the brand. Just like Jimin wearing Dior at airports is not the thing that contributes to him being classified as one. He could wear nothing and he'd still be one.

Anyway, I find that for me, there's one true supreme that governed the 2023 babygirl archetype and it's none other than Kookie. Quintessential babygirl from looks, behavior to temper.

[bee-ingsofficial]

"The subjugation of The Animal *is* nonhuman oppression"

The animal in the eyes of Man is savage, uncivilized. The oppressor describes all who are subjugated through that lens. The animal, the Beast, is an Archetype weaponized. Why do transspecies individuals, nonhumans and the like, think they are exempt from that oppression, simply because the zeitgest doesnt know who they are?

They dont need to. the fact that transspecies identity is invisible and seen as absurd is enough to say the system is built on erasing us and has done its work so far. But there is hope.

To explicitly call out our species queerness is an exclamation. Species queerness is the exclamation of the animal. The beast. The wild other. No longer are we hiding.

[hypotheticalpeople]

girl who satirizes the zeitgest

[quazarshark]

Beau, as a creature that feeds on fear, adapts their "true form" to whatever the local zeitgest finds scary. Wasn't really a problem when they were a scary swamp or a scary horse but once the industrial revolution hit people weren't really thinking about those things as much so Beau had to adapt to a more urban idea of "scary". I figure in the historically tumultuous gap between Scary Horse and Scary Clown there was the idea of Scary Stranger Watching You, with a side of Scary Robot (oh no the machines are taking over!) and Scary Skeleton (a classic), neither of which are really things that scare people as much these days but were probably pretty spoopy back then. The gateway to Beau's void darkness that can eat people is in this case the inside of the big coat.

[hcaivoices]

Character: Germany

Song: "I Don't Care Much" from Cabaret

Artist: There's lots of great covers to choose from, but as good as it is, I recommend not Alan Cumming's, solely because he uses a very thick, very fake German accent which may be a bit difficult to work with.

Last one for Germany, I swear no I don't. The MC (character who sings it) is sometimes interpreted as symbolic of the German zeitgest and culture so I can't think of a piece more thematically fitting!

MP3 on discord Germany made by me posting for entertainment only

[4thmagicwielder]

I know that in my closed off, imaginary bubble, marvel movies aren't talked about or relevent to the cultural zeitgest anymore or whatever those words mean, but marvel movies are so aesthetically fucking boring. It's all the same dull fucking rushed cgi mesh. All the fucking movies look the fucking same and are devoid of any artistic style or substance beyond quotacore. I'd define quotacore to sound intellectual but I ain't smart enough for that shit. Someone else can do it lol.

[joecial-distancing]

Albums of the new year

MGMT Oracular Spectacular (2007): There’s a review of Spring Breakers that I really like, where the reviewer points out that it’s a movie that makes more sense now, in hindsight, because instead of getting Harmony Korine’s hot takes on America’s youth, you get a dead-on time capsule of a very specific time & place--a zeitgest, over now, that at the time didn’t seem aware of its own mortality.

I was thinking a lot about that when listening to Oracular Spectacular; I was actually pretty shocked to see it’s as old as 2007, because the era I vividly remember it from was 2011-2013 aka my college years aka a time when the hits from this were ubiquitous instead of showing their age. It’s another one of those where exactly half the songs on here got way too much exposure, while the other half you’ve never heard in your fucking life. Most of the unknowns were actually pretty fun, with the exception of “Youth” which was so awful it single-handedly knocks the whole thing down a rung of my esteem. Fun trip down memory lane!

UB40 Signing Off (1980): I’m slowly triangulating my reggae taste, for the most part this was pretty good, didn’t stand out very much, but a couple of the songs (”Signing Off”, “Reefer Madness”) are long instrumental pieces that I thought were really cool and engaging

John Lee Hooker The Healer (1989): I’ve learned through this project and after seeing Kingfish Ingram live that I really like blues, and this is tremendous stuff

Talking Heads Talking Heads 77 (1977): This was an interesting one for me; I consider myself a huge Talking Heads fan, but also their big deal albums for me all come from their middle/later years, like Remain in Light onward. So even having grown up with their stuff around, I never really checked out their earliest offerings.

All of which is to say I’m having a tough time with this one, I think I don’t like it as much as what came later, but I still like it a lot, but I struggle to get into the headspace of what I might think if I were coming to this completely cold

Madonna Ray of Light (1998): Outstanding side A existing in tension with kind of a dull side B. I dunno, this one really excited me at the start, but I didn’t end it with the same enthusiasm

Giving it another listen, am I crazy, of am I hearing shades of Moon Safari in this?

Oasis Definitely Maybe (1994): Knowing them only from “Wonderwall”, this was pretty good. At its best made me think about underwater cities, which is a winner for me.

iirc there’s like a fan feud between them and Blur? going off this, I think I’m probably Team Blur

Coldplay Parachutes (2000): Dire stuff, I was correct to give them a miss back in the day

Julian Cope Peggy Suicide (1991): I have no idea about who this guy is or his deal in general, but this was really interesting. Album length kind of uncalled for, but on the other hand a normal length wouldn’t have been enough to get lost in, which was very fun with this

Screaming Trees Dust (1996): Grungy, forgettable

The Smashing Pumpkins Siamese Dream (1993): Kind of mixed for me, fundamentally compelling, vocals have a weird quality that I’m kind of on board with, but also often the thing got boring

Nancy Griffith The Last Of The True Believers (1986): Spotify reactivated autoplay without permission, and it took me a solid hour to notice the album was done with.

Captain Beefheart & His Magic Band Safe As Milk (1967): Had to dig up a mono release because the stereo mixing was way too aggressive for headphones, but overall pretty fun weird folky mishmash thing

Soft Cell Non-Stop Erotic Cabaret (1981): “Tainted Love” is the thing they’re known for, but the actual highlight of this was “Sex Dwarf”. Otherwise forgettable Brit Synth Pop.

Pink Floyd The Piper At The Gates Of Dawn (1967): First time listening to a non-Dark Side Of The Moon or -greatest hits Pink Floyd album; since the last time either of them came up on the list, I head something about how Pink Floyd in general was kind of a predecessor to Radiohead; like even though the tone is different, both groups’ appeal lies in the sound mixing, and there’s audience overlap of people drawn to that.

Janelle Monáe The ArchAndroid (2010): This was fantastic! I feel like concept albums haven’t been in vogue for a good long while, so I really really appreciated how big she went with it here.

a-ha Hunting High And Low (1985): “Take On Me” is correctly the well-known song from them, but there were a few other gems in this

Pet Shop Boys Very (1993): Pet Shop Boys grates on me in general, and this one was done no favors by coming right on the heels of a-ha like that. I feel like by 1993 it was long past time to evolve past this kind of sound

Led Zeppelin Physical Graffiti (1975): Album went a bit too long. The number of songs was correct, lots to get lost in, and they go a lot of different places, but the songs mostly overstayed their welcome.

c. 2012 I was using Pandora a lot, and for some reason it was absolutely obsessed with serving me up instrumental covers of “Kashmir”. Which I guess was fine, just confusing.

Johnny Cash At San Quentin (1969): Johnny Cash is great and I like how much this benefits from being a live album, really shows off how charismatic of a performer he was

Devo Q: Are We Not Men? A: We Are Devo (1978): Foundational album of a low-key influential band, but not one of my preferred releases from them

Echo And The Bunnymen Ocean Rain (1984): More of a stereotypical ‘80s sound compared to Crocodiles, by which I mean less along the lines of synth pop, and more grandiose, lots of orchestral stings, etc. A Bigger sound that I think benefits them

Muse Black Holes and Revelations (2006): I expected to have a bunch of thoughts on Muse and whether their stuff has aged very well since my high school days when I was super into them, maybe some ideas on the distinctly Nolan-movie-style bombast, evaluating whether I still like it etc. What I thought about instead is how I never really listened very much to this as a full album, usually I just skipped between the singles. The big fuckoff Cosmic Arena Rock pieces show their age, but actually still land alright, but in between them are a whole lot of bad filler pieces that really drag the whole thing down

Orbital Snivilisation (1994): The type of techno that Strong Bad was making fun of

Arcade Fire Neon Bible (2007): Band continues to be mids

Dolly Parton Coat Of Many Colors (1971): I’m a tough sell on most post-50s/60s country music, and I liked this quite a bit

Tom Waits Heartattack And Vine (1980): Think I liked Rain Dogs better, he was sleazier for that

Tortoise Millions Now living Will Never Die (1996): I got excited when I realized it was going to be all instrumental, but it never really rose above passing the time alright

Arrested Development 3 Years, 5 Months And 2 Days In The Life Of... (1992): This is the most dated-90s shit I’ve heard in my life

[annebrontesrequiem]

I do think sometimes we need to realize that "Books can romanticize toxic traits which then can romanticize them in the cultural zeitgest" and "people who read books with toxic relationships are not inherently stupid and aren't immediately going to think that this stuff is okay without any critical thought" are two ideas that can and should coexist.

Because I promise not every person (usually woman because like, let's be real society thinks women are incapable of their own thoughts sometimes) who picks up a bodice ripper is going to want a relationship as portrayed in the text

[1234567ttttttttttt]

Zeitgest | Przyszłość społeczeństwa

[inthewindtunnel]

S Y Z Y G Y X

Your Sex Is An Accelerant

Teatre & Years of Denial

In Circles

Oliver Decrow

I Close My Eyes

Rina Pavar

Heavy Rain (Chrome Edit)

Noromakina

Dopamine

Permanent Daylight

Temptress

Deus Ex Lumina & Antipole

Destroy

Cold Transmission Music

Zeitgest Chrome Vol. 02

[daddydotissuesatgmaildotcom]

had a post hidden because it contained a crude (ly drawn, not graphic at all) gif of mickey mouse wanking, because you may have heard in the news about something that happened to him recently management trying desperately to batter away the zeitgest opinion that tumblr is the site for people who fuck dogs now i don't think that but really now, days argon my profile picture is a depiction of analingus and that was in the guardian, for pete's sake anyway, we've been to the cotswolds to hear all about a 50-foot cheese flamingo