giandujakiss: (Default)
I am so depressed it won't be picked up.

At first I wasn't that into it; I liked some of the performances and the lush design, but the story wasn't doing much for me. But now it's really hit its stride!

Sigh.
giandujakiss: (Default)
Only watch this movie if you're committed to sobbing uncontrollably through the final half hour.

Seriously, it's dated, but even 80 years later it packs a wallop. I can't think of any movie that's affected me this deeply where no one dies, is injured, or even placed in any kind of physical jeopardy.

Has anyone written anything comparing Imitation of Life (1934), Stella Dallas (1937), and Mildred Pierce (1945)? It's like the same story told three different ways, with slightly different shading. (Edit: It turns out there totally is analysis, not necessarily of these 3 films in particular, but the genre has a name: maternal melodrama!)

Also, I'm reminded - in the 1930s and 1940s, movies were about women. When did we lose that?
giandujakiss: (Catwoman)
I just rewatched Batman Returns. Still in awe of Michelle Pfeiffer's performance. Honestly one of the greatest in superhero movies and for my money, in movies generally.

Here, have a Catwoman vid by [livejournal.com profile] dualbunny:



(via)

Hey, is there any good post-Batman Returns fixit fic?
giandujakiss: (Default)
In light of the latest news about Hobby Lobby (the company that won a Supreme Court case to avoid providing its employees with insurance that covers birth control), I figured a vid rec was appropriate.

[personal profile] eruthros has made a marvelous Indiana Jones vid critiquing the series. Beautifully done.
giandujakiss: (Default)
Republicans are still plotting to repeal ACA - except they know their bill will be so horrendously unpopular (apparently, phasing out Medicaid expansions, deregulating insurance even for employer-provided plans, raising premiums) that they are working in secret to design it, with a plan to essentially only reveal it 2 hours before the vote, without any hearings or time for public commentary. They aim to get it passed by the end of June.

It's truly a nightmare. Everyone needs to call their Senator - Democratic or Republican. [personal profile] morgandawn has been posting calling scripts and other details here (for people with Dem senators specifically) and here (for everyone).

I know calls can be difficult for some people, so if you're only capable of emailing that's better than silence, but in general, people with knowledge of Congress say that the impact of emails is limited and calls have a much much better chance of getting politicians' attention. So calls are preferred if you can manage them at all.

Randomly

Jun. 15th, 2017 01:00 pm
giandujakiss: (Default)
Does everyone know that the Xena episode The Prodigal is sort of a bastardized retelling of the Jane Fonda movie Cat Ballou?

Because I'm rewatching Xena after seeing Wonder Woman (naturally), and it occurs to me that this obvious fact may not in fact be obvious to everyone.

But it's very much a deliberate reference - much like, say, approximately twenty zillion TV shows (including Buffy) had a "Die Hard"-like episode after Die Hard came out. Or like men jumping from high cliffs into water is meant to emulate Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. It's a deliberate homage.
giandujakiss: (Default)
See here. Basically, on June 14, everyone - including people with Dem senators - should call their senator to oppose the repeal of ACA.

Well

Jun. 9th, 2017 05:19 am
giandujakiss: (Default)
the news these days is never boring, I'll say that much.
giandujakiss: (Default)
in all the Comeygate, there's a real chance the Senate is about to repeal the Affordable Care Act and replace it with the AHCA monstrosity. Among other things, it could cover dramatically fewer people, and fail to protect people with preexisting conditions. The plan is apparently to get rid of regulations requiring essential health benefits, so that insurance plans don't have to cover basic things - and this would apply to all insurance plans, even ones that are provided by employers.

It's being done with no hearings, no real analysis, which is why the healthcare industry is opposed - but they're doing it anyway.

So, you know. Call your senators and pray.
giandujakiss: (Scully)
The Doctor Is In. Co-Pay? $40,000.

And all I could think were the lyrics to Sweeney Todd's "Epiphany." ("We all deserve to die!") Because seriously, what a fucking world we've built.

If there's one good thing to come out of Trump's election, it's that the US will permanently lose its status as world leader. Because no one should be looking to us for guidance.
giandujakiss: (Kirk)
Here is my spoilery (very spoilery, seriously, don't read unless you want to be very spoiled) but brief discussion:

Read more )
giandujakiss: (Default)
I would refuse to see Batman vs. Superman until I had tickets to see a Wonder Woman movie in my hot little hands.

And - guess what? I have those tickets.

So I hunkered down and watched Batman vs. Superman. It was exactly as joyless, miserable, boring, and generally intolerable as I expected - with, of course, the exception of the Wonder Woman bits.

But I did it - and now my appetite is whet for more Wonder Woman!!
giandujakiss: (Default)
Here is a story about a dog trained to find lost cats.
giandujakiss: (Default)
I am so happy they're making a movie and I will be there at the first showing - I'm corralling people to go with to make sure that first weekend box office haul is impressive - but I gotta say, I am less than impressed with the trailers.

It looks pretty, no question. My problem is, it seems heavy and ponderous; the trailer tries to make it look peppy and clever, like a Joss Whedon flick, but the jokes fall terribly flat; they aren't particularly clever, there's no rhythm, they land like stones.

I figure there are three possibilities. One, that's what the movie is like, in which case, this will be painful. Two, this is not a funny movie, it's not supposed to be a funny movie, the jokes are minor asides, and whoever made the trailer tried to manipulate it into something it isn't - in which case, it may be fine. It won't be a joking-around sort of movie, but that's okay; not everything has to be. Third, it is a funny movie, and they just made a bad trailer.

So, point is, maybe it'll work out. But I am concerned.
giandujakiss: (flag)
of not being able to look at the news because of crushing disappointment over what my country has become
giandujakiss: (Default)
The original TV series. And honestly, every time I rewatch I have different political feelings about it.

Right now, they are mostly positive feelings. And I think I've posted about this before, so forgive me if I am duplicative.

The show was derided - even at the time - as "jiggle TV," relying on the sex appeal of the actresses and putting them in exploitative costumes to cater to male fantasies (nurse, women's prison, maid, etc). And there's some truth to this - the women's prison episode is, well, less-than-subtle. But what's also true is that the vast majority of the time, the costumes were, well, pretty modest. The Angels were fully clothed, often in multiple layers (sweaters on top of shirts, etc), and anything else is just what the viewer brings.

Another problem is that the Angels almost go out of their way to be as soft-spoken as possible; it's really obvious on first watching. It's like a palpable feeling that someone felt that if the Angels raised their voice to anything above a mild murmur, they'd be viewed as harpies. And you can do that in fiction - women can speak softly and still be heard and respected by the men around them - but in real life, people ignore women, and especially ignore soft-spoken women. It's a trap; women can't speak uniquely in dulcet tones and expect to actually be heard.

But then there are the positives.

The first - and I'm always surprised by this in 70s and early 80s media, though I shouldn't be - is the sexual sophistication of the women. That's something we lost, along the way; in modern media you can be a likeable slut but usually that means you're the best friend, not the heroine. The 70s and early 80s actually weren't like that; women could be interest in sex, even casual sex, and still be heroines. It's not in-your-face in Charlie's Angels, but it's definitely there; that all of the Angels are sexually experienced is not even in question.

Second, the woman are extremely competent. If you've got a competence kink, this is your show. They are extremely skilled at physical tasks, going undercover, pumping suspects for information, etc. And they are absolutely fearless, and without embarrassment - they do what it takes to get the information they need, regardless of the enemies they might make or temporary humiliation they may endure.

Third, the show is really about women bonding with women. The Angels themselves are portrayed as being closely emotionally bonded, and very often, they bond with the episodic female guest stars. Women are their clients, or are mixed up with the villains, and the Angels are incredibly supportive; a lot of time is spent on women's stories and the basic idea that women defend other women. The concept may have been intended to appeal to men's libido, but the women-centric nature of the show is inescapable.

So, you know, you go Charlie's Angels- you were an important milestone in pop cultural portrayals of women, despite the haters.
giandujakiss: (Default)
The House will be voting soon; find out if your representative at this link is persuadable and if so, tell them to vote no on the current proposal.
giandujakiss: (Default)
I checked and we do have a TNR program in the area, so that's likely the cat's situation. I'm going to keep an eye out for him (didn't see him yesterday) and give him food, and see what happens from there.

October 2017

S M T W T F S
12345 6 7
8 9101112 1314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031    

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Oct. 19th, 2017 09:44 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios