The X-Files - I thought I loved it more than this...

I remember being all about this show as a kid. It was pretty cool and different. And it was approved by the household parental advisory committee: My mother. She loved it way more than me, to be honest. And I guess I had thing for Mulder that my pre-adolecent brain kinda dug, so something about his voice (I think) made me record an episode of this to a cassette tape. Reason being, while we had the means to record these episodes to VCR, sometimes I'd commit them to cassette tape too, so I could at least listen to the episode later. I also did it for movies I couldn't get copies of at the time. So I have a lot of this shit in my brain by sound alone. It's stupid, but a lot of people will tell you they can recite movies purely by the script alone. I'm one of those people.

The episode I happened to record was Eve. I did start to watch the show on SBS for free a while back. Until I saw an ad. And not just any old ad but an ad for my fucking job. And that was all it took. I cancelled my account, which actually involved sending a stroppy email to SBS to get it cancelled since there was no manual cancellation option.

Then I got Amazon Prime for reasons, and I might cancel later I don't know. But they happen to have it, and I only suffer through a preliminary ad for another Amazon show I can at least skip. I got a bit impatient trying to do a proper binge to get to this particular episode, I did record it off TV about ten or more years ago. But I haven't forgotten anything of the dialogue at all. Fun fact: I made myself look like the most obnoxious smart ass during a science lesson, where I paid no attention to the hot teacher asking the class how many chromosomes we have. So, people were guessing random numbers, and a not so particularly bright friend of mine said when asked, "I dunno, 1000?" I was reading a book or some shit so I didn't hear the question, but that was when I confirmed what we were guessing and said "46". Not only did the teacher look bummed out I had guessed her supposedly unguessable question, I actually went back to reading a book and not paying attention. One of the thousands of reasons I was hated at school, for just knowing random ass trivia that got me by as an average student. It probably pissed my teachers way more, especially considering I wasn't a top science student despite my dad being an actual science teacher, and I sucked at maths despite mother being a maths teacher.

Anyway, I thought X-Files was better than what I remembered, so watching the first eps I was like, wait wasn't this show far more brilliant? But watching this episode, I think this was when show found its stride. I'll go back and watch the other two I didn't finish after this, and I think I could keep going for a while. I really lost the thread by the end of high school, I can't remember specifically what happened other than I just wasn't into it. This episode is particularly good. The twin child actresses managed to pull off the diabolical looks and ingenue tricks without being to irritating. I have a lot of nostalgia for the music too, I would listen to this a lot on trips to Perth or driving around the city since I knew it'd kill time. But I see a nitpick of sorts. The agents agree to getting soda after Scully mentions the sweet flavor of the poison the girls use. Minor gripe. Plus Mulder could've shot the tires out when Cindy's kidnapped but whatever. The leads had that chemistry that really made the show popular and made them an iconic onscreen couple. I never fully agreed with them being romantically involved, even when the show creator was saying they loved one another I just wasn't buying it. And while I may have bought the movie soundtrack for that one Foo Fighters song (again, CDs were my only option if I wanted a song at the time), I didn't love the movie at all. I did later watch the episode where Mulder technically finds his sister, and another episode way after Robert Patrick was on and nobody (I can't verify that) was watching. The show did a good blend scientifically believable outcomes and "what if" open-ended plots. Since it all pivots around government conspiracies that turn out to be true it wouldn't gel for it not to have that element.

This show's definitely another victim of fan adoration overkill. The movies and subsequent six episode "return" weren't worth it, to me anyway. At least Kumail Nanjiani got a chance to be in an episode, which was fun but stuck out more in the new episodes since the previous two were heavy in the content around Mulder and Scully reuniting. We got shorter seasons out of it but I don't think they rated well enough. I think I had a copy of the comic first edition around somewhere, it was okay. I think being a hardcore fan would've sucked but any time there was a mention of a reboot I had to roll my eyes like I do with most shows, even the ones I either never liked or loved too much. (I'll save my Red Dwarf rant for another post).

I want to keep going with the thought it'll shake off its early 90s hokey feel. I got some momentary Goosebumps vibes. The tension's there but the special effects and some goofball acting. I do not remember any of these episodes, so now I'm thinking I wasn't that into it or I genuinely only saw them once. I'm sure this was scary in the way Twilight Zone was super scary back in the day, as that element isn't holding up. I think once the production improves and the scripts get more interesting it'll get better. I don't know if the first season didn't maintain a deliberate serial format until there was a clear run for the show. I'll stick it out since I wasn't committed to anything.

I forgot I never posted this. I couldn't make it past the gender bending episode. I haven't been back since, even when I considered skipping to later seasons. Nope. Done with this nonsense.

Tarantino.

My brother kinda sorta went to film school, basically he did a BA in Media Studies from memory. But before that, he got popular for a while performing a scene from Reservoir Dogs as part of his Country Week Speech team performance. I sat with him as he wrote out the lines and paused the VCR to scratch down Tim Roth's spiel which he uses to convince everyone he's not a cop. He got by minus the swearing. I wasn't there but he pulled it off. He was the only one to win a trophy for our school, all the sports teams and the debate team didn't qualify. So he kinda built a legacy from it. (In truth it was his actual speech but this performance part helped).

After I finished high school he came home from uni and showed me Pulp Fiction. It really wasn't like anything else around, despite it being so heavily influenced by many genres. It's a great movie. It deserves its icon status. We all spouted that Ezekiel passage (which is heavily modified from the Bible). Royale with Cheese was a meme before memes. John Travolta was suddenly relevant again. Samuel L Jackson proved he's a motherfucker of an actor.

I've seen most of Tarantino's films, but not Django and Death Proof. I didn't think I'd enjoy Hateful Eight as much as I did, it was great. I've probably watched Kill Bill more than the others, I'd love to see the Whole Bloody Affair, which amounts to the vision he had for both volumes to be one original cut. If I have to complain about any of them I'd say I can't deal with Inglourious Basterds, not that it isn't well made or terrible, I just couldn't handled the protracted tension of most of the scenes and the final moments leading up to the end are fucking unbearable. I probably wouldn't watch Jackie Brown again.

Once Upon a Time was one I did look forward to seeing despite spoiling it for myself in general. I feel like I should read more about the Tate murder from what little I know, I know bits about Polanski, whose name I forgot, so I resorted to googling "rape rape" in reference Whoopie Goldberg's defense of his actions, since their was a lot of contention over Polanski's stat rape charge regarding a 13 year old girl. I won't digress suffice to say we probably need a better definition of rape by now.

But I'm kinda not digging Once Upon a Time. I think it's taking far too long to tell a really short story. It looks fantastic, it deserves the accolades for production design. There's cool stuff going on with it. I don't think Margot Robbie's being objectified, I don't see why having less lines in her case diminishes what she does on screen. She's telegraphing a lot with her performance, we're spending time with her as an audience and getting to know her. There's nothing really narcissistic about her watching herself on screen. DiCaprio's pretty great I thought some of his scenes so far were a little forced he's fun to watch. Planting him in the Great Escape almost worked. I preferred Pitt's character overall. But I haven't been as captivated, the build up to the real story's taken quite a while, when you'd really have a sense of what was going on way before with Tarantino, even if he had spent more time building mood and scene. It's less dialogue heavy, which is pretty good considering it suits the mood. I'm fine with him doing fantasy versions of recent history, I don't think people were half as dumb believing his version to be the truth, not like those idiots who thought Titanic was "just a movie". But I paused Once Upon a Time to do stuff, then forgot I'd been watching it and almost started watching 4 year old Batman Vs Superman script doctor videos. So, clearly my investment was low.

Based on the ratings via Rotten Tomatoes, Tarantino's movies seem to be in a fall of diminishing returns, this last feature a slight uptick. I know he's not as heavily praised or revered as he was 20 years ago, he still gets listed with the modern greats, he reached auteur status and I'll pay that. I've never spat on his shit, I don't care how controversial he is most of the time, I agree with his stance on simulated violence. You have a choice, nobody forces you to watch this, kids haven't gone into diners and stood on tables shouting if anyone moves, they'll execute every motherfucking last one of you. His brand of violence is kind of lampoonish, it's overblown. And yeah, it's fuckin' fun, JAN! I think he writes more interesting female characters than most. I know he screwed over Uma Thurman, I was oddly fascinated with their work on Kill Bill, she was supposed to be more of a collaborator by the vibe I got from old promo interviews. But she kept a brave face while a certain producer ran Hollywood with a perverted fist of bribery and casting couch nightmares.

Polanski is probably an asshole. Weinstein's definitely an asshole. Tarantino claims to have kept him out of reach of Thurman, I'm inclined to believe he did, and I try not to shit on people who didn't speak out to the general public at the time. Everyone was stymied and threatened or felt intimidated if they spoke out. Some may have felt the lack of evidence meant it wasn't right to go forward. Hollywood's got toxicity issues. Having said that, I don't defend Tarantino as much as I would have back then. I used to agree that a character that uses derogatory terms is being a representation of real life so a script with that language should get a pass. Now, I'm probably more squeamish about it I can't defend it as readily. I think his time in the anti-PC patrol's kinda over, whether the recent apologies he made were sincere or forced by his team is up for debate.

And Once Upon a Time is actually really disappointing. Considering it's leading up to a particularly dark ending, the payoff is pretty minimal. It's got such a happily ever after vibe of an ending, which is fine for the title, but I wasn't all that attached to any character to care the outcome. Pitt's character's way more enjoyable, he's basically the hero. Robbie's fine but I'm supposed to fall in love with her character, she's the princess or damsel of the story, and I didn't care that much she survived. I don't know her friends in this well enough to care they live. The hippies, if you have no context, don't seem to be that malevolent, just a bunch of bullies, so without the context of the Manson murders and his cult, you wouldn't know to hate them. And the payoff with the flamethrower gag just feels like complete fucking overkill. The violence meter's been turned down as low as it could go, (at least in terms of how much we're exposed to) as if Tarantino's finally succumb to all the backlash and this was his response to the bad language/anti-violence crowd, like it's not fun to rile them up so we get a watered down but very well presented Tarantino film. It was weird. Maybe I'd watch it again but this was underwhelming for all the hype.

 

Midsommar, Hereditary and the concept of Grief Porn

With the idea of something appalling being transformed into a type of ironic pornography, heralded by the Saw franchise giving rise to torture porn, Ari Aster's movies Hereditary and Misommoar, to me, are examples of grief porn. I don't think glorying the depictions of women grieving in guttural groaning and sobbing is intended to be appealing, but I noticed between the two films the focus on women going through the painful loss of loved ones, forcing us to live in their space perhaps longer than we'd prefer. The director seemed to have a fixation with this depiction, and wants us to share in it rather than turn away.

I wasn't thrilled with Hereditary, though I did appreciate it. I'm not a huge fan of Toni Collette when she's using her American accent, it's convincing but her performances seem so much more forced to me than her earlier Australian work. But she's never failed to convey the wretchedness and ugliness of sorrow, that hideous twist you can get in your face when you're bawling, cheeks wet with tears, all the saliva in your mouth stretching between the teeth. (She did this just as well in Muriel's Wedding). It's hard to watch but Aster insists we do. Hereditary's fractured story is slightly harder to follow, but its imagery remains after one viewing. You ponder its aspects to a degree.

Midsommar, however, extends this notion of grief so much further. It's a lesson in withholding and denying the process of grief to its fullest extent. It explores ageing though the views of an isolated cult in Sweden, who execute a long ritual every 90 years to bring fertility and prosperity through human sacrifice, with the acceptance suffering a natural death of old age is worse than willingly expiring at 72. Where the visitors see two people forced into sacrifice, we're meant to see something beautiful about having the choice to die. We're not supposed to value the outsider's view becoming too old as being right or good. And I had to appreciate that, regardless of the gruesomeness of the deaths in the film. It reminded me more of the ending of a show, David the Gnome, where the titular gnome and his wife come to the end of their lives and celebrate this, heading to their resting place on a hill where they turn into trees. For a kids' show, it was such a beautiful way of exploring death as something that no one should truly fear. To force people to live in a frail body is more disgusting to me than giving them the right to a humane death. 

We move mostly with the character Dani, experiencing all her pain from the death of her family, that she bottles up to protect others from. Meanwhile, her beleaguered boyfriend of four years, Christian, is contemplating leaving her due to her ongoing depression, this disaster making him feel obligated to stay while desperate to leave her sphere of pain and sorrow. He comforts her but not in any sincere way that makes her feel loved. The only person who accepts her pain (more than she does), is the foreigner Pelle, the one leading her and Christian, with their friends, to the isolated community. The language barrier is used to hide the truth of what the outsiders are walking into, but I don't see this as a slight upon the villagers to turn the audience against that culture. I think there was some backlash, and the village's traditions were a mixed bag of others, there's definitely Amish and Nordic cultures involved. One of the village elders is aware enough of the world outside and how they view things. They fund their lives by selling their wares, they don't break traffic laws. They understand more of what's beyond them than the outsiders do of them.

While we're supposed to be fearful of this commune, there are sinister elements there, however subtle, I found myself choosing their side, and agreeing with so much we're supposed to oppose in their actions. I was so on their side to the point I wanted Dani to end up with Pelle. To my mind, Pelle was the true hero rescuing Dani from Christian's inconsiderate friends, punishing them for their disrespect of not only her, but the community as a whole.

While Josh, the student working on his thesis on midsummer festivals, purports to be respectful of other societies as an anthropologist, he commits more acts of ignorance and selfishness defying the requests not to document or photograph certain aspects of the community. His duplicitous behaviour is what gets him killed. Buddy and group douche, Mark, is there for drugs and women, committing one heinous act of pissing on the sacred fallen tree, making himself the epitome of the ignorant American tourist who doesn't come to experience or appreciate, but to take what he wants of the culture he's immersed in, all while bitching about the aspects he finds threatening, like ticks and the midnight sun. He's purposefully so unlikable you don't really care he's later involved in the final sacrifice, it's an appropriate comeuppance. Christian is somewhat more nuanced at first, his decision to steal Josh's thesis idea since he's not figured it out putting them at odds to further fracture this group. Two other outsiders, Simon and Connie, from the UK, aren't explored as deeply, only showing respect for the community until the first ritual is exhibited. They decide to leave, but of course, they don't escape. 

Where we're seeing hints of horror movie tropes by way of the group being broken up either physically or emotionally, Midsommar somehow takes the sinister behaviour of the community to a much more interesting level. Suspicions are aroused but we're cognisant of what's going on, we're not subjected to too many shots of furtive members, perhaps one or two stare in disdain at the outsiders. Given the movie is just soaked in sunlight, we're not seeing so many shadow-ridden shots obscuring the horror. In fact, the world the travelers leave behind is darker and more darkly lit. Dani weeps in the dark with Christian after her family dies, we're detached from her at this point. But her later moment with the women of the village is shot in dusty light, where we're with them, curled up with her, grieving with her. So much of the last moments give an empowerment to Dani, you revel in her becoming the May Queen, the levity of the music in the final scenes gives rise to a sense of relief and joy, the time for grieving is coming to an end to bring absolute acceptance. Oh, and the black guy isn't the first to go.

Pelle might be the quintessential bad guy of the horror genre luring these victims to their death, but his compassion for Dani and happiness of her rise to May Queen make him a bizarre hero. To me, he was so much more the hero of Dani's story, he remembers her birthday when her own long term boyfriend completely forgets. For every moment Christian fails to make her happy, Pelle is there to show her true concern and consideration. He's eventually heralded as one of the honored of the final ritual for fulfilling his duty in bringing the four outsiders to the village, and I didn't hate the guy. I didn't hate the people of the village. I was completely on their side and didn't give a damn about the others being sacrificed. You're meant to hate these guys for their attitude to other cultures. They're genuine pricks from the start, faking their friendliness towards Dani while demanding Christian break up with her so she's not killing their fun. For anyone who's ever been guilt-tripped into smiling or getting over their pain for the sake of others, this is your type of porn. This would vindicate anyone who's been alone in a circle of friends who can no longer tolerate their misery. Dani's depression is so acceptable to us, but to her friends, she's just a drama queen, they dismiss her endless fear of her sister doing something drastic, they work to exclude her and begrudgingly include her, Christian's passive-aggressive offers for her to hang out with them clearly centred around the hope she'll decline, while he can say he at least asked. He wants to run off to Sweden, he's persistently looking for exits from Dani in his internal conflict not to abandon her. And while he might unwittingly fall into the final trap set for him, you want Dani to exact her revenge for his betrayal. 

This is a giant middle finger to anyone who has tried to shit on the process of grief, and allowing others to grieve. It's such a cautionary tale for those who hide their feelings from partners and persist with dishonesty for the sake of the feelings of others, and who constantly take the blame for others disappointing them. And as we're exploring the fractured relationship between Dani and Christian, we're warned of the consequences of withholding and dismissing a significant other. To the point they were offering couples counseling to audiences. You're yelling at Dani and Christian to confront their issues in that hypocritical way you know you wouldn't do yourself in the same situation. The falseness of kindness and skirting around the problem is pronounced as much as the gruesomeness, reminding us life can be ugly. Dani knows the others are condescending to her, she suspects Christian wants to leave and she laughs off their perception of her. She's thoroughly ashamed of her sadness, constantly running away to smother her panic attacks and crying. That's the horrific part that held the mirror up to my face. If you've not run to hide your emotions you might question why she does. She's fighting with herself and her own internal bullshit so much harder, and she's out in the middle of nowhere on an Ativan withdrawal on mushrooms. That's the horror of it.

Much like Hereditary, we're truly forced to face the ugliness of death and grief. In Midsommar, we're asked to celebrate the ideas of death, and any squeamishness on the viewer's part isn't allowed for. Aster presents death and misery with a patient request to accept this. He doesn't indulge in the gruesome moments, in all honesty the bloodiest parts weren't so convincing to me to make me look away. I wasn't scared by this movie, I enjoyed most of the last scenes, it was probably the ritualistic sex that was more discomforting, but that was juxtaposed with Dani's grieving to culminate in her expulsion of pain and acceptance of loss. We're empowered by this, granted permission at last to actually cry with her and live her relief through her smile. Despite her almost pantomime flower gown and headdress, you're not laughing at her. Her dancing is euphoric and distracts from the horrific events going on outside the dance. You have a moment to fear for her safety too, she's become the final girl in a sense, but she's not bolting or denying the community their desires to celebrate. She's very much the willing tourist who allows this to go on around her until she acclimates, just as Christian advised her to do, the final irony of the film. To everyone's eyes, Dani's become a neurotic nuisance. To us, she's entirely justified. The assholes are everyone in Dani's life. They're the bad guys, mostly for gaslighting her into thinking nothing is bad as it seems. Christian's friends think he should dump her, her friend thinks Christian's not working in her best interest. Even when she has every right to be miserable, no one can truly put up with it, and she's not even demanding they do. What's frightening about this film is it delves directly into that persistent fear of not being there for someone at the vital moment they finally decide to act on their threats of suicide. And how forgiveness is harder to receive.

I know I'm really not supposed to be on the cult's side, but I was so in by then, agreeing with the community, with their humanity. They were humane, sacrificing others doesn't seem as abhorrent as it should be. There's something beautiful about it. I don't hate them. Dani's experience of death protects her from overreacting to the sight of it, initially shocked, her disassociative state protects her until she's alone, whereas her inexperienced friends recoil and protest. And they're punished for it. They're punished for persisting with the research, for their selfishness. They accept Dani's passiveness. She's fearful of staying but in truth, this will become her home. Pelle's insistence she should be there is played out. I was mentally shipping them despite his actions. In essence, Midsommar is probably the most beautiful horror film I've seen. Aster's direction is solid, I appreciate the hard cuts to transition from place to place, there aren't too many sweeping establishing shots, it's all measured out and obvious compared to Hereditary (which was supposed to be a family drama that accidentally became a horror movie). The journey is disjointed and full of sweeping upside down shots as we cross the threshold into the new world. And it's certainly something you need to see twice to appreciate the subtle clues you missed initially, like the painting over Dani's bed. Another shot of Christian in a mirror with Dani by the door convinced me he'd gone down a hallway to sit and she was still at the front door while he's so much further away behind her and not in front. The dialogue matches those tedious arguments you have with a loved one where you can't be honest but you're angry and cornered and don't want to fight. A horror film that can convey that much human nature without being boring or cliched is a certain diamond in the rough of jump scares and tired tropes. Hereditary did achieve this to some degree, Midsommar just makes more sense and seems more artful in its approach. The music may start out in a classic, ominous manner but that's gone by the end.

So I'm already watching it again just to see what I missed. I wouldn't write this off as another horror film, it has too much to offer beyond what we expect out of horror now. Its presentation is too beautiful to disregard. Its message is too powerful to dismiss. Asking you to go in with an open mind isn't enough. Just be prepared to face things you know you can't and it becomes so much more rewarding.

I did miss some aspects that were pointed out in someone else's discussion over which reading can be considered "correct" i.e. Dani has a good ending/bad ending. That being, Pele is also a victim of the cult who was orphaned (possibly by them, we don't know) so he's less of a willing participant and more likely another brainwashed outsider. Also, there are other conflicted villagers who are suffering for having to execute the outsiders. My excuse for reading Dani's fate as a good thing is she's too compelling and relatable to me, I can't disengage from her being poorly treated by everyone in her life. You have to have been in her position where you've had a period of depression and anxiety that had no catharsis whatsoever and you're trying desperately to get over it and on with your life so as not to be a burden, (like Dani's trying to do, I'm not willing to say she's refusing to change) to understand how vindicating it is for her grief to be accepted and dealt with finally. If she's had a psychotic break in the end (which is what happens when I do what she does and ignore all my shit), what does that say about how she was treated by her supposed family as opposed to how her new one is treating her? She wasn't supported or even liked by anyone, all her friends think she's too much they don't even suggest she gets psychiatric help so they don't have to cope with her. It's very much, "there goes Dani again" even though her biggest fear was realised in her sister offing her parents, can she not just "get over it?" I hate people like that so fucking much I'm willing to excuse a protagonist getting them killed. There is nothing left for her if she ever went back home. She's a clean slate, my guess is she's intended to become a part of the cult who may or may not align herself with their values. She's got another 90 years (which she won't survive as she'll be expected to die at 72) to realise they're going to do to some other woman what they did to her. We don't need to know that part. We're only focused on that smile and what it entails, which depends entirely on how you identified with her from the outset.

I also thought the village decided to off Christian, it didn't fix with me that this is her choice, but really it isn't if she's been brainwashed into seeing him as a piece of shit. I hate him enough it didn't matter to me how he ended up there, but he's also not a bad person, just a douchy one. But if you've been surrounded by douchy guys all your life, it's hard to root for him. My overall take was this whole thing is the fictional end result of a couple not communicating their needs and wants in a healthy manner. Why else would they have been offering marriage counselling to the audience? And I don't think the old couple are cool with throwing themselves off the cliff, I more agreed with a person's right to die before they become too old to care for themselves, I don't want you pushing granny off a cliff, kids. I want to go when I want to go and I support the right for all of humanity to own that choice. There are a lot of subtleties this movie has which I missed completely, largely from me being so engaged with Dani's emotional journey and her vindication, I'm actively willing to let huge amounts of evil behaviour slide out of my own sense of cynicism towards people who don't maturely deal with their emotions, or the notion of death. If Dani hadn't been drawn so distinctly as she was, I might have been less engrossed with her and more aware of the sinister nature of the cult. Had I been there myself, (which by the way, you could never coax me out to a place like that even if it was entirely benign, you can barely get me on a plane to Europe anyway) I would've wanted to leave a lot sooner. I wouldn't have wanted to respect their community or engage with any ritualistic behaviour. Aster stated he wanted people leaving his film to feel uplifted by Dani's ending but I'm sure he knew how divisive it would be, that you're going to set off arguments in comment sections but it's getting people talking about the movie, either way. Hereditary is less easy to defend, the cult just gets their way, there's no escape for the son or the family. I think the uniqueness of Midsommar will make it entirely impossible to replicate or remake, same with Aster's other films. If you're leaving a movie like this not thinking about it on some level, then it's failed in achieving its goal.

I found a deleted scene where Dani opposes the ritualistic drowning of a child and prevents it, and she leaves telling Christian she thinks they should get out, meanwhile he's still thinking about himself and his thesis. He argues in favour of them staying to document this, she's seen through the bullshit and knows they're being duped. This reframes the entire film and the cult as being intentionally malignant and manipulative too early in the story. Meanwhile, Christian's pissed that Dani wants to go, she calls out that he doesn't love her (he doesn't) then they have a classic psych vs anthropology major battle of wits. (Accusing the psych girlfriend of using textbook words to define their relationships is actually a very tired trope). He decides she's still emotionally manipulating him and making him feel trapped. He walks off and she suddenly feels abandoned, and isolated to be at the whims of the cult. From that, all I can tell is Christian's just setting her up as the emotionally manipulative one. He's more supportive of the cult's rituals but he still selfishly agrees with for his own gains, he wants the glory of documenting the tribe and the credit that carries. She doesn't defend the death ritual after all, I interpreted her reaction as more bemused but ultimately accepting. She corners Christian into admitting he doesn't love her, he's too afraid to admit it's true, he's so desperate to get out without looking like the bad guy. He's treating her gifting him something as a demand for reciprocity and not simply a gift, now he has to look at his own behaviour and he's not willing to admit he fucked up. He walks away with the upper hand and she's left alone in confusion when she was actually acknowledging they were over and she was being too clingy. He's all, I have work to do, she's trapped there either way. The cult needs to isolate and sow discord between them so his betrayal is more painful to Dani. However, this scene has too much impact on the situation. I think it's more subtly conveyed with the number of small near fights and little tiffs they have over how they feel about one another. Others wish it was there to justify why Christian is a huge manipulating piece of shit and deserves some kind of comeuppance. I know their relationship is the theme of the story much less than the notion of cults and ritualistic behaviour, that's a backdrop to the drama of Dani's inability to grieve within the confines of an emotionally abusive relationship with a person who's too chicken to end it. He's so obsessed with being painted the bad guy he'll fuck with her emotions before letting her have that. She seems much more settled with the idea they could be over meanwhile he's refusing to come to the table and reach an amicable end thinking she's going to make sure everyone knows he left her. Their trust has utterly disintegrated by this point. But rightfully, Dani is the one actually keeping it together and being objective about the danger they're in, Christian's the blinded idiot who's fallen for everything. He even says he mistakenly told their friend Josh about his decision to do his thesis and now he's competing with him instead. I find it kind of hilarious he's supposed to be working yet we never see him make notes, whereas Josh is diligently writing everything down, he's later punished for taking pictures. The cult are fully aware of their intentions and exploit them accordingly, which is where we question whether it's necessary to disregard a culture's need for privacy in order to document their behaviour. The comments on this video are as divided as the audience was, either people want it to prove Christian deserves to die, or they want to leave it out so it's less obvious Dani's cottoned on to the cult's sinister nature. Someone was straight up mad it proves the argument Dani was brainwashed. I don't think the intention is for everyone to decide that, if you did fine, if you didn't, that's also okay. Let the movie be ambiguous, it's people's fear of ambiguity that ruins movies like this. It's part of the director's cut so now I'm kinda glad I didn't see it. Or maybe I'm not. Fuck, now I have to watch the actual director's cut.

I could go on about this fucking thing in so many ways, I kinda hate it got reduced to a horror movie about a cult and now less people see it as a simple drama of a doomed relationship. That they weren't trying to support survivors of cults and rather wanted to save people's relationships or make them examine them suggests that was the crux of the film. It's not supporting a cult mentality but it's presenting them differently to how we're accustomed. Everything's designed to make you question rather than blindly accept. It's not a conventional horror movie. Another comment said the horror of the film is the toxic relationship. That was my point, the horror for me is Dani drowning on dry land. If you think the horror is coming from the cult, that's not really the point. It makes me feel this movie only spoke to people who've understood and experienced toxic relationships and panic attacks. The cult is the test of that relationship more than anything. Maybe it convinced one person to leave their toxic relationship. I don't think it convinced anyone to actually want to join a cult where acceptance is conditional and performative.

Ain't reality a pisser?

I'm kind of a Judd Apatow fan. I didn't think I'd like Knocked Up or 40 Year Old Virgin. They're fun movies because of the people in them but yeah, Seth Rogan's only okay in small doses now.

I'm sorry, ladies. I'm not on any woman's side in these movies. I'm sure Kathrine Heigl loved pretending to be OK with Seth Rogan's stoner bullshit when in real life she'd never date a guy like him. I thought she was okay in this too, if she'd maybe not bitched so much later she wouldn't have been considered such a C. But to be fair, Andy Dick does kinda go overboard feeling her up, his hands go way too low. Someone brought it up in an article because it's been over ten years since the movie came out, so that means clickbait articles are at an all time high if you can say, ten years since X remember this?? Huh? Cheap. It really wasn't trying to do what she claims. There's a scene where she's accepting of Ben's shit. And maybe pregnant psychos need to be put in their place, because, yeah, Fuck You, Hormones.

Apatow's kids are the cutest.

The best thing Apatow does is really take those cliche Hollywood moments and ruin them with big doses of reality. But it's all done so charmingly. I don't think one suffers as much from the same lack of editing as his other films. It's a sweet movie that tries to be fair to both sides of the deal, the guys aren't in the right with their bullshit. It's about young people facing adult situations when they basically don't want to. I don't think the movie would've been praised as highly if Apatow were saying what she suggests. I don't think she was agreed with. I don't think there was a contingent of feminists coming out in support, because they didn't really rally behind her, she became a magnet for bad press and stopped getting work. She wasn't needed for the sorta sequel, obviously. Apparently she was able to improvise like most of the cast is clearly doing, so if she was deciding to take the character in that direction, then complaining she was directed to do it. Oh yeah, that's right, she snubbed her Emmy nomination by saying she didn't deserve it based on what she was given to work with, i.e. being a coma patient I think. Whatever. 

I only came here to say I have all the movies I possibly ever wanted to own, save a few I'd like but aren't desperate to obtain yet, and I'm watching this. Out of all of them.

No thank you, Mr Blumhouse. I do not accept.

I vaguely remember Blumhouse being involved in the Craft "Reboot/Sequel". I was hoping it'd die the way the Heathers sequel was always destined to fail. I'll never watch the mess of the Heathers series reboot. And I highly doubt I'll stomach this piece of shit called The Craft: Legacy.

Slapping the word Legacy on a title doesn't make it cool by default. The trailer basically makes the girls look like hippy fairies waving their fingers around with flickers of light. And a picture of Nancy just looking like Nancy, which is basically a screenshot from the original printed on a fucking Polaroid, NOBODY TOOK A PICTURE OF HER LOOKING LIKE THAT. I LOVE how reboots use PROMOTIONAL MATERIAL for their "PHOTOS" of the old cast. And hoping for more Easter eggs will be a fucking waste of time. This is basically Blade Runner all over again, nods to the original few and far between. Giving the script to a woman would make sense if the idea of a girl getting picked on for getting her period in class wasn't a mess of a concept some teenage boy would write. Somehow the original writers being male didn't prevent the original movie from being heralded as a goddamn feminist masterpiece (I disagree) but they achieved this along with an actual practicing Wiccan in Fairuza Balk, who lent her knowledge and managed to give a degree of "authenticity" to the movie. We don't see magic fairy dust emanating from anyone's fingertips, Jesus even that piece of shit fluffy nonsense Practical Magic was more realistic and that had a shit story and shittier special effects. The illusions are supposed to look real, glamours are meant to look REAL. That fireball in the shop, yes it looks shit but at least it's supposed to be real fire.

Nobody asked for this monstrosity and again, here we are with nothing new or interesting to show for it. Blumhouse's business model of hits and misses obviously keeps the lights on and gets them accolades they probably don't deserve overall. But then one of the writer/directors of Dumb and Dumber has an Oscar. Get Out's a great movie, I can claim to have enjoyed Happy Death Day. But they've been around since 2006, way longer than I realised. They're doing a remake of the Thing. That'll be like the third one?? They were behind BlacKkKlansman, which was good but heavyhanded with its stereotyping. I just don't support them putting their grubby fingers on the Craft for any reason. Sorry.

If it is any good and gets good reviews, I still don't think I can watch it. Even with David Duchovny as the dad. Sorry, Sarah's dad was lovable and funny. There's nothing wrong with the movie. It's just another title, another cult you can cash in on for no good reason. Why couldn't COVID come in time to trash this production? It's trashed its release instead and that's possibly good enough, I guess. it not getting a theatrical release is fine they probably knew it wouldn't do well with concerned audiences in the middle of social distancing. I sure as shit wouldn't pay to see this in a theatre. I spend more time trashing this and the first film's shooting script here.

And I would've seen the original had I been older at the time, or more willing to sit in a theatre with a parent.

Cuties is the New Kids

You can be forgiven for thinking the current outrage over a French movie called Cuties is the first public debate we've had over child exploitation, particularly in relation to exploitation of a sexual nature. But it's a repeat of an argument I have very vague memories around concerning a little indie breakout called Kids.

I think I've been here before talking about it in relation to Ken Park, but at the time, without an internet to see this film, Kids held some kind of urban legend status. It was heavily derided as child pornography masquerading as social commentary, cashing in on the "It's 10pm, do you know where your kids are?" campaigns blasted across public TV back then. It was genuinely a commentary on that rhetoric, the parents in Kids, few as they are, remain oblivious and inactive. The first girl we meet is home alone while Telly has sex with her in the first scene, (which I believe was cut out of some versions). We meet Telly's mother, who's up to her neck in looking after a younger brother and does little to police Telly and Casper's movements. Aside from this, we spend more time with adults like the taxi driver who picks up Jennie and the nurses at the free clinic, one of whom drops the bomb on Jennie that starts the ticking clock of finding Telly before he sleeps with another underage girl and unknowingly infects her with HIV. If you want a premise to this movie, that's essentially the narrative. It's the depiction of kids boasting about sex acts and engaging in sex acts, violence and substance abuse that we're forced to exam through the lens of a teenager. It was an important film - but did we need to see a protracted rape scene in the finale? Did we need to see Telly aggressively having sex with two girls who plead with him to stop? Larry Clark and Harmony Korine believe we did. It's an exploitation film. It served a purpose and leaves and indelible mark on the viewer, it's a movie you cannot forget or unsee.

And there wasn't a massive gap between this and Cuties. Falling between and receiving higher praise than Kids was Thirteen, which probably owes a lot of its attention to Oprah interviewing the director (I can't find the clip sadly but I remember it). It convinced me to watch it, it's not a bad film, but it's also less insistent on showing graphic sex scenes. The self-abuse, drug use and shoplifting spend much more time in the spotlight. While Tracy and Evie are almost successful in seducing an older boy into a threesome, they fail and he throws them out, meaning the movie kind of threatens to go there but doesn't, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, pulling a punch or two is fine, you can derive tension from what is not seen. And we don't see anything particularly gratuitous in that regard, there's cutting away from the oral sex scene, and while Tracy tries to provoke her mother over the fact she wears no underwear, I didn't that to be overly shocking, it was oddly comical, but others would be shocked, of course. I'm probably desensitized to so much now, and I saw this before I saw two other Larry Clark films, Ken Park and Bully.

While Ken Park was banned in this country I don't think it's impossible to find. The commentary is hard-hitting, the message seems to be sincere, but it still begs the question: Did we need to see that amount of teens having sex? You could trim a lot of this out, to be honest. Did we also need to see one of the sickest scenes of elder abuse and murder in another scene? You'd think us discovering this would be impactful enough. No. Ken Park set out to shock audiences as Korine and Clark always do. And while Bully is based on a true story, Larry Clark lends his needless pervy-eye to the piece with a crotch shot of one girl. It's toned down compared to Kids, but it's still exploitative. Did we need that crotch shot, Larry? DID WE NEED IT? NO.

Cuties apparently exhibits questionable behaviour in the form of twerking and exposure. Netflix failing to market this piece as a thoughtful commentary on the effect of social media on young girls has landed the female director in hot water and I do feel for her now, but I still raise the same question to her. Did you maybe go too far with some of your shots? Can they be trimmed down? I know what you're trying to say but, sadly, people don't like the way you've chosen to say it.

Evan Rachel Wood, the star of Thirteen, agreed this director went too far, interestingly. Maybe implying instead of choosing to be overly explicit should've been done here. You don't want to be conflated with white male perverts at this point. If the director is signing off on this, is it because a producer insisted upon it? The director's word should be final. So this had to have been intentional. Intentional, but pointless. Creating controversy really doesn't help a film ultimately. If the medium is the message, you didn't use the medium properly. Hiding behind a cultural norm of sorts (it's French, they treat their children like miniature adults, however not all the French agree with it) is just as unacceptable. And hiding behind the left as a defense from being attacked by the right is also pretty bad. Because a lot of leftists also disagree with it. Now the right think the cultural elite genuinely are manufacturing child porn.

I don't believe in full censorship. I do believe in moderation. I can see why people get offended by these movies. I understand it's so confronting and unsettling, like real life. I get you see a movie to escape that. But if we don't learn anything from the film at all, if there's no real consequence, there's no point to your movie. If you haven't made a case for how to fix the problem, and yes I'm aware it's not a film-maker's sole responsibility to fix the issue they present, if you've just "examined it" and "presented it", it's going to fall remarkably flat. I don't know how this director can recover from this backlash now. I don't think she's made child porn, but she's made a name particular for herself, one she may not deserve. If Woody Allen had made this film, he would have been crucified. His intentions may have been identical, however his reputation will forever proceed him (and he's been defended by a lot of female actresses as well).

I don't think the right amount of consideration went into this movie. Which is sad because it's imploring its audience to consider the exploitation of children. While inadvertently exploiting them. I would like to see this but I don't think I could stomach the amount of twerking and crotch shots. I'll be persistently demanding the point of this angle and ask why I'm being beaten over the head with it.

Better Call the Emmys

I've decided while I like Breaking Bad, I love Better Call Saul. I almost passed this by from the bad promo I saw on Stan, which is a solely Australian based streaming service (which I just discovered is owned by Nine and Fairfax which sucks because they're harbingers of misinformation and borderline fake news) but we don't get this bad boy on Netflix. I got another account for the free month to watch this after lending someone else's account and passing it up for a while because I wasn't getting use out of it.

I feel like Better Call Saul had the better dish of characters. Okay, you've got crossover with Gus and Mike, a little Tuco thrown in (which initially felt like fan service when I first watched the pilot but I loved it second time around). But throw in Rhea Seehorn as Kim Wexler , who is so fucking stunning and nuanced, her zigs when you think she'll zag are beautiful. Plus Michael McKean as Jimmy's brother Charles, who's masterfully playing Jimmy's protector and clandestine saboteur by somehow being the most tragic and sinister character on television, you've got a pretty magical recipe for drama with a better helping of good comedy from Odenkirk. Because what fucking universe could you see this character portrayed by anyone but him? Breaking Bad brought the pain with its cast of misaligned good guys. You can't ignore the ground it broke, you can't find another show that really matched the tension and dark comedy.

Saul's just weirdly more entertaining. And it's going into its own dark territory, somehow making certain life or death scenes palpably tense and unbearable even when you know the characters ultimately survive. The stakes are still high. And not all of Jimmy's choices are central to the plot, Gus features more as a buildup to how he established and maintained his grip on the town's drug cartel, fleshing him out was a good choice too, there were so many breadcrumbs left in the original series that made him worthy of inclusion. And getting Mike's backstory brilliantly laid out, we're almost spoiled with amazing moments Breaking Bad couldn't deliver. Gilligan knew he had to deliver with this prequel and he certainly does, but to have it surpass Breaking Bad is remarkable. You may hate the phrase "defies expectation" but shit, least it actually did. I did enjoy El Camino but I haven't watched it again. Going through the motions with Breaking Bad is difficult and I don't do it regularly. I can't remember last time I sat through it, it takes a certain mood to want to go there. (I also haven't ever bothered to rewatch Six Feet Under, I think now I'm less depressed I don't identify with the self-destructiveness of every main character so Brenda and Nate would just shit me to tears, they're fucking hard to root for in the end, both individually and as a couple). 

I haven't rewatched Saul yet and since the last season isn't due until next year, I have plenty of time to reacquaint myself with the story, which is what I'm doing now I've exhausted all my YouTube channels (and I'm also avoiding content again for a while). But I have a pretty firm memory of most of the events, the characters are too memorable for you to really forget their actions. I had theories concerning the fate of Jimmy and Kim that are being blown out of the water and I'm so happy about that. She's not Skyler, I think they've been very careful about not having any analogous characters - Jimmy isn't Walt. Chuck isn't Hank. It's an entirely different show. Sure, selling it on its own without Breaking Bad would be difficult, if not impossible, but conception on this began very early on in Breaking Bad's production, it wasn't cooked up when things were winding down and they were looking for new material for another show. The point is, it holds its own. It has its own flourishes and quirks that differentiate it. The characters are fascinating, the production is just as brilliant. Casting's stupidly on point. My only criticism, which is no fault of the show, is that Odenkirk's starting to look much older than he should by this point in the original timeline, there's only so much you can do about that with makeup and wigs. The black and white forward flash intros compensate with this, we see Jimmy's thinning scalp, rimmed by his Cinnabon visor, before we see his face and thick mustache. I'm dying to know how this all turns out because I know I'm wrong about everything and I certainly want to be. You're better off not even speculating and just going along for the ride. I think the last season I'll anticipate with more excitement than most people had for Game of Thrones. And I don't think it's going to disappoint. They may not have had a conclusion in mind for Breaking Bad but I want to believe there's a set path for Saul even if we know the ultimate conclusion. There are still surprises in store, and I think we'll see it with Kim. I have a theory she's the key to Jimmy's exile to strip-mall lawyer life in a worse way than her just getting sick of his shit, like you're led to believe. I think there's a tragedy in store much bigger than her leaving him. The thrill of the grift has her more entangled than Jimmy. I don't have to expect brilliance, I know we'll get it. I don't think we have a disappointment in store at all.