tears posted:early morning blade 2
a good tip is to start doing the moves alongside with the main character, blade.
toutvabien posted:talk of non-Pulgasari kaiju in LF....? smdh
Fake news! We have always discussed Godzilla as a product of consciousness reflecting a stage preceding the transformation of material relations that made Pulgasari possible. Investigation may be likened to the long months of pregnancy, and solving a problem to the day of birth.
e: what a bad trailer
Edited by Flying_horse_in_saudi_arabia ()
Petrol posted:just watched hannah gadsby's netflix special, nanette. it was really incredible. i'm a bit shaken to be honest. highly recommended
anyway i have slept on it now and i must impress upon everyone the value of watching 'nanette'. it has jokes but is not really standup, it's something a lot more than that. i think it's something everyone here could learn from. please find time and a means to watch it.
littlegreenpills posted:communist film theory in three days so i can write a really smashing rhizzone frontpage review
fake it you'll be fine
swampman posted:
oh, i get it now. i hadn't actually watched the trailer before i posted it. please ignore the trailer. i don't think netflix are very good at trailers.
been playing around with netflix over the past few days (which i havent done for a long time) thanks to the kindness of an account-having friend. i dont know if it does this on other devices or whatever but the netflix app in my tv does a really annoying thing, as you browse around through different titles if you let it sit on one for more than a few seconds it starts playing a trailer. except for pretty much all of the non-netflix branded content its not a real trailer, it's clips from the selected title set to whatever terrible library music someone decided would best approximate the vibe of the title. funnily enough they seem to use the same kind of music for their own proper trailers.
anyway please for the love of god, ignore the trailer and watch nanette. thank.
shriekingviolet posted:will second, watch nanette
What the hell?
Petrol posted:after watching 'nanette' and being so affected by it, i had to google it and find out more about it. in so doing i found there was quite a buzz about it in social media, a lot of ponderous thinkpieces about what it means for comedy, a big new york times profile of gadbsy, and so on. and so i say to you once more, please ignore the hype around 'nanette', and simply watch it.
i feel sorry for people who had to read the shitty thinkpieces and hype latched on like ticks, it's cool being old and out of touch and getting to just do things without having my experiences mediated by a NYT headline telling me This Is So Important Right Now
ipcress posted:shriekingviolet and petrol have been bodysnatched and i'm worried getfiscal's next
it's you. you're next.
sorry to bother you was pretty good though. boots reily was on democracy now and said tianamen was about students protesting for the right to be managers at slave factories. they nodded politely. but then when amy goodman described him as an anti-capitalist activist he interjected to say “communist” and she was taken aback for a second and corrected herself “you’re a communist marxist” and then he interjected again to say like “Well i don’t know about that, didn’t Marx himself say he wasn’t a marxist
”
ok look. if the deeply personal trauma monologue can be considered a genre, then Nanette isn't its perfected masterwork. it's interesting to me because it's the kind of performance that normally doesn't find a mass media foothold, and some of the less good reasons why Nanette does get that attention while other performances remain ignored and obscure will be obvious on watching it, especially if you're actually familiar with the form. i'm definitely jaded by previous familiarity with similar acts, but i do think it's valid to acknowledge that from a radical perspective Nanette can be criticized as a prepackaging and blunting down of the medium.
but a lot of people will have never seen anything like it and that raises interesting possibilities to me. getting up on stage and talking about the horrific shit that has happened in your life, and where you're at with it, and how it fits into the world around you, is a deeply political act. and while i get it if people want to sneer at Nanette for being insufficiently radical etc, we don't have to be tedious snobs and outright refuse to talk about something just because it's popular and new to many folks.
meanwhile i'm fuckin pissed that sorry to bother you isn't showing yet in the theaters up here, what the fuck
i found a clickbait article which listed some of the recent deals:
jerry seinfeld $100 million
dave chappelle $60 million
chris rock $40 million
ricky gervais $40 million
amy schumer $13 million
it's an insane amount of money really. it's like... anti-competitive amounts of money from what i can tell. anyway that's why i am wary of netflix stuff now.
and I do want to see this kind of confrontational, emotive, deeply personal storytelling get to a broader audience because that really can break through to some people, and it is extremely valuable for marginalized and oppressed peoples to be able to share and empathize with common experiences of brutality, but obviously the medium of the deliberately sculpted niche category appeal netflix special and increasing fragmentation of audiences to facilitate exploitation overflows with deep problems.
i've wanted to have a thread to talk about political/revolutionary theatre and discuss brecht, theatre of the oppressed etc and the constant pressure of white settler hegemony trying to gobble it up, but i'm just a dabbler with some artist friends and don't have enough knowledge to carry it myself
all the words shriekingviolet wrote about the theater of the oppressed and confrontational trauma narratives are compelling but i find them hard to relate to my experience of watching nanette. it seemed to think it was being a lot more confrontational than it really was. commodification is interesting and i dont think the process neutralizes potentially 'subversive' content (whatever that means) entirely or uniformly . . . commodification is something that a lot of cool stuff actively incorporates into itself. nanette to me just seemed unremarkable. Send Remarks.
i kind of jumped around a bit (having already had some clue as to where the show was headed), but i'm certain that i witnessed, for example, a variation of the liberal novelty argument that diversity is good for markets, a few riffs on the whole fraught discourse of toxicity and masculinity that one can always count on to be loaded with an anticommunist bullet, the typically insightless giving of shits about who the president is thats as grating coming from an australian as it is coming from any of the rich insulated dipshits working the late night ideology mines, and of course the weird peppering of essentialist nonsense thats already been mentioned. obviously its impossible to muster up the kind of contempt this stuff merits when confronted with a woman as publicly vulnerable and indisputably wronged as gadsby but is this really a ploy we should march into as a question of like, duty or something? the level of shear condescension throughout the act and the big centerpiece gag revolving around the speakers college degree makes me really not want to.
in any case i certainly dont agree that theres some mystery as to how it ended up being a popular item in the blog circuit.
getfiscal posted:i trust rhizzone above all. i think the main reason i am skeptical is that it is clearly part of netflix's content monster strategy,
these misgivings about netflix's business practices are sensible and i share them. but the quality of the content seems to be irrelevant as long as they have as much of it as possible, covering as many target audiences as possible. it is not lost on me as i scroll through the netflix menu that i am occasionally subjected to a thumbnail for joe rogan's (appropriately named) 'triggered'. so i think it's reasonable to say that nanette being on netflix has basically nothing to do with whether the show is good or not.
elias posted:yah i know petrol said he was blissfully unaware of the noise around that show but i do believe its something people--myself included--generally wouldnt think twice about without the marketing puffing it up. i thought it was bad but not really even in a very interesting way. its been described as like anti-comedy or a one woman show but i think its a lot more conventional than people are saying. its just bad stand-up for 40 minutes followed by a 20-min monologue at the end.
i can assure you, not having twitter or facebook made it really easy to be unaware of the hype until i googled the show afterwards. all i knew about it before watching it was an irl friend told me it was good, and that i had seen gadbsy live some years ago performing traditional stand up, which i liked.
anyway, i disagree with the 'bad standup' characterisation of the show. i do think it is not quite standup, but something which involves a deconstruction and critique of the form. i wonder if i would be at all receptive to that idea if i hadn't come to it myself but rather had it forced down my throat by the new york times et al before having a chance to see it. context can make or break art.
kamelred posted:a variation of the liberal novelty argument that diversity is good for markets, a few riffs on the whole fraught discourse of toxicity and masculinity that one can always count on to be loaded with an anticommunist bullet, the typically insightless giving of shits about who the president
the show is undeniably liberal when it comes to electoral politics, but it's barely a passing mention, so it seems kind of weird to get hung up on it or to dismiss gadsby on the grounds of some political disagreement.
kamelred posted:i did not feel shamed or in any way accountable to her while watching the show. because that would be an objectively fucking ridiculous thing to do
this sort of angry response puzzles me. i did not feel shamed or accountable to her either. i did however feel a great deal of empathy. perhaps this is my failing? that my 'online irony man' centers were disengaged and i watched it as a human being listening to another human being and having feelings and stuff? perhaps.
kamelred posted:on the whole fraught discourse of toxicity and masculinity that one can always count on to be loaded with an anticommunist bullet,
no you can't always count on that, defaulting to dismissing all conversations about toxic masculinity as anticommunist propaganda is shitty asswipe politics
kamelred posted:in any case i certainly dont agree that theres some mystery as to how it ended up being a popular item in the blog circuit.
i don't think it's mysterious either, but the ongoing pressure to deradicalize and integrate queer identities into mainstream liberalism is of interest to me and i think worth discussing. western capitalism is always looking for ways to divide, redirect and absorb dissent to serve its purposes, they did it in the 70's-80's quashing race and class consciousness out of feminist currents by aggressively promoting white bougie thought in the movement and starving out everything else, and a similar campaign is happening now with the new currents of queer politics and thought that have emerged in the past decade. it's worth analyzing and opposing, though the rhizzone's knowledge and poster base has always been weak in this area so maybe i'm asking for too much.