okay
i am really, really struggling to understand the people that hated the great gatsby movie
because just, like, as a movie, it was WONDERFULLY made. the acting was perfect, the set design was perfect, the soundtrack was perfect. i don’t understand criticizing it even as a piece of cinema.
maybe you just didn’t like the plot. maybe you expected a whirlwind romance and you were disappointed that it was introspective and depressing and disillusioning. i mean, if you had read the book, you would’ve known what you were getting. but i can kind of understand being let down by the plot, because they definitely marketed it as a romance.
moving on to the FUCKERS who are criticizing this movie because it’s “nothing like the book” or you don’t even think the producers/screenwriters “had ever cracked the book before”, YOU ARE JUST WRONG. i don’t think YOU’VE ever read it. after i saw the movie, i was so taken/impressed by it that i decided to re-read the book, with the plot of the movie fresh in my mind. they literally took multiple scenes, characters’ exact OUTFITS, mannerisms, actions, and dialogue DIRECTLY OUT OF THE BOOK.
it is literally EXACTLY like the book. the plot is literally EXACTLY the same— same sequence, same transitions, some commentary/narration. the characters are all spot-on.
so STOP. your criticism is LITERALLY invalid and based on nothing but the fact that you want to bitch. for people who are self-proclaimed book-lovers, the same people who hoped for the harry potter movies, and the hunger games trilogy, and perks, to stay absolutely true to the original plot, you sure don’t recognize a reader’s movie when you see it. i do not understand.
and for people who haven’t seen the movie yet, don’t let the naysayers convince you otherwise: YOU NEED TO SEE IT. GO.
I actually think there’s room for criticism of Gatsby, though. Just because a lot of scenes, dialogue, etc. was taken directly from the book doesn’t mean that it was a faithful representation of the book; imo it’s more a question if the central tone/themes of the book were captured? ((for example, the movie Watchmen was largely frame-for-frame identical to the graphic novel but I don’t think it truly captured the essence of it.)) I’ve read some really good reviews of Gatsby which criticize it for being, at its core, a Luhrmann film rather than a faithful representation of the novel. I really like this review at The Guardian, where the writer says that the film comes off as if Luhrmann read the novel and then decided to shout the text at you. He specifically mentions the scene with Daisy and Jordan on the sofas as a moment which is supposed to be quiet, cool, calming and instead is portrayed “as a giant, throbbing headache.” I guess that interpretation is up to the viewer, but I think it’s unfair to say that criticisms of the movie are invalid.
Just to be clear, I actually enjoyed the movie, but I pretty much go into all movie adaptations of books realizing that it won’t be a PERFECT representation of the book. I think that’s really hard to do.
I haven’t seen the movie, but don’t assume the critics are only going after it because they don’t get it or they expected something else or they didn’t read the book. I know from the reviews it’s not directly from the book, because it has the framing device of Nick in a sanitarium. That completely changes the context of the whole story. Try going on Rotten Tomatoes and reading the critics instead of assuming you have their arguments all figured out.
See ladies you can be pretty without make up.
(via fionacinelli)
LEGION DOES NOT HAVE A GENDER
ALL THE GETH PROCESSES IN THAT PLATFORM DO NOT HAVE GENDERS
PLEASE STOP DEFINING THEM AS MALE
Also
I’d like to take this moment to say Shale’s not a woman
Shale says they realise they were female but they don’t identify with that anymore
YES THANK YOU!!!!
You know social justice has taken a new turn when people are getting up in arms about calling a video game character “him.” Seriously. Get a fucking life.
There’s nerdy and then there’s “you’re taking this too fucking seriously, go out side and get laid.”
The OP and the others are in the latter.
I actually get laid several times a week, thanks =D
Probably way more than you!
So, we’re resorting to middle school insults?
Thanks for proving my point.
In what headcanon is “You need to get laid or go outside” NOT an insult but “I get laid more than you” IS? Pick and choose, pick and choose. How many standards can we enact at once?
I guess I can see your point about respecting peoples’ problematic denials of reality (i.e. Legion’s gender) when you currently seem to be RPing an AU where what you said made any sense.
Yeah, get a life, because making a tumblr post is so taxing and time consuming that you’d have to be a frothing zealot to do it. Get laid! But don’t tell me to get laid because that would be immature of you. Equalism misandry we’re not all like that.
(Image Description: a blind black woman and a blind Klansman walking across a crosswalk. The original tumblr post’s author supplies the title of Love is Blind”.)
Let’s talk about The Kumbayah Myth.
In the Kumbayah Myth, racism will just stop if everyone just started acting nice to each other, and the only reason we still have racism is that people are silly.
Part of the Kumbayah Myth is the erasure of history, violence and power. In this falsehood, either no one is really at fault, or, actually, EVERYONE is at fault, so everyone is equally bad. This actually exists only to make white people feel better and never have to change their behaviors.
Go look at Without Sanctuary and maybe read up on The Reconstruction and come back and tell me it’s all equal and IF ONLY Black people were nicer shit would have been different.
Now, let’s talk about this picture I linked. It says, “Love is Blind” and has a blind black woman and a blind Klansman walking across the street holding hands….
Well, even the symbolism fails, because:
a) The black woman is basically minding her own business
b) The blind Klansman DRESSED UP AS A KLANSMAN- even blind he still HATES PEOPLE.
c) AND WE’VE JUST EQUATED A BLACK WOMAN, by nature of simply BEING A BLACK WOMAN as equivalent to a murderous terrorist.
Oh. Ok. If only those damn Black women would stop being so Black, the KKK wouldn’t HAVE to lynch, murder and burn them in self defense.
You know, tit for tat, right?
But let’s keep going- the only reason, at least, we’d see this picture working is because HE DOESN’T KNOW SHE’S BLACK. Otherwise, he’d push her into traffic and claim, “I’m blind! I didn’t know what was happening!”
What the world needs is not more hugs. It needs you white people to stop killing people of color. It needs for you to stop defending murderers. It needs for you to stop equating dark skin as violent threat, and therefore, justifiable homicide in self defense. It needs for you to recognize that YOU, collectively, pull this shit, and no, it is not “equal”, there is no “reverse racism”.
Love is not blind. Hate is blind- it refuses to see what it does, it demands no one speak of it or say a thing. And it kills and conveniently forgets a moment later.
Then demands hugs and holding hands and singing kumbayah, and wonders why everyone is so mean to it.
This argument is like, legit going on in my Facebook right now. ALL OF THIS. JUST ALL OF IT.
All of the above commentary, plus a little extra. In addition to everything said above, which I support the sentiment of entirely, this picture and the above commentary really bother me on a whole host of levels because of the way they use visual disability. The original poster (bankuei) states that the image depicts ““Love is Blind” and has a blind black woman and a blind Klansman walking across the street holding hands.”
Why does this bother me? Well, let’s start with four general reasons. These reason can also be read as a general commentary about ableist language and how incredibly damaging it really is even when it gets used by others in the battle against other ‘isms’. I would like to believe that there was no malicious, no ableist intent, on the part of the original tumblr post’s author (bankuei), but ableism is still ableism even without intent and it is just as damaging.
First complaint. This language is really ableist. LOVE is not BLIND. Seriously, an emotion does not have a physical disability. Please stop using my disability as a synonym for “lack of prejudice/discrimination”. The blind face a ton of prejudice and discrimination and guess what, just because you are blind does not mean you completely miss prejudice or racism or any other ‘ism’ when it occurs. Enough said. Please stop using ableist language. It’s not symbolism or an analogy It is ableist.
Second complaint. She doesn’t know he is a Klansman because she is blind? Both the author and the individual who made the image fall victim to this type of logic. If you think race (in the case of the woman) or a radical, oppressive political identity (in the case of the member of the KKK) are something a blind person misses because they are blind, you do not understand visual disability at all. Seriously, the ways these identities have been worked into language, the ways we interact with each other, the ways we navigate the world, etc. are incredibly nuanced and complicated. You do not need to be able to physically see them to know they exist. This complaint is especially true if you consider the original post’s comment about “love” and the implied relationship. Sight is not the only way a person would be able to understand someone else’s identity or proclivity to be an oppressive, violent scumbag and this is especially true as relationships form across time. Completely ignoring how blind individuals can and do navigate the world, the author takes their ableism in their analysis a step further; “The blind Klansman DRESSED UP AS A KLANSMAN- even blind he still HATES PEOPLE.” WHAT DOES THAT EVEN MEAN!?!?!?! Please stop privileging sight as a key component of navigating identity, identification, and the world as a whole.
Third complaint. The creator of this image is ableist. The two figures are depicted on a crosswalk in front of a red car about to finish crossing the intersection (upper right of the image) and about to pass behind a gray car that has just finished crossing through the intersection and is now beyond the cross walk (bottom left of the image). Hmmm…so is that red car running a red light? Highly unlikely considering the gray car just made it through the intersection itself. Maybe they both ran the light. Or maybe the two caricatures just walked out into oncoming traffic without waiting for a red light. Yeah, hahahahaha. Super funny. Another really good one because hey, blind people cannot cross the street! Hahahaha, no wait, that’s messed up. Please stop depicting images of blind individuals not being able to carry out basic mobility tasks (and yes, this is another really common theme).
Fourth complaint. Not only is the language and the imagery itself ableist, but the author uses this ableism as a means to another end: addressing racism. The original post states that if the KKK member knew his companion was Black, ”he’d push her into traffic and claim, “I’m blind! I didn’t know what was happening!”” Yeah, because someone who is blind cannot possibly know there is traffic there unless they can see it clearly! I mean hey, they already just walked into oncoming traffic, right?. Ha, great joke; I am rolling on the floor laughing. In an attempt to address that this Klansman is a scumbag and is obviously racist, you just made another ‘blind joke’.But using ableism as a tool against racism doesn’t stop there. It gets taken a step further when the author claims that LOVE isn’t BLIND, HATE is BLIND. Really? That’s the conclusion? I am pretty confident that hate itself does not have a visual disability. In an attempt to address one ‘ism’, you just used another and threw another community under the bus (so to speak). Please do not use ableist language in an attempt to illustrate why this image is racist as all hell.
In conclusion:
Dear World,
Please do not use ableism in your social justice battles. I wholeheartedly support the sentiment in the original post. The author is right on in many ways. But horribly wrong in others. Let’s not push each other’s heads under water in our own attempts to not drown under oppression. Thank you for listening.
This additional commentary from blindjewwanderringinthedesert is so very important. We can not use and perpetuate another form of oppression (here- ableism) to address another (here- racism). Thanks so much for adding on and clarifying this, as it is so important and is a point that many people in the SJ community (myself included) can be so prone to miss.
Waaaiiittt, the part about the cars in the third complaint wasn’t a joke? I really don’t think that someone with a five-year-old’s grasp of race relations, like the artist, filled this drawing with precise details like a Flemish master.
(via neutralangel)
I remember reading that a psychology professor actually started showing Beauty And The Beast because it’s a perfect illustration of Stockholm Syndrome. For example, Belle believes she’s been “given” a library by The Beast, but really he just unlocks the library portion of her prison. And that kind of gratitude in exchange for essentially nothing is part of how the famous Stockholm affection forms in the prisoner.
How come my computer has a motherboard but not a fatherboard, this is misandry
Why not call it an equaboard? Yes I know that makes no sense but if I demand equality-based naming in everything, people won’t notice how comfortable I am with the status quo.
(via spookyskookin)
I hate the term eSports. Competitive games take skill, but they’re not a sport. Poker isn’t a card sport and chess isn’t a board sport. Gamers, our fathers will never ever ever see a controller as another type of baseball glove. The sooner we accept that, the better.
