von_geisterhand: (Default)
Why is there money for yet another stonkingly loud but inherently vapid Michael-Bay-Transformers-nassacre but not enough to develop films, or Cthulhu forbid!, a fucking telly series based on The Culture?
von_geisterhand: (Default)
I am still undecided about whether I agree with this highly politicised reading of "The Cabin in the Woods" (Contains spoilers, but then you really can't talk about the film without giving away the central idea) just as I will probably have to rewatch "Firefly" looking for hints of Ayn Rand's philosophy in it.
On the other hand I do agree that "Cabin in the woods" seriously fell down once it tried to go deep. On the surface it is a fairly entertaining ride but when you start to think about "what the film might want to say", you start to notice the logical flaws and half-baked ideas. I see the ending not so much as political but rather as insufficiently developed.
von_geisterhand: (Default)
Yes, I have now seen a "Twilight"-film. I feel so dirty.
In my defense, I would like it noted on the record that I did not pay for this "pleasure" but that an acquaintance felt strongly enough about me being perverted to shell out the money for the movies.

There are so many things wrong with this
One after the other (and yes, there will be spoilers if you don't know the books/films and if you care).
Much has been said and written about the disturbing subtext of the Saga and the strange ideas that it seems to have about romance and love. I know next to nothing about that because I did (purposefully) not immerse myself in the folklore. But here's how the sex part pans out in "Breaking Dawn Part 1":

They wait until they are married before they decide to consumate their relationship carnally. Fair enough. In the course of their nuptial night (portrayed very restrainedly, obviously) Edward breaks the bed and trashes the room because clearly he is an ultra-strong vampire. Fine, it's been done before, why not? However, as it turns out the next day he has also bruised Bella in several places. "Bruised her", as in "She has a few bruises", as in "This also happens during non-Vampire sex." as in "No big deal really. They will fade soon, Bella is okay with it and actually wants to make more sweet, sweet love to her new hubby." But Edward will have none of it and vows to never have sex with her again (A woman make a decision about how and when she wants to have sex? Are you mad?). So Bella has to try really, really hard and use all her female wiles to get her husband to touch her again in a Barry White way (Eve? Who is that?). In the end she succeeds and.... she gets pregnant! In a way that everybody tells her will break her bones, literally consume and finally kill her! (and she looks it). Jacob (shirt off within the first 30 seconds of the film) also states several times that once the child is born, he will first kill it and then Edward. Edward in turn agrees with this plan and states quite clearly that he could never ever love this (his!) child.

So here a woman finally gets the chance to make a decision about her body/womb/life and she decides to die for no good reason whatsoever. Nobody even invokes the good old gothic cliché of "Well, at least we shall be united in death." Nope, just a horrible pointless death that Lars von Trier would have been proud of.

So that would be two shags, three dead and no fun having been had by anybody.
And these are role models for young people?
Honestly, what the fuck?
Abstinence works, yes, but there are alternatives and not all sex kills.
Some of it can be survived and it also supposed to be quite nice, I have been told.

Of course it doesn't actually end with three deaths but still the message is there. There is more WTF? in the birthing scene but I cannot be bothered to go into this now.

On the other hand it is also quite bizarre just how immobile and expressionless all these angsty characters are all through the film. They are pale, they are angsty, they talk and Bella suffers but beyond that, not much happens. If vampires and werewolves ever stood for animal instincts and/or epic battles, they certainly don't here.
The amount of stuff that wasn't happening did not become fully obvious to me until the very end: In the middle of the credits there is an extra scene starring Michael Sheen playing one of the vampire lords (or something like that). And maybe you could say that he was hamming the role up a wee bit (shockingly unheard of for people playing old and powerful vampires, I know) but my thoughts when witnessing this scene were:
"OMG!!! There is an actor! He is doing something! He is acting! And he looks like he might even be enjoying himself in the process! OMG!!!"
You get the picture? It would not be too bold a claim to state that if I get convinced to see "Breaking dawn, Part II" (this time I want somebody to pay me, though), it will be almost exclusively because I want to see what Michael Sheen does next.
He was literally the best thing in the whole film.

Still, I don't recommend you watch it.
It's also quite irksome to think that there are actually interesting facets to the film and the story but these aspects are the one that are not developed.
A vampire story about restraint? Fab!
A young woman's terror at what might be growing inside her? Not novel but interesting.
The image of the happy couple standing on a pile of corpses forming a grisly wedding cake? It made me laugh in delight. (Extra points for an all-white outfit. John Woo approves.)

But no.
von_geisterhand: (Default)
Okay, also Loriot ist tot und niemand ist überrascht. Es ist komisch: Vor ein paar Tagen habe ich noch gedacht: "Lebt der eigentlich noch?", und damals tat er es noch.
Seien wir fair: Es ist sicher schmerzhaft für die Familie und Freunde und ich gebe zu, daß ich selbst für Loriot eine Menge übrig habe. Ich kritisiere gerne die deutschen Komiker und solche, die sich dafür halten, aber im Falle von Loriot habe ich einfach nur Respekt (mit den geschichtlichen Umständen im Hinterkopf). Aber: Wenn es jemanden gab, der schon zu Lebzeiten sein Vermächtnis hinterlassen hat, dann war es Loriot. In den letzten, was weiß ich, 20 Jahren (also seit "Pappa ante Portas") kam vom Herren ja nichts neues mehr, nur Wiederholungen im Fernsehen, gelegentliche Interviews und Reportagen über ihn, wenn er mal wieder einen runden Geburtstag hatte. Nicht zu vergessen natürlich auch die Horden an Stadttheatern, die mit seinen Sketchen immer vor Weihnachten (oder auch mal zwischendurch) volle Häuser garantiert hatten.
Sein Nachlass bestand und wurde zitiert, in einer Weise, die für mich nur mit Monty Python vergleichbar ist. Wo zwei oder drei in seinem Namen versammelt sind, da wird jemand rufen: "Herr Müller-Lüdenscheidt!" Ob der Autor dieser Verse noch tatsächlich lebt oder schon auf die ewige Rennbahn (die ist übrigens gar nicht von ihm. Nur die Zeichnungen.) verschwunden ist, ist für den Rezipienten eigentlich unwichtig.

Trotzdem stelle man sich an dieser Stelle bitte Wum & Wendelin vor, wie sie eine Träne vergießen und ein Blümchen auf ein rotes Sofa legen.
von_geisterhand: (Default)
A friend posted a link to an account of a woman describing her feelings at having been told that her sister is gay and the special bond she now feels with her, as well as some of the thoughts she had at now being an "ally" of her sister's.

I have the feeling that I might have said so before, but I really dislike the term "ally" in this institutionalised form. But maybe that is a matter of personal view.

Yes, you may find out new things about your friends, your relatives, your colleagues etc. and maybe it changes the way or some part of the way you look at them* but I really hate the way that this is then turned into "The person you thought you knew has become a totally alien creature. He/she can now see things you will never be able to dream of, but if you try really hard, you might become an Ally." Fuck that!

Yes, of course that person's POV on the world might be totally different from yours and in all likelihood you will never fully share that person's image of the world and that person's feelings but you know what? That's normal. That's the way it was before and that's the way it's now.
There is a quotation from Aldous Huxley in "The Doors of Perception" I think which basically said that as much as we try to pretend that there is society and there is community, in the end, we all experience life fully individually and on our own. By extension, we are all but allies to each others' lives, if you so will.
Formalising it into the "Ally"-terminology to me makes it feel like I am actually more separated from my friend than I was before, when I considered all the "duties, responsibilities and benefits of being an Ally" just normal aspects of being a friend.

(None of this changes the fact that I am very happy and slightly "Aww!" at Zara and Spectra's experience. 8^D )

*I know that I said elsewhere that the only time and the only circumstances I consider it correct and necessary to inform somebody else of whst particular gender-setup you normally get the hots for is in the run-up to getting jiggy (or not) with that person. That is not the only opinion I have on that subject.
The other thought I have on that subject is that I actually kind of want to know what floats the boats of those near and dear, but only in the sense that I consider it a part of the person they are and because I want to have as clear a picture of my friends as I can. But that's an facette/ piece of information about as important as "That's James. He likes strawberry jam.", not a stigma and not a label which exclusively defines that person.


von_geisterhand: (Default)

June 2017

45678 910
111213 14151617
181920 21222324


RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Oct. 24th, 2017 02:01 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios