I don’t suggest clicking on the link above. I know very few people who would sympathize with what is written there.
As someone who tries very hard to support feminism, I see nothing of value in this woman’s rant about how men are clearly inferior to women. They aren’t. They are different. In some (mostly physical) ways men have certain advantages. In other ways they do not. When you remove the obstacles society creates for women, men and women are mostly equal.
The problem is people viewing this extreme point of view and calling it feminism. As if all feminists are out there just despising men for having the misfortune to exist.
When, in truth, hardly any of them are.
Every point of view has it’s extremes. The problem becomes people viewing the extreme position as representative of the entire position. Feminism is about working to fix a society that is off balance. It is not about creating a “utopia” where men don’t exist.
So if you are going to Omegacon this weekend, here is a sneak peek at the Movie room schedule. Most people at Omegacon aren’t interested in watching movies all weekend and that’s cool. But if you need a two-hour break from Settlers of Catan, here are some choices for you!
This year’s movie room theme is Toys and Games. I have no idea why it took me so long to use the theme for the movie room. It’s kind of perfect.
This letter to Dear Prudence has to be a joke, right? I mean there probably are people who are this awful but most of them wouldn’t say it out loud, right?
Sadly, I expect this lady is real and she resents “poor” people coming to her house for the good candy. And by “poor,” I expect she means middle class suburban folks and not a bunch of unwashed inner city kids who aren’t worthy to sell her kids a hamburger at McDonald’s.
Her good candy is for the rich little boys and girls! Why is that so hard for the other 99% to understand? If they get full-sized Kit-Kat bars on Halloween instead of the fun size that they deserve, they will start expecting rich people to provide them everything! Isn’t it enough that they are job providers?
Holy shit, lady. If you have to hand out an extra hundred candy bars, are you suddenly going to miss a Porsche payment? Will your underprivileged children be unable to join you in Rome for Christmas? If you have such a problem giving to people who make less than you, just turn off your light so the kids from the rich families that aren’t as rich as yours don’t come to your house either.
I wish this lady had included her home address so everyone could go to her house this Halloween. We should all give her a fucking candy bar. Only the fun size though. We can’t afford the good stuff.
I’ll be doing some spoilers about major plot points so if that bothers you, don’t read on.
I’m not sure what The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance has to say about guns solving problems.
Jimmy Stewart is a hero because he killed a man who, based on all evidence, would have killed him first. It was never his goal to kill Liberty Valance but he was pushed to do so because he knew he couldn’t run away.
It complicates things when we learn that Stewart did not, in fact, kill Valance. Given that fact, is the killing of Valance self-defense, murder, or something else?
Valance was shot to save someone’s life. Unlike other Westerns where everyone is a crack shot, the reason Valance is dead is because his killer aimed at the easiest part of the body to hit. Makes sense. He only had one shot.
So where does that leave us? How do we feel about the whole situation? We know that Stewart is conflicted about it. He doesn’t want to be a hero for killing a man. Yet, it is also true that he may be able to do more good for others if he accepts that he is a hero.
To me, Stewart is far more heroic than he believes because he went to face Valance with the knowledge that he was going to be shot to death. Had John Wayne failed to act, the outcome of the duel was unquestionable. Everyone knew that.
The old west that we see in classic films doesn’t exist with the same standards of morality as our world does. Stand your ground laws notwithstanding.
Alfred Hitchcock is one of the directors film fans must watch. His worst movies are still crafted well and his best movies are – well – as good as anyone’s best movies. Ever.
I’m a film fan, not a film student. I can recognize why certain movies are shot well and why other movies are shot poorly. If you want me to explain why Hitchcock’s films are film school standards, I’m not going to do a great job. I just know that there is something to like in nearly all of his films.
As I’m going through all of the movies in my collection (oh so slowly at the moment), I’ve gone through many of Hitchock’s early films that are part of a set I own encompassing all of his British work.
Some of the movies in that group are not particularly good. Others, like this one, are considered part of his lasting legacy.
All of them are possibly the shittiest quality film transfers you can ever hope to see.
Here’s the thing – you get what you pay for.
If you pay $40 for a Criterion edition of The Seven Samurai, you are going to expect a really top quality transfer of the film in addition to thoughtful and well produced extras.
If you pay $40 for 30 Hitchcock films, you are aren’t going to get anything that even approaches that level of quality.
I’ve been a fan of R.E.M. since college. They were a college band in the 80’s. I was a college student in the 80’s. It was a match that was simply meant to be.
They are one of the few bands I’ve seen in concert more than once.
What does this have to do with Man on the Moon, you ask?
Because R.E.M. should have an Oscar.
You see, the song “The Great Beyond,” which played over the closing credits of Man on the Moon, was written by the band specifically for the film and was not even nominated for an Oscar.
I bitch about the Oscars a lot but no more than the best song category because it is typically filled with the most idiotic music and at least four out of five years it will recognize a song that nobody will ever listen to again. The year “The Great Beyond” was ignored by the R.E.M. hating academy, they gave an Oscar to a song from “Prince of Persia.”
I presume the award was given because Disney hadn’t released a film with music that year. They had to give it to some animated movie so why not that one, right?
So a song by R.E.M. that was not only a great song but also a perfect song to punctuate the film that had just preceded it was ignored and a song from a crappy animated film got the award instead.
A Man For All Seasons is, I think, one of the movies being parodied in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. It is filled with English people doing historical English things that are super important if you are Royalty and completely unimportant if you are anyone else.
I enjoy English actors acting the shit out of stuff so watching Paul Scofield and Robert Shaw chomping on the saga of Thomas More entertains me to no end.
As someone who is non religious, the central conflict seems petty to me. Sure, I can respect Thomas More for standing on his principles. You have to stand for something.
What he was standing for, however, was the religious sovereignty of the Pope. My response, of course, is a great big “who cares?”
I understand that More had some deeply held beliefs and Henry VIII was crapping all over those beliefs by trying to get a divorce. I further understand that he must have thought he was carving out a really sweet plot of land in heaven by being the good defender of the Catholic faith.
It totally scored him a sainthood so good on him, I guess.
On the other hand, why did anyone care? He wasn’t making a nuisance of himself. He wasn’t speaking out against the crown. In fact, he was going out of his way to avoid speaking out against the crown. Yet Henry felt some sort of personal slight had been made and as a result, he called for a good old-fashioned trial by rigged jury.