I didn't really want to check the score again after New England went up 14 to nothing on the Chiefs. It seemed like another inevitable Patriots win that was bound to smoothly break several more stunning records. But I did in the fourth as I boarded the bus and I believe Kansas City was up 21 to 17 at the time, which was positive if not startling to say the least. I decided not to check the score again until I got off the bus, and when I did 40 minutes or so later the Chiefs were up 28 to 24 with around 52 seconds left, and if I read the online updates correctly, they had just scored another touchdown. With only 52 seconds left I thought Kansas City had it, and decided not to check the score again until I arrived back at my apartment, and wow was I surprised to see it was tied 31-31 and headed to overtime upon arrival, totally wish I had seen that game. Which New England won of course, charging down the field yet again to achieve victory and punch their ticket for another Super Bowl. The following weekend I stopped caring and actually thought, man, that would be pretty shitty if they lost again, for Patriots fans anyways, not the legion of Patriots fans which emerged in the last five years or so, old school Patriots fans, because they've lost the Super Bowl plenty of times in recent memory too. They've been there and done that and the Rams haven't in recent memory though, but what L.A lacks in experience they may make up for in unanticipated novelty, they've got an exceptional team, and have yet to unload during the playoffs. The Rams have won before but never in Los Angeles which makes things interesting from an Indianapolis Colts perspective. Could Brady and the Pats lose two in a row though? I doubt it. And boringly enough, I'm afraid I'm picking New England. The Pats by 10. Hoping it's closer than that.
Thursday, January 31, 2019
Tuesday, January 29, 2019
Glass
Mystery Men aside, I imagine superhero films would be less compelling (or less profitable) if they focused on the lives of people who don't defy scientific law, even if random acts of kindness or diligent commitments to stable routines also aptly reflect agile superheroics, in their own more modest less celebrated ways, inasmuch as many routines lack regular confrontations with mindblowing exceptions.
I remember briefly watching at work one day while a team of three people carried an awkwardly shaped new countertop up a narrow awkward flight of stairs, for instance, and an hour later I noticed they were still working.
In my foolish mind I thought, "why aren't they finished yet, it doesn't look that complicated," before reprimanding myself for assholism and listening in on their conversation.
They were patiently and rationally discussing how to move the heavy object up the stairs carefully to avoid injury, which of course made sense, and explained why they were taking so long.
It's rare when I move large heavy objects so when I do so I carelessly don't worry about injury.
But if you move them around for 40 hours a week for 10 to 40 years and you don't take your time to patiently think about what you're doing, you likely will sustain injury, and therefore it makes sense to proceed cautiously and think things through.
Always.
Nothing you learn in your youth really prepares you for middle-age and the routines you find yourself cultivating at times.
I'm lucky to have a lot of variability in my life and to work with cool people, as I have been for the last decade or so, but middle-age still isn't like school, you don't progressively pass from one grade to the next and have your whole life reimagined each year based upon pedagogic and biological transformations, different stages, it's more like a big 40 year block of time, an extended megastage that's full of change and diversity but at times is somewhat predictable.
But it's precisely the lack of exception that makes it exceptional once you figure that out, the ability to endure sure and steady predictability from one day to the next, to handle different variations while maintaining a reliable theme, and to do it for an incredibly long period of time.
Little things making a phenomenal difference.
Whether it's a film, a new type of hot sauce, a new dress, or ordering the same thing off the menu every time, it doesn't get old if you don't let it, if you let disaffection age you.
Everyone understands there's a big difference between carrying something up a flight of stairs and being a neurosurgeon, or a politician, but sometimes I think neurosurgeons and politicians forget how difficult it can be to carry awkward things up flights of stairs, for years, although I'm sure it's by no means endemic.
The end of Glass celebrates superheroics gone viral online, attempts to suppress them having been outmasterminded.
True, David Dunn (Bruce Willis) and Keven/Patricia/Hedwig/The Beast etc. (James McAvoy) do have otherworldly abilities, and it would have been cool if Dunn had turned out to be his/her father, but the ending's so like the genesis of Twitter and YouTube that I couldn't help thinking they were standing in for magical unrehearsed postmodern superheroics, randomly disseminated upon the worldwide net.
It's another superhero film that contemplates the nature of superheroics and therefore adds more philosophical finesse to the genre, with hints of The Secret History of 'Twin Peaks', Under the Silver Lake, and Iron Man peppered throughout, and nimbly unreels like a full-on indy.
I liked the characters and the plot and the ways in which Unbreakable has found a way to situate itself within the post-Iron Man maelstrom, and McAvoy's outstanding, but it was the ending and its Twitteresque reflections that I enjoyed the most, and seeing Bruce Willis and Samuel L. Jackson (Elijah Price) at it again I suppose.
So many things you never would have heard about thirty years ago pop up on Twitter and YouTube every day.
It's a fascinating worldwide change.
As accessible as your local library.
Stable, steady, unpredictable variation.
Is there a project out there that's codifying YouTube?
Who's writing that book?
Could you finish a page without becoming obsolete?
Like you need a multicultural team of librarians working full-time around the globe just to capture Tuesday, March 8th, 2016.
Categorically driven inherent impossibility.
Infinity conceptualized.
There's nothing quite like it.
I remember briefly watching at work one day while a team of three people carried an awkwardly shaped new countertop up a narrow awkward flight of stairs, for instance, and an hour later I noticed they were still working.
In my foolish mind I thought, "why aren't they finished yet, it doesn't look that complicated," before reprimanding myself for assholism and listening in on their conversation.
They were patiently and rationally discussing how to move the heavy object up the stairs carefully to avoid injury, which of course made sense, and explained why they were taking so long.
It's rare when I move large heavy objects so when I do so I carelessly don't worry about injury.
But if you move them around for 40 hours a week for 10 to 40 years and you don't take your time to patiently think about what you're doing, you likely will sustain injury, and therefore it makes sense to proceed cautiously and think things through.
Always.
Nothing you learn in your youth really prepares you for middle-age and the routines you find yourself cultivating at times.
I'm lucky to have a lot of variability in my life and to work with cool people, as I have been for the last decade or so, but middle-age still isn't like school, you don't progressively pass from one grade to the next and have your whole life reimagined each year based upon pedagogic and biological transformations, different stages, it's more like a big 40 year block of time, an extended megastage that's full of change and diversity but at times is somewhat predictable.
But it's precisely the lack of exception that makes it exceptional once you figure that out, the ability to endure sure and steady predictability from one day to the next, to handle different variations while maintaining a reliable theme, and to do it for an incredibly long period of time.
Little things making a phenomenal difference.
Whether it's a film, a new type of hot sauce, a new dress, or ordering the same thing off the menu every time, it doesn't get old if you don't let it, if you let disaffection age you.
Everyone understands there's a big difference between carrying something up a flight of stairs and being a neurosurgeon, or a politician, but sometimes I think neurosurgeons and politicians forget how difficult it can be to carry awkward things up flights of stairs, for years, although I'm sure it's by no means endemic.
The end of Glass celebrates superheroics gone viral online, attempts to suppress them having been outmasterminded.
True, David Dunn (Bruce Willis) and Keven/Patricia/Hedwig/The Beast etc. (James McAvoy) do have otherworldly abilities, and it would have been cool if Dunn had turned out to be his/her father, but the ending's so like the genesis of Twitter and YouTube that I couldn't help thinking they were standing in for magical unrehearsed postmodern superheroics, randomly disseminated upon the worldwide net.
It's another superhero film that contemplates the nature of superheroics and therefore adds more philosophical finesse to the genre, with hints of The Secret History of 'Twin Peaks', Under the Silver Lake, and Iron Man peppered throughout, and nimbly unreels like a full-on indy.
I liked the characters and the plot and the ways in which Unbreakable has found a way to situate itself within the post-Iron Man maelstrom, and McAvoy's outstanding, but it was the ending and its Twitteresque reflections that I enjoyed the most, and seeing Bruce Willis and Samuel L. Jackson (Elijah Price) at it again I suppose.
So many things you never would have heard about thirty years ago pop up on Twitter and YouTube every day.
It's a fascinating worldwide change.
As accessible as your local library.
Stable, steady, unpredictable variation.
Is there a project out there that's codifying YouTube?
Who's writing that book?
Could you finish a page without becoming obsolete?
Like you need a multicultural team of librarians working full-time around the globe just to capture Tuesday, March 8th, 2016.
Categorically driven inherent impossibility.
Infinity conceptualized.
There's nothing quite like it.
Monday, January 28, 2019
Sunday, January 27, 2019
Saturday, January 26, 2019
Aluminum Leaves, Alexander Calder
Random swirl a gusty spin
mercurial free fall begins
the panoramic accidental
wispy aeronautic gentle
undulating mesmerized
mélanged impartial Terran skies
to sway to lean to glide to grasp
experimental chloroplast
the plummet's introspective mosey
data juxtaposing cozy
'stance kaleidoscopic maze
where labyrinthine logic frays
les dazzling stoic sights unseen
they spiral so aquamarine
directions unanticipated
rhythms improvised backdated
curl.
mercurial free fall begins
the panoramic accidental
wispy aeronautic gentle
undulating mesmerized
mélanged impartial Terran skies
to sway to lean to glide to grasp
experimental chloroplast
the plummet's introspective mosey
data juxtaposing cozy
'stance kaleidoscopic maze
where labyrinthine logic frays
les dazzling stoic sights unseen
they spiral so aquamarine
directions unanticipated
rhythms improvised backdated
curl.
Friday, January 25, 2019
Vice
Why make a movie about Dick Cheney (Christian Bale) of all people?
Why?
Why do I have to write about this film?
Why!
With all the charismatic influential inspiring dynamic leaders out there, why choose to make a film about him, even if, in bizarro plutocrat lingo, those adjectives strangely apply?
The filmmakers admit they have little to go on yet revel in proceeding blindly nonetheless, and although they couldn't find much information about Cheney, they still stuck to that which they found, rather than creating a more balanced narrative, wherein which the speculative film, which they admit to making, takes imaginative precedence over headlined gossip and likelihood.
I'm not saying avoid what's supposed to be true or replace it with alternative fact, I mean that if you're imagining much of what took place anyways, imagine a more compelling film that narratively ties his different motivations together.
See so many Steven Spielberg films.
Vice is more like, "we know he did this, and it's believed he did that, and this is all we really have to go on, so we'll make the rest up but emphasize what we do know, or believe, even if the information we have writes a clunky story."
Not that it's a bad film, it's alright, and it's better than a lot of films that follow an individual's career over the course of a lifetime, but Cheney's just not such a bad guy for so much of it, in fact he's primarily depicted as a respectable family man who played by the rules for most of his career, and then suddenly he's this power mad mendacity prone borderline authoritarian, it's not that the facts aren't commercially presented, it's just that Vice hasn't much of a foreshadow.
If you admit you're making speculative pseudo-non-fiction why play your cards so close to your chest?, The Big Short certainly didn't and it made a more stunning impact.
As it stands, Vice isn't sure if Dick Cheney was a monster or just a fortunate hardworking man of self-made means.
It emphasizes that the second Iraq war was likely caused by him for self-centred reasons, but still goes out of its way to make him seem loving and kind, with prim bipolar whitewash, comedically applied.
It does explain where political obsessions with executive authority come from, and in the last scene Cheney appears like Khan in Star Trek into Darkness, boldly stating that many others would have done the same.
But many others wouldn't have done the same, and the bold speech at the end, which may win an Oscar, encourages stubborn self-obsessed self-aggrandizement regardless of communal consequence, and it's unclear if McKay is being critical of Cheney's ambition or trying to make it seem as wholesome as pumpkin pie.
He certainly makes his character sympathetic.
Spending more time coddling than criticizing him.
Why?
Why do I have to write about this film?
Why!
With all the charismatic influential inspiring dynamic leaders out there, why choose to make a film about him, even if, in bizarro plutocrat lingo, those adjectives strangely apply?
The filmmakers admit they have little to go on yet revel in proceeding blindly nonetheless, and although they couldn't find much information about Cheney, they still stuck to that which they found, rather than creating a more balanced narrative, wherein which the speculative film, which they admit to making, takes imaginative precedence over headlined gossip and likelihood.
I'm not saying avoid what's supposed to be true or replace it with alternative fact, I mean that if you're imagining much of what took place anyways, imagine a more compelling film that narratively ties his different motivations together.
See so many Steven Spielberg films.
Vice is more like, "we know he did this, and it's believed he did that, and this is all we really have to go on, so we'll make the rest up but emphasize what we do know, or believe, even if the information we have writes a clunky story."
Not that it's a bad film, it's alright, and it's better than a lot of films that follow an individual's career over the course of a lifetime, but Cheney's just not such a bad guy for so much of it, in fact he's primarily depicted as a respectable family man who played by the rules for most of his career, and then suddenly he's this power mad mendacity prone borderline authoritarian, it's not that the facts aren't commercially presented, it's just that Vice hasn't much of a foreshadow.
If you admit you're making speculative pseudo-non-fiction why play your cards so close to your chest?, The Big Short certainly didn't and it made a more stunning impact.
As it stands, Vice isn't sure if Dick Cheney was a monster or just a fortunate hardworking man of self-made means.
It emphasizes that the second Iraq war was likely caused by him for self-centred reasons, but still goes out of its way to make him seem loving and kind, with prim bipolar whitewash, comedically applied.
It does explain where political obsessions with executive authority come from, and in the last scene Cheney appears like Khan in Star Trek into Darkness, boldly stating that many others would have done the same.
But many others wouldn't have done the same, and the bold speech at the end, which may win an Oscar, encourages stubborn self-obsessed self-aggrandizement regardless of communal consequence, and it's unclear if McKay is being critical of Cheney's ambition or trying to make it seem as wholesome as pumpkin pie.
He certainly makes his character sympathetic.
Spending more time coddling than criticizing him.
Thursday, January 24, 2019
2018 Mix
A mix of songs I came across in 2018:
My Neighbor Totoro, Noriko Amano
L'existence précède la diesel, Les Breastfeeders
Ce n'est pas moi, Tanis
Brasshouse Vol 7 no 68, Too Many Zooz
Vogue, RIVE
Loup garou, Matiu
Petit clavier métallique, Debbie Tebbs
Let's Be Happy, The Klezmer Festival Band
Daisy Chains, Tanis
Comme dans l'film, Les Chiens de ruelles
Ostrogoth-à-gogo, Les Breastfeeders
Chrysanthèmes, Félix Dyotte
Sème la vie, Marjo
Shangri-La, M. Ward
Crépuscule, Matiu
La lune à blâmer, Les Breastfeeders
Station balnéaire, Félix Dyotte
Horizon Variations, Max Richter
My Neighbor Totoro, Noriko Amano
L'existence précède la diesel, Les Breastfeeders
Ce n'est pas moi, Tanis
Brasshouse Vol 7 no 68, Too Many Zooz
Vogue, RIVE
Loup garou, Matiu
Petit clavier métallique, Debbie Tebbs
Let's Be Happy, The Klezmer Festival Band
Daisy Chains, Tanis
Comme dans l'film, Les Chiens de ruelles
Ostrogoth-à-gogo, Les Breastfeeders
Chrysanthèmes, Félix Dyotte
Sème la vie, Marjo
Shangri-La, M. Ward
Crépuscule, Matiu
La lune à blâmer, Les Breastfeeders
Station balnéaire, Félix Dyotte
Horizon Variations, Max Richter
Tuesday, January 22, 2019
Bumblebee
At the transformative heart of Travis Knight's Bumblebee rests polarized misperception glacially endowed.
Cybertron is lost and the Autobots have fled, B-127 (Bumblebee [Dylan O'Brien]) tasked with finding them sanctuary, wherefrom they can regroup and plan, whereupon they'll be cloaked and hidden.
But the Decepticons have followed, three in fact, eventually, one at first, and if they're able to report their findings, his mission will end in failure.
He has landed upon Earth during its most exceptional decade, even if he's greeted none too kindly, even if he then forgets all.
The internet has yet to revolutionize everything planet wide, however, Cypertron correspondingly suffering from a lack of technological advancement, for even though the Decepticons know he is hiding on Earth, they cannot easily transmit this discovery.
As if Cypbertron and Earth are unconsciously linked through intergalactic evolution, and what happens on one planet contemporaneously takes place on the other, technologically speaking, even if humanity does not explore space.
Bumblebee is found by a defiant young adult (Hailee Steinfeld as Charlie) who is dismissive of her stepfather (Stephen Schneider as Ron) and seeks her own car.
Little does she know that her unassuming angst-ridden pursuits have opened a gateway to starstruck conflict, and that her newfound friend and confidant is sought after by mature disaffection.
The concern of her parents is augmented by the military's presence, everyone eventually rallying to her side, in tune with the spirit of the times.
Although the romantic dreamer within (John Ortiz as Dr. Powell) is depicted as a do-gooding lump, tough-as-nails Agent Burns (John Cena) standing out in sharp contrast, yet as the plot unravels the dialectic pretensions of the Transformers cause both individuals to reconsider, Powell realizing he should never have trusted Shatter (Angela Bassett) and Dropkick (Justin Theroux), Burns accepting he was mistaken about Bumblebee.
Charlie also learns she was wrong to malign her stepfather's goodwill, for even though he promotes compassion, he can still drive like Satan himself.
Functioning like a stern loving synthesis of sorts.
Thus, within this humble Bumblebee we find rudimentary political philosophy reduced to democratic elements, as predetermined judgment is actively critiqued by withdrawn yet impacting middle-ground motivations.
Perhaps not the best transformers film, but that doesn't mean the music and legend of a long past fabled epoch can't still ensure good times, or at least make up for the film's overstated grumblings.
Too much of the, "let's shoot before asking questions and make the guy who asks questions look like a fool" though.
Possibly the best soundtrack ever.
Cybertron is lost and the Autobots have fled, B-127 (Bumblebee [Dylan O'Brien]) tasked with finding them sanctuary, wherefrom they can regroup and plan, whereupon they'll be cloaked and hidden.
But the Decepticons have followed, three in fact, eventually, one at first, and if they're able to report their findings, his mission will end in failure.
He has landed upon Earth during its most exceptional decade, even if he's greeted none too kindly, even if he then forgets all.
The internet has yet to revolutionize everything planet wide, however, Cypertron correspondingly suffering from a lack of technological advancement, for even though the Decepticons know he is hiding on Earth, they cannot easily transmit this discovery.
As if Cypbertron and Earth are unconsciously linked through intergalactic evolution, and what happens on one planet contemporaneously takes place on the other, technologically speaking, even if humanity does not explore space.
Bumblebee is found by a defiant young adult (Hailee Steinfeld as Charlie) who is dismissive of her stepfather (Stephen Schneider as Ron) and seeks her own car.
Little does she know that her unassuming angst-ridden pursuits have opened a gateway to starstruck conflict, and that her newfound friend and confidant is sought after by mature disaffection.
The concern of her parents is augmented by the military's presence, everyone eventually rallying to her side, in tune with the spirit of the times.
Although the romantic dreamer within (John Ortiz as Dr. Powell) is depicted as a do-gooding lump, tough-as-nails Agent Burns (John Cena) standing out in sharp contrast, yet as the plot unravels the dialectic pretensions of the Transformers cause both individuals to reconsider, Powell realizing he should never have trusted Shatter (Angela Bassett) and Dropkick (Justin Theroux), Burns accepting he was mistaken about Bumblebee.
Charlie also learns she was wrong to malign her stepfather's goodwill, for even though he promotes compassion, he can still drive like Satan himself.
Functioning like a stern loving synthesis of sorts.
Thus, within this humble Bumblebee we find rudimentary political philosophy reduced to democratic elements, as predetermined judgment is actively critiqued by withdrawn yet impacting middle-ground motivations.
Perhaps not the best transformers film, but that doesn't mean the music and legend of a long past fabled epoch can't still ensure good times, or at least make up for the film's overstated grumblings.
Too much of the, "let's shoot before asking questions and make the guy who asks questions look like a fool" though.
Possibly the best soundtrack ever.
Sunday, January 20, 2019
Imagine the Pats and Chiefs were playing in Massachusetts today?
Holy crap!
I spelt Massachusetts correctly.
Apple weather says it's -3 degrees Celsius with freezing rain there anyways.
It's still -6 in Kansas City, Missouri.
That's one thing that made me love football when I was a kid.
The elements.
Who wins in the snow and rain and freezing cold?
It's such a good game.
Holy crap!
I spelt Massachusetts correctly.
Apple weather says it's -3 degrees Celsius with freezing rain there anyways.
It's still -6 in Kansas City, Missouri.
That's one thing that made me love football when I was a kid.
The elements.
Who wins in the snow and rain and freezing cold?
It's such a good game.
Saturday, January 19, 2019
Watership (Blue Panel, Alexander Calder)
Lackadaisical lapin
a leapin' lispy Caliban
comported mute apéritif
digestive atavistic beats
abounding light in stereo
the warren's mystic visceral
invention stitched yet ill-defined
in soaring heights and valleys thine
a proxy's coddled elevation
cybernetic permutations
nodes transmitting viral lattice
metamorphic scales emphatic
soothing breezy unannounced
alternatives rewind the bounce
and set things up to interweave
the engine's tranquil submariney
breach.
a leapin' lispy Caliban
comported mute apéritif
digestive atavistic beats
abounding light in stereo
the warren's mystic visceral
invention stitched yet ill-defined
in soaring heights and valleys thine
a proxy's coddled elevation
cybernetic permutations
nodes transmitting viral lattice
metamorphic scales emphatic
soothing breezy unannounced
alternatives rewind the bounce
and set things up to interweave
the engine's tranquil submariney
breach.
Friday, January 18, 2019
If Beale Street Could Talk
A young expectant mother celebrating the dawn of life encounters setbacks as she embraces riled uncertainty.
Her decision isn't an easy one to make and she's initially faced with righteous criticism.
Unfortunately, the father's (Stephan James as Alonzo Hunt) in prison after having been falsely accused of a monstrous crime, the victim having returned to her home country after suffering extreme indecency.
It's a disastrous situation that's rather difficult to discuss with the victim (Emily Rios as Victoria Rogers), although Tish's (KiKi Layne) mom (Regina King as Sharon Rivers) does her best to make contact and work things out.
Alonzo takes a plea.
Tish strives onwards, patiently waiting for his release.
A confident man, a resilient woman, a versatile couple, an engaging family.
Prejudice accosts them within and without.
But through self-sacrificing commitment, they holistically persevere.
Barry Jenkins's If Beale Street Could Talk laments cold realities by presenting resigned innocence forced to hustle, brand, and stray.
It deals in unsettling sociological facts the harsh conditions of which require sincere systemic change.
A different way of thinking.
A young couple's racial or ethnic background shouldn't effect their entire existence, I've met and worked with plenty of male, female, black, white, Jewish, Arab, European, South American, First Nations, East Indian, gay, straight and Asian people, and none of them were thieves or cons or zealots, and everyone worked hard and didn't put up much of a fuss.
If racial or ethnic stereotypes had pervaded these environments it would have been impossible to work efficiently, and otherwise composed diligent routines would have collapsed beneath the weight of ripe malice.
People didn't judge each other based on shortsighted stereotypical notions, but preferred to evaluate the quality and quantity of one's work, equal opportunity abounding for all, but they had to make sure to get the job done.
If you think the situation's hopeless it becomes hopeless pretty quickly.
You can't expect things to happen overnight, you need patience, endurance, tenacity.
Tish and Alonzo have all these things in If Beale Street Could Talk and because of stereotypical perceptions they come close to losing everything, yet they still dig deep and buckle down.
The film bluntly examines what's left unsaid and although it's somewhat overly emotional at times, it is presenting volatile subject matter, and its heart's definitely in the right place.
Cool sculptures too.
Her decision isn't an easy one to make and she's initially faced with righteous criticism.
Unfortunately, the father's (Stephan James as Alonzo Hunt) in prison after having been falsely accused of a monstrous crime, the victim having returned to her home country after suffering extreme indecency.
It's a disastrous situation that's rather difficult to discuss with the victim (Emily Rios as Victoria Rogers), although Tish's (KiKi Layne) mom (Regina King as Sharon Rivers) does her best to make contact and work things out.
Alonzo takes a plea.
Tish strives onwards, patiently waiting for his release.
A confident man, a resilient woman, a versatile couple, an engaging family.
Prejudice accosts them within and without.
But through self-sacrificing commitment, they holistically persevere.
Barry Jenkins's If Beale Street Could Talk laments cold realities by presenting resigned innocence forced to hustle, brand, and stray.
It deals in unsettling sociological facts the harsh conditions of which require sincere systemic change.
A different way of thinking.
A young couple's racial or ethnic background shouldn't effect their entire existence, I've met and worked with plenty of male, female, black, white, Jewish, Arab, European, South American, First Nations, East Indian, gay, straight and Asian people, and none of them were thieves or cons or zealots, and everyone worked hard and didn't put up much of a fuss.
If racial or ethnic stereotypes had pervaded these environments it would have been impossible to work efficiently, and otherwise composed diligent routines would have collapsed beneath the weight of ripe malice.
People didn't judge each other based on shortsighted stereotypical notions, but preferred to evaluate the quality and quantity of one's work, equal opportunity abounding for all, but they had to make sure to get the job done.
If you think the situation's hopeless it becomes hopeless pretty quickly.
You can't expect things to happen overnight, you need patience, endurance, tenacity.
Tish and Alonzo have all these things in If Beale Street Could Talk and because of stereotypical perceptions they come close to losing everything, yet they still dig deep and buckle down.
The film bluntly examines what's left unsaid and although it's somewhat overly emotional at times, it is presenting volatile subject matter, and its heart's definitely in the right place.
Cool sculptures too.
Thursday, January 17, 2019
NFL Playoff Picks, Conference Finals Round
Los Angeles Rams/New Orleans Saints: it's a tough call, this one. Both games this week. The only team in the Conference Finals this year who didn't score more than 500 points during the regular season is the New England Patriots, and they're clearly ready to fiercely compete regardless. That's got to be a record, these must be the most offensively stacked NFL Conference Finals ever, and as to who is going to win, all I can say is, who knows? The Saints sputtered a bit last week though and still came up with the win so I expect they'll score more points this week as they take more advantage of home field. The Rams efficiently handled the Cowboys and will likely dish out more of the same. The Saints beat the Rams 45 to 35 earlier in the year but I doubt that gives us any indication as to how this one'll turn out, although I wouldn't be surprised if both teams scored more than 35. I've always wanted the Rivers/Brees Super Bowl since Brees left for New Orleans but Brady versus Brees in February would be exceptional too, two of the best quarterbacks ever still playing incredibly well in their forties, in fact it looks like Brees just turned 40 two days ago. What a strange turn of events, two remarkably talented young quarterbacks who have also engineered mind-blowing offences this year set to face off against two of the best ever who are both in their forties, to risk repeating myself. If you like offensive football it doesn't get better than this. Hoping every team shows up. Picking the Saints by 3.
New England Patriots/Kansas City Chiefs: oddly, all four offensive juggernauts left contending for this year's Super Bowl hail from regions or cities composed of two words, Los Angeles, Kansas City, etc., one corresponding question being, how does this relate to the potential outcomes of the upcoming games themselves? Difficult to say. Kansas starts with a K which comes before N in the English alphabet, and C also comes before E. In the NFC N comes after L and O comes after A, meaning that, alphabetically speaking, in both games both the letters found at the beginning of one team's current location take orthographic priority, and may perhaps determine the winners. Indisputably. Perhaps the teams hailing from locales closer to A have been historically predetermined to face each other in this year's Super Bowl, although, since the United States shares a less rigid relationship with grammatical congruity than its forefathers across the pond, perhaps those team names beginning with letters further away from A have been destined to win since before time began? But what if one of their names is still indicative of the appellation from where many North Americans spawned, augustly derivative of its European monicker? How would that change things? Further, wouldn't a blend of the two also suffice considering the league's chill emphasis on parity, these four teams having formidably reached unparalleled yet equanimous heights in 2018? Who's to say?, again(?), but I'm sure they don't put with this nonsense in Kansas City, Missouri. Picking the feisty Chiefs. The feisty Chiefs by 17.
*The teams are that close.
New England Patriots/Kansas City Chiefs: oddly, all four offensive juggernauts left contending for this year's Super Bowl hail from regions or cities composed of two words, Los Angeles, Kansas City, etc., one corresponding question being, how does this relate to the potential outcomes of the upcoming games themselves? Difficult to say. Kansas starts with a K which comes before N in the English alphabet, and C also comes before E. In the NFC N comes after L and O comes after A, meaning that, alphabetically speaking, in both games both the letters found at the beginning of one team's current location take orthographic priority, and may perhaps determine the winners. Indisputably. Perhaps the teams hailing from locales closer to A have been historically predetermined to face each other in this year's Super Bowl, although, since the United States shares a less rigid relationship with grammatical congruity than its forefathers across the pond, perhaps those team names beginning with letters further away from A have been destined to win since before time began? But what if one of their names is still indicative of the appellation from where many North Americans spawned, augustly derivative of its European monicker? How would that change things? Further, wouldn't a blend of the two also suffice considering the league's chill emphasis on parity, these four teams having formidably reached unparalleled yet equanimous heights in 2018? Who's to say?, again(?), but I'm sure they don't put with this nonsense in Kansas City, Missouri. Picking the feisty Chiefs. The feisty Chiefs by 17.
*The teams are that close.
Tuesday, January 15, 2019
Vox Lux
Brady Corbet's Vox Lux wildly envisions tumultuous reasonability clad in disputatious aggrieved apotheosis facilitating chaotic calm.
Beware what transpires within, for it's a most uninhibited tale, executively brandishing dysfunction, perilously prophesizing unimpaired.
Like all stories, it begins, a school in a small town no less, where a distraught child assaults his classmates and takes many innocent lives.
It's appalling that lawmakers aren't taking measures to prevent such atrocities, especially after so many brave American young adults have appealed for political conviction.
So many years after Bowling for Columbine, these shootings still take place with horrifying regularity.
Mass school shootings or mass shootings of any kind are so obviously not acceptable and arming teachers to stop them is sheer utter madness, total insanity, extreme irresponsibility, just nuts, such events don't simply happen, they're the product of blind mismanagement, and legal steps should have been taken to prevent them many many many years ago.
Celeste (Natalie Portman/Raffey Cassidy) survives the shooting at her school and writes a song to express her grief, a song which capture's a grieving nation's attention, superstardom awaiting thereafter.
But with superstardom comes unexpected pressure, Vox Lux necessitating improvisation as the unanticipated interrogatively fluxes.
How to diplomatically respond?
When even her most humble words provoke sensation?
It's unhinged and perplexing and preposterous and disorienting when you think about it afterwards, Vox Lux's argumentative acrobatics and substance abuse fuelled rhetoric leaving a byzantine trail of grandiose unorthodoxy in their wake, realities so disconnected and otherworldly it's like they orbit the heart of an imperial pulsar, which radiates untethered brilliance partout, and neglects consequence with refrained spry spectacle.
Yet it's so real, the film seems so plausible, so concrete, so distinct, passionately yet prohibitively brought to life by Natalie Portman and Jude Law (The Manager), like a down to earth fairy tale that's as ludicrous as it is homemade, like a supernatural cookie cutter incarnated in mortal shade.
Bafflingly improbable yet so irrefutably sincere, Vox Lux resonates with raw animation as if a misfit god has awoken from eternal slumber, and what a performance she gives in the end, this former child star who's been nurtured by shock and scandal.
Exhilaratingly conjuring.
In visceral artistic balm.
Approach Vox Lux with caution.
Outstanding alternative mind*&%^ cinema.
Beware what transpires within, for it's a most uninhibited tale, executively brandishing dysfunction, perilously prophesizing unimpaired.
Like all stories, it begins, a school in a small town no less, where a distraught child assaults his classmates and takes many innocent lives.
It's appalling that lawmakers aren't taking measures to prevent such atrocities, especially after so many brave American young adults have appealed for political conviction.
So many years after Bowling for Columbine, these shootings still take place with horrifying regularity.
Mass school shootings or mass shootings of any kind are so obviously not acceptable and arming teachers to stop them is sheer utter madness, total insanity, extreme irresponsibility, just nuts, such events don't simply happen, they're the product of blind mismanagement, and legal steps should have been taken to prevent them many many many years ago.
Celeste (Natalie Portman/Raffey Cassidy) survives the shooting at her school and writes a song to express her grief, a song which capture's a grieving nation's attention, superstardom awaiting thereafter.
But with superstardom comes unexpected pressure, Vox Lux necessitating improvisation as the unanticipated interrogatively fluxes.
How to diplomatically respond?
When even her most humble words provoke sensation?
It's unhinged and perplexing and preposterous and disorienting when you think about it afterwards, Vox Lux's argumentative acrobatics and substance abuse fuelled rhetoric leaving a byzantine trail of grandiose unorthodoxy in their wake, realities so disconnected and otherworldly it's like they orbit the heart of an imperial pulsar, which radiates untethered brilliance partout, and neglects consequence with refrained spry spectacle.
Yet it's so real, the film seems so plausible, so concrete, so distinct, passionately yet prohibitively brought to life by Natalie Portman and Jude Law (The Manager), like a down to earth fairy tale that's as ludicrous as it is homemade, like a supernatural cookie cutter incarnated in mortal shade.
Bafflingly improbable yet so irrefutably sincere, Vox Lux resonates with raw animation as if a misfit god has awoken from eternal slumber, and what a performance she gives in the end, this former child star who's been nurtured by shock and scandal.
Exhilaratingly conjuring.
In visceral artistic balm.
Approach Vox Lux with caution.
Outstanding alternative mind*&%^ cinema.
Monday, January 14, 2019
Sunday, January 13, 2019
Saturday, January 12, 2019
Nugget
Serenade carnation sorrow
lullabies enriching floral
desjardinsdic retrospectives
tilled botanical arrested
worrisome disparities
alluring scandalous défis
distracting incremental chipped
photovoltaic pasteuric
electrocuted nebulae
delineate perceptions grey
impassioned interstellar warp
the driven melded mindset torqued
some port ice wine vinous blueberries
thrive upon the granite's airy
unobtrusive outcropped braze
exceptions pending, shifts and shades.
lullabies enriching floral
desjardinsdic retrospectives
tilled botanical arrested
worrisome disparities
alluring scandalous défis
distracting incremental chipped
photovoltaic pasteuric
electrocuted nebulae
delineate perceptions grey
impassioned interstellar warp
the driven melded mindset torqued
some port ice wine vinous blueberries
thrive upon the granite's airy
unobtrusive outcropped braze
exceptions pending, shifts and shades.
NFL Playoff Picks, Divisional Round
Indianapolis Colts/Kansas City Chiefs: Again with the Colts and Chiefs. Why do they meet in the playoffs so often?, the Colts winning, every time, most recently in a 45-44 shootout, during which they overcame an imposing deficit. And they're good this year too, having won 10 of their last 11, picking up an impressive victory on the road last week in Houston, even if they didn't score a point in the second half, when a touchdown and a field goal would have easily ensured victory. They didn't need it, but should versus Kansas City, the Chiefs scoring at will all season long, putting up some incredible offensive stats along the way. Patrick Mahomes looks Bradyesque, Breeseque. Riversesque. Fitting that they're all still playing for this years's Super Bowl. But Luck looked incredibly good years ago too and he's right back at it this season. The Chiefs may have scored a lot of points but their defence didn't play so well at times, in fact, in two games alone versus New England and the Rams they scored at total of 91 points (40 and 51 respectively) but lost both of them, lost both of them by 3. Both. They've also lost 6 playoff home games in a row, 6, a ludicrously high number, one of those strange sports things that defies all statistical logic and leaves me scratching my head every time I consider it. Note: one of my students ate 6 pieces of birthday cake today. Not 7. Nonetheless, Mahomes played shockingly well this year, and I bet the Chiefs will score early and often. Thinking this time the deficit is two high to overcome. Picking Kansas City by 14.
Dallas Cowboys/Los Angeles Rams: was mighty impressed with Dak Prescott last weekend. Some ill-timed pass interference penalties came to his aid, but late in the fourth he didn't gracefully glide when he efficiently ran. It was full-on "as-many-yards-as-possible" "punch-through-the-wall" athleticism that led to Dallas picking up a game winning touchdown. Love it when quarterbacks play that way. The Rams's offence was mighty impressive during the regular season however and Dallas's respectable D will have to dig deep to challenge them. They put up a lot of points a bunch of times and picked up wins versus Minnesota, Green Bay, the Chargers, Seattle (twice), Denver, and Kansas City, although they came up short against New Orleans, Chicago, and Philadelphia. But the Cowboys hold the edge in their playoff rivalry, which hasn't seen much action (any action) since 1985, Dallas having won 4, the Rams 3, the Cowboys winning 3 of their last 5 regular season games; all-time they're remarkably close (17-16 for Dallas). The Rams haven't seen much postseason action in the last decade, but wow, they're good this year. I'd like to see Prescott continue his winning ways but his defence is going to have play exceptionally well, and it looks he'll need to engineer at least 30. The Cowboys can do it but the Rams are freakin' stacked. Hoping it's close. Picking Los Angeles by 17.
Los Angeles Chargers/New England Patriots: how many years ago did Brady lead that game winning drive that cruelly cut short San Diego's playoff ambitions? At least that's how I remember it, all those years ago, looks like it was 2006, New England defeating them again the following year. Yet Philip Rivers perseveres. I wouldn't listen to any arguments about New England being washed up or Brady not playing well this year. They did lose some games though, games against teams that weren't Miami once every two or threes years or so (imprecise statistics) or an obvious Super Bowl contender. I kept thinking, whatever, they only have 10 points now, by the end of the fourth they'll have 34, 38, 43, that's what always happens. But it didn't for some strange reason, and Jacksonville, Tennessee, Detroit, and, Miami, beat them, not that they didn't still compile an 11 and 5 record and a bye by the end of December. But what does it matter? They've reached the Conference Finals 7, 7 years in a row, victory for the Patriots at Gillette Stadium practically guaranteed in the Divisional Round, in fact only one of those games was close, the Ravens going up by 14 twice if I remember correctly, New England throwing on practically every down to eventually pick up the win. Nevertheless, this season was different and the Patriots did seem to be missing something that they were never without for the last 7 years. Something which the Chargers possess in abundance. It won't be easy, and every play will be a daunting challenge, but I think the Chargers are poised for victory, as improbable as it may seem. So many years later. Should be a good game forgetting all that regardless. Picking the Chargers. The Chargers by 9.
Philadelphia Eagles/New Orleans Saints: here's a bit of a divisional round wild card. By all means the Eagles should be preparing for next season, but they're not, and are still a potent threat. Demonstrating again that they know how to win in January, they overcame the Bears last Sunday and punched their ticket to face New Orleans. The Saints, like the Rams and Chiefs, looked unstoppable this year, and apart from a couple of hiccups, in one of their few losses they still scored 40 points, in fact, looking at their schedule they scored 40 points or more 6 times this year, 6, defeating the Eagles by a lofty 48 to 7. They certainly look like they're poised to win, they certainly defeated a bunch of good teams this year, including the Rams by 10, they're well rested and playing at home, even if domes don't give as much of an edge in the playoffs, and their defence wasn't that shabby this year either. But sometimes you see teams bag a win like the Eagles did last Sunday and they show up the next week with a refocused defiant formidable intensity. I don't think the game they played earlier in the year provides any indication of how this one will turn out. But the Saints looked good this season. And I'm still picking them by 14. Note: I don't think I've picked the Eagles once in the last two years. A Cowboys/Eagles Conference Final would be classic.
Dallas Cowboys/Los Angeles Rams: was mighty impressed with Dak Prescott last weekend. Some ill-timed pass interference penalties came to his aid, but late in the fourth he didn't gracefully glide when he efficiently ran. It was full-on "as-many-yards-as-possible" "punch-through-the-wall" athleticism that led to Dallas picking up a game winning touchdown. Love it when quarterbacks play that way. The Rams's offence was mighty impressive during the regular season however and Dallas's respectable D will have to dig deep to challenge them. They put up a lot of points a bunch of times and picked up wins versus Minnesota, Green Bay, the Chargers, Seattle (twice), Denver, and Kansas City, although they came up short against New Orleans, Chicago, and Philadelphia. But the Cowboys hold the edge in their playoff rivalry, which hasn't seen much action (any action) since 1985, Dallas having won 4, the Rams 3, the Cowboys winning 3 of their last 5 regular season games; all-time they're remarkably close (17-16 for Dallas). The Rams haven't seen much postseason action in the last decade, but wow, they're good this year. I'd like to see Prescott continue his winning ways but his defence is going to have play exceptionally well, and it looks he'll need to engineer at least 30. The Cowboys can do it but the Rams are freakin' stacked. Hoping it's close. Picking Los Angeles by 17.
Los Angeles Chargers/New England Patriots: how many years ago did Brady lead that game winning drive that cruelly cut short San Diego's playoff ambitions? At least that's how I remember it, all those years ago, looks like it was 2006, New England defeating them again the following year. Yet Philip Rivers perseveres. I wouldn't listen to any arguments about New England being washed up or Brady not playing well this year. They did lose some games though, games against teams that weren't Miami once every two or threes years or so (imprecise statistics) or an obvious Super Bowl contender. I kept thinking, whatever, they only have 10 points now, by the end of the fourth they'll have 34, 38, 43, that's what always happens. But it didn't for some strange reason, and Jacksonville, Tennessee, Detroit, and, Miami, beat them, not that they didn't still compile an 11 and 5 record and a bye by the end of December. But what does it matter? They've reached the Conference Finals 7, 7 years in a row, victory for the Patriots at Gillette Stadium practically guaranteed in the Divisional Round, in fact only one of those games was close, the Ravens going up by 14 twice if I remember correctly, New England throwing on practically every down to eventually pick up the win. Nevertheless, this season was different and the Patriots did seem to be missing something that they were never without for the last 7 years. Something which the Chargers possess in abundance. It won't be easy, and every play will be a daunting challenge, but I think the Chargers are poised for victory, as improbable as it may seem. So many years later. Should be a good game forgetting all that regardless. Picking the Chargers. The Chargers by 9.
Philadelphia Eagles/New Orleans Saints: here's a bit of a divisional round wild card. By all means the Eagles should be preparing for next season, but they're not, and are still a potent threat. Demonstrating again that they know how to win in January, they overcame the Bears last Sunday and punched their ticket to face New Orleans. The Saints, like the Rams and Chiefs, looked unstoppable this year, and apart from a couple of hiccups, in one of their few losses they still scored 40 points, in fact, looking at their schedule they scored 40 points or more 6 times this year, 6, defeating the Eagles by a lofty 48 to 7. They certainly look like they're poised to win, they certainly defeated a bunch of good teams this year, including the Rams by 10, they're well rested and playing at home, even if domes don't give as much of an edge in the playoffs, and their defence wasn't that shabby this year either. But sometimes you see teams bag a win like the Eagles did last Sunday and they show up the next week with a refocused defiant formidable intensity. I don't think the game they played earlier in the year provides any indication of how this one will turn out. But the Saints looked good this season. And I'm still picking them by 14. Note: I don't think I've picked the Eagles once in the last two years. A Cowboys/Eagles Conference Final would be classic.
Friday, January 11, 2019
Roma
I don't think I've ever seen a film with so many long scenes depicting active lives lived enriched with such vivid detail.
They aren't as multifaceted as those found at the beginning of Truffaut's La Nuit Américaine or Robert Altman's The Player or Orson Welles's Touch of Evil, but they continue to illustrate throughout the entire film and create a visually stunning communal aesthetic thereby, without moving, without moving hardly at all.
It's like Roma has thought provoking characters but they're secondary to the scene, the setting, the environment, like they're a part of a larger world, something much more subtle than that they're enveloped within, subtle yet pervasive, its predicaments and accidents adding pronounced depth without diagnosing psychology, as if their personalities are changing and growing within a fluid diverse realm whose endemic features encourage comment sans judgment, like the world's too vast to be analytically classified, and laissez-faire semantics breach like relaxed ontologies.
Living within.
Held together by a family's nanny (Yalitza Aparicio as Cleo) and the difficulties that arise after she discovers she's pregnant, a support network securely in place which is severely contrasted by blunt negligence, Roma follows her as she takes care of a family while trying to start one of her own, chaotic embodiments of structure ignoring her gentle inquiries.
The urge to classify, to make definitive political sense of life so that one can practically attach theoretical logic to their behaviour and be consequently rewarded or punished, depending on how virtuously they're deemed to have acted, functions like haunting destructive shackles within, inasmuch as it's speculatively associated with dogma, dogma which attempts to clarify, curtail, and control, violently, rather than existing symbiotically in peace.
Cleo's love interest Fermín (Jorge Antonio Guerrero) is therefore given an extended self-absorbed scene where he demonstrates his prowess, its stark lack of detail, its animated ferocious thrusts, bluntly contrasting the otherwise curious more robust less volatile shots, as if to intimate shocking austere extremities.
It's not the codes themselves that ironically produce chaos, it's the rigid discriminate attempts to puritanically follow them, even in situations where they clearly don't fit, and make others follow them, or classify others who don't follow them as undesirable, monitoring everyone at all times to make sure they're following them, bellicosely asserting them when faced with opposition, that make extremist variations on composed ethical themes like the ones found in Roma so terrifying.
Roma's a patient thoughtfully cultivated poised undulating ethos, whose undefined compassionate caresses humbly lament tragic imagination.
Calmly blending the search for meaning with unrehearsed existence, it finds purpose through improvisation, and critiques determinate codes.
Reminded me of Solaris.
They aren't as multifaceted as those found at the beginning of Truffaut's La Nuit Américaine or Robert Altman's The Player or Orson Welles's Touch of Evil, but they continue to illustrate throughout the entire film and create a visually stunning communal aesthetic thereby, without moving, without moving hardly at all.
It's like Roma has thought provoking characters but they're secondary to the scene, the setting, the environment, like they're a part of a larger world, something much more subtle than that they're enveloped within, subtle yet pervasive, its predicaments and accidents adding pronounced depth without diagnosing psychology, as if their personalities are changing and growing within a fluid diverse realm whose endemic features encourage comment sans judgment, like the world's too vast to be analytically classified, and laissez-faire semantics breach like relaxed ontologies.
Living within.
Held together by a family's nanny (Yalitza Aparicio as Cleo) and the difficulties that arise after she discovers she's pregnant, a support network securely in place which is severely contrasted by blunt negligence, Roma follows her as she takes care of a family while trying to start one of her own, chaotic embodiments of structure ignoring her gentle inquiries.
The urge to classify, to make definitive political sense of life so that one can practically attach theoretical logic to their behaviour and be consequently rewarded or punished, depending on how virtuously they're deemed to have acted, functions like haunting destructive shackles within, inasmuch as it's speculatively associated with dogma, dogma which attempts to clarify, curtail, and control, violently, rather than existing symbiotically in peace.
Cleo's love interest Fermín (Jorge Antonio Guerrero) is therefore given an extended self-absorbed scene where he demonstrates his prowess, its stark lack of detail, its animated ferocious thrusts, bluntly contrasting the otherwise curious more robust less volatile shots, as if to intimate shocking austere extremities.
It's not the codes themselves that ironically produce chaos, it's the rigid discriminate attempts to puritanically follow them, even in situations where they clearly don't fit, and make others follow them, or classify others who don't follow them as undesirable, monitoring everyone at all times to make sure they're following them, bellicosely asserting them when faced with opposition, that make extremist variations on composed ethical themes like the ones found in Roma so terrifying.
Roma's a patient thoughtfully cultivated poised undulating ethos, whose undefined compassionate caresses humbly lament tragic imagination.
Calmly blending the search for meaning with unrehearsed existence, it finds purpose through improvisation, and critiques determinate codes.
Reminded me of Solaris.
Thursday, January 10, 2019
Wednesday, January 9, 2019
Tuesday, January 8, 2019
The Favourite
Intrigue covetously schemes while fortune miraculously hounds, the enthused generosity of an imposing caregiver insolently betrayed by dissolute ambition, a lack of opportunity blended with flogged discourtesy no doubt encouraging rank desperation, and as circumstances ameliorate postures tempt then beckon, botanical connaissance herbaceously imploring, as Yorgos Lanthimos embroils The Favourite.
An odd mixture of innocence and ferocity emerges, Queen Anne's (Olivia Colman) impulses potently distracted, Lady Sarah (Rachel Weisz) guiding them with discreet intention, Abigail Hill (Emma Stone) recognizing habitual laidback verse.
To rest at play with one's rabbits on sunny afternoons as thrush critique, bray, and scold, evenings, inopportune.
What's overlooked?
What seeks cultivation?
What is she ignoring?
Devoutly genuine dissimulation.
Dark motivations speculate as calculation courts royal favour.
Ingratiation husked, unsettled.
Gratification crudely extolling.
Nevertheless, The Favourite seems to dismiss base flattery to uphold honest criticism, even if Duchess Marlborough (Weisz) isn't contentiously disposed.
In fact she blends blunt observation with composed praise in skillfully threaded admonishing coddles, poignantly yet starkly depicting stately decorum, ironically lost in assured security.
She's heavily relied upon, and has become somewhat stern, Abigail cunningly enacting a playful counterpoint, the Queen falling for her carefree license.
Who's to say, honestly, some people flatter to solely promote themselves, others have an agenda, some seek altruistic goals, some like to revel but still respect their obligations.
And personalities change over time and in different situations (Foucauldian Power).
The Favourite excels at providing mischievous illustrations of the upper echelons at play, presenting political duty more like an afterthought, or something someone considers when writing about such things.
For subject matter this multifaceted I would have preferred a larger cast, even if it's primarily focused on Marlborough and Abigail's rivalry, its political backdrop still lacks exploratory depth, for which we aren't adroitly compensated.
Lanthimos has created his own otherworldly tragic comedic bizarro aesthetic that brightly resonates with thoughtful disillusion.
But as profoundly melancholic as The Favourite may be, it still promotes poised bewilderment.
I'm assuming it's safe to say, "goal, achieved."
Brashly articulated.
An odd mixture of innocence and ferocity emerges, Queen Anne's (Olivia Colman) impulses potently distracted, Lady Sarah (Rachel Weisz) guiding them with discreet intention, Abigail Hill (Emma Stone) recognizing habitual laidback verse.
To rest at play with one's rabbits on sunny afternoons as thrush critique, bray, and scold, evenings, inopportune.
What's overlooked?
What seeks cultivation?
What is she ignoring?
Devoutly genuine dissimulation.
Dark motivations speculate as calculation courts royal favour.
Ingratiation husked, unsettled.
Gratification crudely extolling.
Nevertheless, The Favourite seems to dismiss base flattery to uphold honest criticism, even if Duchess Marlborough (Weisz) isn't contentiously disposed.
In fact she blends blunt observation with composed praise in skillfully threaded admonishing coddles, poignantly yet starkly depicting stately decorum, ironically lost in assured security.
She's heavily relied upon, and has become somewhat stern, Abigail cunningly enacting a playful counterpoint, the Queen falling for her carefree license.
Who's to say, honestly, some people flatter to solely promote themselves, others have an agenda, some seek altruistic goals, some like to revel but still respect their obligations.
And personalities change over time and in different situations (Foucauldian Power).
The Favourite excels at providing mischievous illustrations of the upper echelons at play, presenting political duty more like an afterthought, or something someone considers when writing about such things.
For subject matter this multifaceted I would have preferred a larger cast, even if it's primarily focused on Marlborough and Abigail's rivalry, its political backdrop still lacks exploratory depth, for which we aren't adroitly compensated.
Lanthimos has created his own otherworldly tragic comedic bizarro aesthetic that brightly resonates with thoughtful disillusion.
But as profoundly melancholic as The Favourite may be, it still promotes poised bewilderment.
I'm assuming it's safe to say, "goal, achieved."
Brashly articulated.
Monday, January 7, 2019
Top Ten Films of 2018
Saw a lot of great films in theatres in 2018.
Here's a list of me favourites:
2. Colette
3. The Bookshop
4. Blindspotting
5. Mary Poppins Returns
6. Hochelaga, terre des ȃmes
7. Ant-Man & the Wasp
8. Mary Queen of Scots
9. Laissez bronzer les cadavres
10. Juliet, Naked
Of Note:
Widows
At Eternity's Gate
Mid90s
Green Book
Puzzle
Tully
Sunday, January 6, 2019
Saturday, January 5, 2019
Codswollop
Sprightly dubious addendum
counterpoints foretold intentions
quizzical slapdash conceit
obscures established parlour tweet
out loud the timid razzled pleasure
startles dazzling stock endeavours
paths sashaying Oxtail Wood
modally whisper "could penned should"
the diamonds glimmer through the trees
authenticating mystery
while grizzled spectacled coy sleuths
dig up prevaricating proofs
a raw egg tasks the boiling water
"warmly guide me formless blotter,
check them balances portend
substantial transformations zen",
yolky.
counterpoints foretold intentions
quizzical slapdash conceit
obscures established parlour tweet
out loud the timid razzled pleasure
startles dazzling stock endeavours
paths sashaying Oxtail Wood
modally whisper "could penned should"
the diamonds glimmer through the trees
authenticating mystery
while grizzled spectacled coy sleuths
dig up prevaricating proofs
a raw egg tasks the boiling water
"warmly guide me formless blotter,
check them balances portend
substantial transformations zen",
yolky.
NFL Playoff Picks, Wild Card Round
Indianapolis Colts/Houston Texans: I can't think of two teams more evenly matched who have played each other in the playoffs in recent years. Division rivals no less. They split their season series and both games were decided by 3 points, Houston winning in overtime early on, the Colts emerging victorious in week 14, both teams winning on the road. Indianapolis scored 31 more points than the Texans during the season but Houston let in 28 fewer, a remarkably close 3 point differential, mindbogglingly close statistics. Houston's made the playoffs several times in recent years but is still looking for that breakthrough season. And their 2018 record's solid, in fact they almost won every game and only lost two games by more than 3, compiling an 11 and 2 record since week 4. Similarly, the Colts won 9 of their last 10 and Andrew Luck seems to have rediscovered the magic touch that led to so many big playoff wins years ago. The home team is a safe bet when teams are this evenly matched and they play each other so often, but home field advantage didn't mean much when they faced off during the season. I'm hoping this game sees overtime. Picking the Colts by 3.
Seattle Seahawks/Dallas Cowboys: The Seahawks had a classic hit and miss season. They beat the Cowboys, Packers, Chiefs, and Vikings, but lost close games to the Rams, Chargers, and Broncos. Their win against Kansas City late in the year says a lot about how they play under pressure, with the postseason on the line, but looking good prior to the playoffs doesn't automatically guarantee victory or success. Dallas beat Philadelphia twice plus New Orleans and came out on top of a tight competitive division. Their defence played well in 2018, allowing 23 fewer points than Seattle, notably holding the Saints to a paltry 10. But their offence scored far fewer points and they've lost 4 of their last 5 when playing Seattle. The Seahawks fielded some outstanding playoff teams in recent memory while Dallas has struggled to make an impact for quite some time. They're playing at home and will likely employ a tough defensive strategy, but Russell Wilson's been there and done that, and regularly comes up with big plays the second his team falls behind. It'd be nice to see Dallas do something in January again, I never thought I'd say that but it's been so long since they beat the Bills. It's looking like Seattle has the edge in this one though. Hoping the game's tight with a winner emerging in the dying seconds. Picking the Seahawks. The Seahawks by 10.
Los Angeles Chargers/Baltimore Ravens: Philip Rivers has been around a long time and I'd love to see him lead the Chargers to a Super Bowl win. If Los Angeles beats the Ravens, they play either New England or Kansas City next week. Both of those potential matchups are compelling because Kansas City and Los Angeles are division rivals who compiled the best records in the AFC this year, and back in the day when San Diego had really good teams, they came up against one Tom Brady and the New England Patriots, who foiled their postseason ambitions. As they have so many others. First the Chargers take on the Chiefs, followed by a game versus New England? Then, if they make the Super Bowl, Rivers could face Drew Brees in an ultimate salute to old school rivalry, the definitive game coming over a decade later. I wouldn't think about these kinds of things if I was an athlete. If I was an athlete I wouldn't read or think about much besides how to win while staying focused on the next game. Especially since the Chargers lost to Baltimore 22-10 two weeks ago (and if they had won they may have secured the bye). I'm not an athlete though, and I find potential Chargers/Chiefs, then Chargers/Patriots, then Chargers/Saints matchups too exciting to ignore, so I'm rooting for the Chargers, and good old Philip Rivers. Not that Lamar Jackson becoming the youngest player to ever win a playoff game isn't also exciting. Picking the Chargers by 6.
Philadelphia Eagles/Chicago Bears: here's an interesting game. My less dramatic pick for the Super Bowl this year is Chicago; after they held the Rams to only 6 points, I started to think their defence is strong enough. Baltimore has a similar defence, damn it, but that doesn't mean the Chargers won't prevail. The Bears won 9 of their last 10 and put up some solid offensive stats too, but it would still be cool to see the Eagles make another run. They're currently playing well and played well beyond expectations last year in the postseason. And what better opponent to have to face to prove themselves than Chicago? But Chicago's well oiled on both sides of the field and could have played a much less daunting Vikings squad in the Wild Card round if they had just played their B team last week (perhaps they did), but as far as I know they played to win, and I freakin' love that, and am picking the Bears consequently. Bears by 13. Nice to see them back in the playoffs.
Seattle Seahawks/Dallas Cowboys: The Seahawks had a classic hit and miss season. They beat the Cowboys, Packers, Chiefs, and Vikings, but lost close games to the Rams, Chargers, and Broncos. Their win against Kansas City late in the year says a lot about how they play under pressure, with the postseason on the line, but looking good prior to the playoffs doesn't automatically guarantee victory or success. Dallas beat Philadelphia twice plus New Orleans and came out on top of a tight competitive division. Their defence played well in 2018, allowing 23 fewer points than Seattle, notably holding the Saints to a paltry 10. But their offence scored far fewer points and they've lost 4 of their last 5 when playing Seattle. The Seahawks fielded some outstanding playoff teams in recent memory while Dallas has struggled to make an impact for quite some time. They're playing at home and will likely employ a tough defensive strategy, but Russell Wilson's been there and done that, and regularly comes up with big plays the second his team falls behind. It'd be nice to see Dallas do something in January again, I never thought I'd say that but it's been so long since they beat the Bills. It's looking like Seattle has the edge in this one though. Hoping the game's tight with a winner emerging in the dying seconds. Picking the Seahawks. The Seahawks by 10.
Los Angeles Chargers/Baltimore Ravens: Philip Rivers has been around a long time and I'd love to see him lead the Chargers to a Super Bowl win. If Los Angeles beats the Ravens, they play either New England or Kansas City next week. Both of those potential matchups are compelling because Kansas City and Los Angeles are division rivals who compiled the best records in the AFC this year, and back in the day when San Diego had really good teams, they came up against one Tom Brady and the New England Patriots, who foiled their postseason ambitions. As they have so many others. First the Chargers take on the Chiefs, followed by a game versus New England? Then, if they make the Super Bowl, Rivers could face Drew Brees in an ultimate salute to old school rivalry, the definitive game coming over a decade later. I wouldn't think about these kinds of things if I was an athlete. If I was an athlete I wouldn't read or think about much besides how to win while staying focused on the next game. Especially since the Chargers lost to Baltimore 22-10 two weeks ago (and if they had won they may have secured the bye). I'm not an athlete though, and I find potential Chargers/Chiefs, then Chargers/Patriots, then Chargers/Saints matchups too exciting to ignore, so I'm rooting for the Chargers, and good old Philip Rivers. Not that Lamar Jackson becoming the youngest player to ever win a playoff game isn't also exciting. Picking the Chargers by 6.
Philadelphia Eagles/Chicago Bears: here's an interesting game. My less dramatic pick for the Super Bowl this year is Chicago; after they held the Rams to only 6 points, I started to think their defence is strong enough. Baltimore has a similar defence, damn it, but that doesn't mean the Chargers won't prevail. The Bears won 9 of their last 10 and put up some solid offensive stats too, but it would still be cool to see the Eagles make another run. They're currently playing well and played well beyond expectations last year in the postseason. And what better opponent to have to face to prove themselves than Chicago? But Chicago's well oiled on both sides of the field and could have played a much less daunting Vikings squad in the Wild Card round if they had just played their B team last week (perhaps they did), but as far as I know they played to win, and I freakin' love that, and am picking the Bears consequently. Bears by 13. Nice to see them back in the playoffs.
Friday, January 4, 2019
Mary Poppins Returns
Fitting that Mary Poppins (Emily Blunt) should return in an age where access to independent art has expanded exponentially.
The options everyone has to express him or herself locally/regionally/nationally/globally, free of charge, have perhaps clouded the master narrative's unconscious lucidity, and made alternative forms of peaceful expression more readily agreeable.
Notably animal videos.
Plus everything's accessible from a magical little device that fits in your pocket and is connected to the world at large.
True, because of this device you can be tracked by who knows who wherever you go, and you may be missing out on a lot of cool real world phenomena if you never lift your head up, but it's also like a cool informative instructive multifaceted tricorder, and if you like brainy stuff too, trust me, there's more than one app for that.
Mary Poppins Returns takes place in the pre-technological era, however, yet still provides fascinating insights into how creative people used to entertain.
Poetic or artistic inspiration isn't limited to the night sky or raccoon encounters you know, it's everywhere you look everywhere you go, as Poppins and Jack (Lin-Manuel Miranda) illuminate, and if you don't forget to observe whatever it is you happen to be caught up in, as you did when you were younger, you can turn a bowl discovered at a thrift shop into Ulysses, or a pinecone into Lost in Translation.
And you can share your observations on Instagram or Twitter or other forms of social media usually without having to make much of an effort.
Like the whole world's gone Barbapapa.
Nevertheless, I was worried when I heard they were making a new Mary Poppins film because the first one was universally adored by so so many, and it's always risky to make a sequel to such cynosures, even 54 years later, unless you dig in quite deep and draft exceptionally well crafted flumes.
Which is what Rob Marshall and his crew have fortunately done.
Mary Poppins Returns is phenomenal, a total must see, even if you don't have children, a celebration of creative minds and the positive effects of imagination, which also critiques zealous desires to foreclose, and lauds the symphonic harmonies of robust labour.
I may actually buy a copy.
Lin-Manuel Miranda and Emily Blunt are outstanding.
It collectively unites song and dance in a coruscating choreographed multidimensional cascading cloudburst, sensually exporting remarkably vivid exceptions while suggesting it's what anyone can do.
Just gotta keep those eyes open.
Draw a parallel.
Infuse.
Juggle.
The options everyone has to express him or herself locally/regionally/nationally/globally, free of charge, have perhaps clouded the master narrative's unconscious lucidity, and made alternative forms of peaceful expression more readily agreeable.
Notably animal videos.
Plus everything's accessible from a magical little device that fits in your pocket and is connected to the world at large.
True, because of this device you can be tracked by who knows who wherever you go, and you may be missing out on a lot of cool real world phenomena if you never lift your head up, but it's also like a cool informative instructive multifaceted tricorder, and if you like brainy stuff too, trust me, there's more than one app for that.
Mary Poppins Returns takes place in the pre-technological era, however, yet still provides fascinating insights into how creative people used to entertain.
Poetic or artistic inspiration isn't limited to the night sky or raccoon encounters you know, it's everywhere you look everywhere you go, as Poppins and Jack (Lin-Manuel Miranda) illuminate, and if you don't forget to observe whatever it is you happen to be caught up in, as you did when you were younger, you can turn a bowl discovered at a thrift shop into Ulysses, or a pinecone into Lost in Translation.
And you can share your observations on Instagram or Twitter or other forms of social media usually without having to make much of an effort.
Like the whole world's gone Barbapapa.
Nevertheless, I was worried when I heard they were making a new Mary Poppins film because the first one was universally adored by so so many, and it's always risky to make a sequel to such cynosures, even 54 years later, unless you dig in quite deep and draft exceptionally well crafted flumes.
Which is what Rob Marshall and his crew have fortunately done.
Mary Poppins Returns is phenomenal, a total must see, even if you don't have children, a celebration of creative minds and the positive effects of imagination, which also critiques zealous desires to foreclose, and lauds the symphonic harmonies of robust labour.
I may actually buy a copy.
Lin-Manuel Miranda and Emily Blunt are outstanding.
It collectively unites song and dance in a coruscating choreographed multidimensional cascading cloudburst, sensually exporting remarkably vivid exceptions while suggesting it's what anyone can do.
Just gotta keep those eyes open.
Draw a parallel.
Infuse.
Juggle.
Thursday, January 3, 2019
Wednesday, January 2, 2019
Tuesday, January 1, 2019
Aquaman
Unbeknownst to surface dwellers who recklessly pollute its august fathoms, deep within the ocean reside 7 ancient civilizations.
Swathed in utmost secrecy, they flourish in blissful dissimulation.
Yet one king (Patrick Wilson as King Orm) has grown weary of land lubbing largesse, and madly seeks to start a war with the peoples above.
He requires the loyalty of 3 free realms to bellicosely embark, however, realms which have little interest in non-aquatic regal affairs.
But not all of his subjects believe his plan is conceptually sound, two of them hoping to challenge his legitimacy within reasonable lawful bounds (Amber Heard as Princess Mera and Willem Dafoe as Vulko), for a brother has he who was raised on land yet still commands creatures of the deep, and even though Aquaman (Jason Momoa) has never embraced his submerged heritage, they feel that he may, if he learns of its dire ambitions.
And that only he can thwart them.
His lighthouse keeping father (Temuera Morrison as Tom Curry) still awaits the return of his beloved Queen Atlanna (Nicole Kidman), each and every evening, and has since the day she was taken from him, and forced to marry against her will.
Aquaman can't remember her.
Although he's heard of her brilliant legend.
But his customs are not those of the aristocracy, in fact Aquaman playfully intertwines old and new world pretensions as it supernaturally decodes the throne.
With wild self-sacrificing purpose.
The seven realms could have each represented different philosophies more astutely had their lore been given more detailed narrativizations.
But Aquaman resists the urge to become overly complicated like Dune, even if it's still quite complex, its protagonist like a Paul Atreides who was raised amongst the Fremen, his charming rough adventurous spirit boldly holding the film together.
You don't have to suspend your disbelief to love Aquaman, you simply have to imagine you've never believed in anything before.
And let yourself be immersed in a chaotic world overflowing with innocence and curiosity.
The underwater worlds are incredible and it was soothing to imagine myself within them.
Swimming away.
Aspects of Aquaman may be so improbable that a degree of cynicism may surface.
But it's also saturated with ingenuous goodwill, reluctance and cheek diversifying its depths, uncertain outcomes delineating its contrariety, with objectives as lofty as they are foretold.
A choral cascade.
A mirthful maelstrom.
Swathed in utmost secrecy, they flourish in blissful dissimulation.
Yet one king (Patrick Wilson as King Orm) has grown weary of land lubbing largesse, and madly seeks to start a war with the peoples above.
He requires the loyalty of 3 free realms to bellicosely embark, however, realms which have little interest in non-aquatic regal affairs.
But not all of his subjects believe his plan is conceptually sound, two of them hoping to challenge his legitimacy within reasonable lawful bounds (Amber Heard as Princess Mera and Willem Dafoe as Vulko), for a brother has he who was raised on land yet still commands creatures of the deep, and even though Aquaman (Jason Momoa) has never embraced his submerged heritage, they feel that he may, if he learns of its dire ambitions.
And that only he can thwart them.
His lighthouse keeping father (Temuera Morrison as Tom Curry) still awaits the return of his beloved Queen Atlanna (Nicole Kidman), each and every evening, and has since the day she was taken from him, and forced to marry against her will.
Aquaman can't remember her.
Although he's heard of her brilliant legend.
But his customs are not those of the aristocracy, in fact Aquaman playfully intertwines old and new world pretensions as it supernaturally decodes the throne.
With wild self-sacrificing purpose.
The seven realms could have each represented different philosophies more astutely had their lore been given more detailed narrativizations.
But Aquaman resists the urge to become overly complicated like Dune, even if it's still quite complex, its protagonist like a Paul Atreides who was raised amongst the Fremen, his charming rough adventurous spirit boldly holding the film together.
You don't have to suspend your disbelief to love Aquaman, you simply have to imagine you've never believed in anything before.
And let yourself be immersed in a chaotic world overflowing with innocence and curiosity.
The underwater worlds are incredible and it was soothing to imagine myself within them.
Swimming away.
Aspects of Aquaman may be so improbable that a degree of cynicism may surface.
But it's also saturated with ingenuous goodwill, reluctance and cheek diversifying its depths, uncertain outcomes delineating its contrariety, with objectives as lofty as they are foretold.
A choral cascade.
A mirthful maelstrom.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)