FRIDAY, JANUARY 27, 2023
E pluribus, more of the same: About a third of the way through the feature film Tár, a beautiful human moment occurs.
There are very few such human moments in this critically lauded film. As a point of personal privilege, we want to cite it here.
In the film, a very prominent (fictional) conductor, Lydia Tár, shares a 6-year-old adopted daughter with her partner or wife, Sharon Goodnow. (The film doesn't say that the daughter is adopted, but the screenplay does.)
As Tár is driving this beautiful child to school, suddenly, and out of the blue, they recite an old nursery rhyme. In our view, it's a rare and beautiful human moment within a weirdly opaque feature film:
TÁR: Who’ll bear the pall?
PETRA: "We," said the wren. "Both the cock and the hen. We'll bear the pall."
TÁR: Who'll sing a psalm?
PETRA: "I, said the thrush as she sat on a bush, "I'll sing a psalm."
TÁR: Who'll toll the bell?
PETRA: "I," said the bull, because I can pull. "I'll toll the bell."
Together, parent and child then finish the rhyme: "All the birds of the air fell a-sighin' and a-sobbin' when they heard the bell toll for poor Cock Robin."
Because of the beauty and the innocence of this 6-year-old child, this leaps out as a rare human moment. Much later n the film, Tár's angry partner or wife says that Tár's relationship with this little gitl is the only relationship Tár has which isn't "transactional"—which isn't devoted to propelling or maintaining Tár's high-flying music career.
As we learned through a bit of googling, Tár and Petra were reciting parts of a very old nursery rhyme, Who Killed Cock Robin? Just a guess:
This moment is layered into the movie to foreshadow the impending fall of the highly transactional classical music maestro. The word "cock" may have bene floating around in Todd Field's mind as well.
We can think of one other such human moment in this very long film. It occurs when Tár's youngish assistant, Francesca, informs Tár that Krista Taylor, a 25-year-old former colleague of theirs, has taken her own life.
Francesca, who is a human being, is plainly distraught as they discuss this event. She weeps, and she asks to be held.
Tár reacts in a different, perhaps more transactional manner.
Instantly, Tár instructs Francesca to delete the tortured emails she has been receiving from Krista, whose name resembles Christ's. After Francesca leaves for home, Tár deletes a series of emails she herself has sent to major orchestras around the world, telling them that shouldn't hire Krista Taylor because she's too unstable.
For whatever reason, the powerful Tár has blackballed her former colleague from employment:
“I must warn you of the danger to your orchestra in hiring Ms. Taylor.” That's the way the screenplay summarizes the snippets of the various emails we see on the screen as Lydia Tár reads them, then clicks them away.
Now for a question:
Is it possible that these emails were actually sent in good faith? Is it possible that Tár really believed these representations about her young former colleague?
Almost everything is possible in this lengthy film. That said, critics have generally assumed that Tár, Francesca and Krista were all lovers in the past, and that Tár was blackballing Krista's prospects out of some sort of pique about the way things ended.
What actually happened between Tár and Krista? As with most such matters in this film, the moviegoer is never shown or told.
That said, the viewer does see what happens on that prior occasion when Tár drives her 6-year-old daughter to school:
Tár believes that one of Petra's 6-year-old classmates has been bullying Petra. After sending Petra off to class, Tár confronts this other 6-year-old girl and aggressively threatens her in this remarkable manner:
TÁR: Hello, Johanna. I'm Petra's father. She’s told me a lot about you. I know what you’re doing to her. And if you ever do it again, do you know what I’ll do? I’ll get you.
And if you tell any grown-ups what I just said, they won’t believe you, because I’m a grown-up. But you need to believe me: I will get you.
Remember this Johanna, God watches all of us.
At that point, Tár walks away. Presumably, "God watches all of us" is meant to prefigure the way that deity is going to bring Tár down.
There's a lot of prefiguring in the film Tár, and a whole lot less exposition. We're never exactly allowed to know what Tar's relationship with Krista was, but it's Krista's suicide which eventually brings Tár's career crashing down.
We do get to see Tár threaten a 6-year-old girl. We also see her deceiving her partner on various occasions in various ways, and we see her trick Francesca into letting her use her laptop.
After sending Francesca out of the room, Tár checks to see if Francesca has deleted Krista's emails, as she's been told to do. Francesca, who seems to be human, hasn't deleted the emails from her tortured friend, as the peeping Tom Tár now knows.
In short, we see Tár doing various highly unattractive things in the course of this long feature film. It's just that we're never allowed to know what actually happened between herself and Krista in the central event of the film.
(Or even between Tár and the adoring fan, or possibly the starstruck journalist, whose red handbag Tár apparently ends up owning! The moviegoer doesn't see that episode spelled out either, assuming that he or she has even noticed that the red handbag has changed hands.)
For ourselves, we don't see the point of exploring #MeToo themes in this type of fictional setting—a setting in which moviegoers are never allowed to know what actually happened, or possibly didn't happen, in the various interpersonal matters which lie at the heart of the film.
Someone else's mileage may differ with respect to this murky exposition. Mostly, though, we disliked the feature film Tár because of the ten million ways it makes its contents inaccessible to moviegoers, starting with the unbearably long opening scenes which are littered with references to the world of classical music, references the typical rube won't care about or understand.
On first viewing, we marveled at the way this lengthy film seemed to have been constructed. It almost seemed that the film had been deliberately constructed to make its contents incomprehensible to the vast bulk of moviegoers.
People who showed up to see the film may have taken that set of cues from this puzzling film's puzzling lack of clarity. In a recent profile of the film's writer-director (Todd Field) and transcendent star (Cate Blanchett), Variety's Kate Aurthur explains the problem like this:
AURTHUR (1/5/23): In a blighted landscape for movies, where fervid audience theorizing has been mostly reserved for television shows such as “The White Lotus,” and most films are forgotten the week after their release, “Tár” is an art-house movie that actually punctured the zeitgeist. During Halloween, Lydia Tár costumes populated Instagram. “That was unexpected!” Blanchett says.
Yet “Tár” has also become emblematic of the difficult period during COVID for the movie business, and the continuing uncertainty around the financial viability of prestige films. A New York Times story from last month, headlined “Highbrow Films Aimed at Winning Oscars Are Losing Audiences,” used an image of Blanchett as Lydia, looking spooked.
[...]
That “Tár” has grossed a mere $5 million in theaters as of this writing, and is a symbol of the box office crisis for Oscar-oriented movies, was decidedly not part of the [marketing] plan.
Variety's Aurthur is second-generation Hollywood. (Her father, the late Robert Alan Aurthur, was a substantial Hollywood screenwriter.)
Like the New York Times before her, Aurthur described the way this "Oscar-oriented / prestige film" bombed at the box office as an offshoot of Covid, which in part it surely was.
That said, Aurthur also makes some slightly odd claims concerning the vast sweep of Tár. It "punctured the zeitgeist," she murkily says—and she offers an odd piece of evidence in support of this claim:
During Halloween, Tár costumes populated Instagram, Aurthur says—whatever that statement might mean.
Quickly, a guess! We'll guess that you saw no such costumes at any Halloween parties you may have attended last fall. We'll even guess that you saw no such costumes when children came to your door dressed like Rachel Maddow, or perhaps like Tucker Carlson.
Is it possible that Aurthur is part of a siloed population—a siloed subgroup within which this highbrow film really did "puncture the zeitgeist?" Beyond that, is it possible that the nation's major film critics may now constitute some such group—a subgroup which is unable to see how a film like Tár will perhaps appear to regular moviegoers?
A subgroup which is perhaps unwilling to say what it knows for certain "transactional" reasons?
After first attempting to watch Tár ourselves, we were amazed by one aspect of the major reviews. The film is extremely hard to follow, but the major reviews didn't say so.
It's always possible that the major reviewers were able to negotiate the complexities of this film in a way which we ourselves couldn't. Aside from their genuine literacy in the world of film, they may have had a press kit in hand, a press kit which told them what they were (supposedly) seeing as the film's scenes rolled on.
Who knows? They may have had access to the screenplay, a screenplay which explains some of the points which go unexplained on the screen. In an unusual move, that screenplay was recently made available for Aurthur to publish and praise, just in time for it to be nominated for an Oscar.
Who knows? It's even possible that some film critics are involved in relationships which are somewhat "transactional." It may be that they're loath to criticize figures like Field and Blanchett, major figures they will want to interview on some future occasion.
That said, Aurthur's profile of Field and Blanchett is ripe with hints of "transactional" conduct. The keister-kissing never stops—the keister-kissing between Fields and Blanchett, to cite two examples, along with the apparent keister-kissing laid on by Aurthur herself.
In major profiles of this type, no statement by industry stars will ever be questioned or challenged. No performance of high credulity will ever be left behind.
Keister-kissing headline included, Aurthur's profile begins as shown. Tell the truth! Do you believe that this car crash actually happened?
Who Is Lydia Tár? Cate Blanchett and Todd Field Lift the Curtain on Their Oscar-Season Masterpiece
Cate Blanchett is not an actor who skims a screenplay when she’s considering it. “I read scripts very, very slowly,” she says, “but this one I read incredibly quickly...She turns to Todd Field, the writer-director of the film in question, “Tár,” and says, “And you crashed your car.”
On this chilly Sunday afternoon in mid-November, Blanchett has made the long trip to Los Angeles from Australia, where she’s been in production. She’s here to attend the Governors Awards as a formidable Oscar contender, having given one of the most rapturously reviewed performances of her career as Lydia Tár—troubled, lesbian, world-famous conductor of a major orchestra in Berlin. She’s sitting next to Field, who, it’s true, got into a bad car accident trying to get the screenplay to Blanchett. Field hadn’t made a feature since 2006’s “Little Children”—and, unbeknownst to Blanchett, had written “Tár” only for her, during a 12-week sprint in the lockdown stage of early COVID.
In September 2020, Field was driving while on the phone with Blanchett’s agent, Hylda Queally, who’d just delivered the devastating news that her client was booked for the next three years and wouldn’t be able to star in his movie. And then he crashed.
“I think because Hylda felt sad for me doing that, she agreed that if I wasn’t in too bad a physical condition, I could get home and send her the script, and she would read it,” Field says.
That “Tár” started with a car crash feels right, maybe even poetic...
Do you believe that Tár really started with some such car crash? Granted, it's a Perfect Story—but did it really occur?
Certainly, it may have happened, but there's no obvious way to know. There's also little way to know what's happening in major parts of Tár—until you read the major reviews, where no such problem is noted.
The kissing of keisters is general through Aurthur's profile. Todd Field kisses Blanchett's keister. Blanchett then kisses his.
Aurthur kisses both their keisters. The stars are looking for Oscar wins, and Aurthur has landed a major profile with two major industry stars.
To our ear, another secret may start to dribble out in Aurthur's profile: this screenplay may be somewhat challenging. Ther are many such suggestions within this profile, and in the overview Aurthur provided when she recently published the screenplay.
(In that overview: "On repeat viewing, Cate Blanchett’s performance as the famous conductor Lydia Tár deepens and becomes more complicated, beautiful and upsetting, as the enigmatic layers of Field’s screenplay continue to unfold for the audience.")
There are "enigmatic layers" to this Oscar-nominated screenplay? Back in Aurthur's profile of Fields and Blanchett, we're quickly told this as well:
"For the most devoted fans of 'Tár,' it’s a puzzle, a treasure hunt, with clues so subtle you have to freeze the frame to catch them."
Say what? You have to freeze the frame of the film to solve the puzzle, to win the treasure hunt?
Question: Can you freeze the frame of a film in a large movie theater? For people who aren't its most devoted fans, the film may be less a puzzle, more an annoying miasma.
At any rate, Aurthur seems to be noting the difficulty of the screenplay at various points in her piece. You can go on a treasure hunt for such hints. For today, we'll post only this:
AURTHUR: The film’s acting ensemble worked with Field on the backstories of their characters’ relationships so there would be a textured, lived-in feeling to them. Noémie Merlant plays Lydia’s beleaguered assistant, Francesca—an aspiring conductor herself, and one of her boss’s former lovers—and she says it was easy to channel her character’s relationship with Lydia: “I used my admiration for Cate.”
“She’s still in love, my character,” Merlant continues. “She needs time to realize that Lydia is not in love anymore with her.”
The film doesn’t give you easy footholds into understanding what any of those relationships are,” Blanchett says. “So we absolutely had to go into the nuances. And it’s almost like we overwrote all of the scenes in our heads—and then you cut out all the dialogue until it’s sort of like a haiku.”
Merlant is kissing Blanchett's keister at the start of that passage. At the end, Blanchett seems to be saying that they cut out so much dialogue out of the film that a lot of the scenes are "sort of like a haiku."
For us, the film was sometimes sort of like a haiku with the middle seven syllables missing. For more literate students of film, mileage may conceivably differ—but we saw no critic who warned the rubes that this film would be hard to follow unless you could freeze its frames, making time stand still.
We'll take a guess:
The rubes who actually went to the film produced zero "word of mouth." Their silence helped lead this film to the fall.
Tár crashed and burned at the box office. The critics adore it still, and there's no reason why they can't or shouldn't.
But when we first tried to watch this film, we thought we were seeing a minor example of a much larger problem which is currently bringing our society down, much as Lydia Tár crashed to the earth.
Like Cock Robin himself, our society is slipsliding toward perdition. In no small measure thanks to the ideology of our own blue tribe, we're dividing ourselves, again and again, into ever smaller siloed demographic groups.
Each group has its favorite reporters and friends, and its favorite Storylines.
Each group massages logic and fact to serve itself enormous helpings of Story. Very few invidious comparisons seem to get left far behind.
In some small way, is it possible that our nation's upper-end critics are one such siloed group, operating without awareness of, or perhaps regard for, the outlooks and understanding of us the rubes? We think that was one of our reactions when we first tried to watch this film a million years ago.
E pluribus, our modern culture just keeps giving us more such groups. Our high-end critics can't seem to see how this film will appear within the zeitgeist of us the rubes. Either that or, for whatever reason, they know that they mustn't tell.
Out of pluribus, we keep building additional silos around additional subgroups. Can a large, major nation really expect to function in this way? We'll answer your question as always do:
Go ahead—take a good look around!
And today Somerby admits that he could not perform the function of a movie critic because he would be incapable of reviewing this film. He has no clue how to find coherence in its symbols or narrative or the portrayal of the characters. He says Cock Robin could be a reference to cock. That's how fatuous Somerby's experience of this film is. But he thinks Petra is cute.
ReplyDeleteAnd Somerby doesn't seem to know what the term transactional means, appied to interactions with people.
The worst part of today's essay is Somerby's constant reference to keister-kissing and the corruption of critics, as if their ability to finding meaning in this film only results from reading publicity handouts and not their own depth of experience and expertise in film. They are all bought off, Somerby claims, if only via access to star interviews (those stars need the critics far more than the critics need those sit-downs.
Somerby is an ugly man. It is creepy when he dotes on young girls. He himself writes murky essays, then he has the nerve to complain when a film doesn't lay everything out neatly for himself. We don't get to know why Krista committed suicide because that is usually the case when something like that happens. And yes, it does show Krista's lack of stability that she took her own life. Who would want to be blamed for that, so of course Tar is deleting her emails. Most aspirants do not get jobs in music, which is a highly competitive field. Tar has a duty to be honest in her letters of recommendation. All who write such letters understand that such letters have a big impact on other people's lives, but one's professional reputation depends on being truthful in them. Tar is not doing something wrong when she tells the truth about Krista -- although Somerby immediately assumes she is not being truthful but has it out for Krista, ruining her job chances out of spite. No doubt, that is because Somerby does not like Tar. Maybe she is unlikeable, but I haven't seen the film, so I don't know what the intent of the author is.
Somerby has written his own review today and he is piss-poor at it. He has written a hit job on the film and his animosity is obvious. He spews hate at everyone involved, for no good reason except that he can't seem to understand the film. It isn't a matter of interest to Somerby to hear what others gleaned from their viewing. He wants to know what the one true meaning is, so that he can get it right, and he has no interest in the thoughts of others. It is an affront that divergent opinions exist. Some people find ambiguity interesting because they can be creative in their own interpretations, but Somerby has no way to make his hackneyed thoughts (Krista = Christ, because she died) fit a coherent whole, and he doesn't know how to evaluate whether random symbols contribute to meaning or do not fit.
Somerby is delighted that the film made no money (why would anyone who likes movies feel that way), as if it deserves to be punished. No one who feels this way is a friend to the industry. Real movies are not made for guys like Somerby -- he needs to watch another superhero film and eat his popcorn, without trying to join the adults who like ideas and images and beautiful cinematography, who appreciate fine acting and don't need to buy a script to know what is going on.
"Our high-end critics can't seem to see how this film will appear within the zeitgeist of us the rubes. Either that or, for whatever reason, they know that they mustn't tell."
ReplyDeleteYes, that's the ticket! Those critics all know what the movie means but it is a conspiracy not to tell the public, especially not Somerby.
Somerby is hinting that rubes only watch films about their own lives, such as Deliverance. They can’t identify with Petra having two mommies while resembling neither of them.The rubes will not like it that critics haven’t warmed them that the film is about (whisper it) gay women. And if a woman commits suicide, it must be the gayness to blame.
DeleteLydia introduced herself to the little girl as Petra’s father.
DeleteSo what?
DeleteSince Lydia was trying to scare the little girl into not bullying Petra, perhaps calling herself Petra's father was to give herself more authority and thus be scarier to the child she was trying to intimidate.
DeleteWhat is so wrong with Lydia trying to prevent her daughter from being bullied? Somerby doesn't say, but I get the impression he thought it made Lydia a bad person to be protective like that.
Anonymouse 5:57pm, you actually think it’s appropriate for adults to go after children rather than taking their concerns to their parents?
DeleteYes. If that child is hurting her child. She used words and told the child to stop. It takes a village.
DeleteChildren do better when all adults around them are concerned for their well-being. I was referring to Clinton's book, "It Takes a Village" which was about helping children, especially those not fortunate to be born into wealthy families. Everyone should look out for all kids around them, whether they are theirs or not.
DeleteParents these days tend to be defensive when told their kids are doing something wrong, and they deny it happened, which is not good for the child doing the bullying, since they get away with it and go on doing it. Kids who bully others are disliked by peers and do not have friends, which is bad for their development. Tar is responsible for her daughter's safety too. Telling administrators who may do nothing about bullying is unhelpful. She didn't harm the child at all by threatening her. Threats are how many adults achieve discipline of young children, including teachers and parents. The nonspecific nature of the threat means the child's imagination will be the deterrent to more bullying when there are no adults around to stop it. I think Tar did the right thing.
Calling her a strange adult when she is the parent of a classmate is ridiculous. Further, even if she were a bystander, she should not stand by and watch one child bully another. Intervening would be a good thing. Children do not have the right to assault each other without being stopped, whether their parents are around or not.
Anonymouse 10:44pm, I know what you were referring to and it’s utterly asinine.
DeleteLydia isn’t a village. Quite the opposite was the point of the scene.
Lydia is a lone adult, a complete stranger, approaching a child in order to intimate her readiness to do the kid harm.
She even likened herself to a man so as to convey the idea of maximum physical threat.
This shocking scene is meant to portray Lydia’s deep insecurity, emotional isolation, and descent into ruin.
You’re a disingenuous moron.
She said she was Petra's father. That identifies her as family of the child being bullied. The kid will know what that means. She is not a complete stranger and she is not someone with no reason to threaten the kid. Notice that she did not threaten "harm" as you put it, but said she would "get her" which is so vague as to mean anything from "get her in trouble" to do whatever bad thing a child that age can imagine. Vague threats work best with children because they are self-limiting (they are no worse than what a young child can imagine). Likening herself to a man is your construct. Mine is that she represented a figure who was responsible for Petra, her protector and family, which is a role, not a sex. Father is a kinship term, not a biological term. You exaggerate this to "maximum physical threat" which is not at all what Lydia said to the child. I wouldn't find the scene shocking. I would be happy that someone is sticking up for Petra, that there is justice. Your idea of what the scene portrays is nothing more than your own idea. How can protecting a child represent emotional isolation? That is ridiculous.
DeleteYou are a creepy moron and I wish you would go talk to the people who appreciate you best, over on those right wing websites where people think children don't deserve to be taught how to behave.
Anonymouse 11:41pm, it’s comforting to know that the nonspecific threat of “I’ll get you” from an adult stranger to a kid is as limited to their fears of being alone in the dark.
DeleteI also enjoy the logic that there is no symbolism in the fact that Lydia’s daughter’s true protector merely likened herself to the role of male donor.
But nothing beats the argument that the scene of adult Lydia, threatening a child, has no more cinematic relevance than Carol Brady sending Marsha’s rude and rowdy playmate home.
A sitcom “I’ll get you” triumph of mom’s prepossessing paternal authority.
You’re quite the piece of work.
Noticed.
DeleteFresh Fullz/Pros/Leads are available
DeleteSSN DOB & SSN DOB wtih DL
High Credit Scores Fullz 700+
CC with CVV USA/CANADA/UK
Dumps with PIN & without PIN
Fresh Fullz/Pros for tax return
Spammed from good sources
Invalid & wrong info will be replaced
Telegram @killhacks/@leadsupplier
ICQ - 752822040
WA - +92 317 2721122
Mail - exploit(dot)tools4u @ gmail(dot)com
Tools & Tutorials are also available For
Spamming, Hacking, Carding, Spying, Cracking, Scripting
Kali Linux Complete
BTC Flasher/Cracker
Keyloggers/Viruses/Rats
D**P/D**K web complete courses with valid onion links
Fr**d Bi**e 2021/22/23 Updated
Mailers/SMTP's/RDP's/Shell/C-panels
Web-mailers/Spoofers/Bomber
All genuine tools in cheap prices
ICQ - 752822040
TG - @killhacks
"E pluribus, more of the same"
ReplyDeleteThe word Somerby has omitted is unum. The phrase means "from the many, one" and talks about the unity of the American people as a single nation. But we are unified because we choose to be, not because we are all the same. This has always been a diverse nation and it continues that way, despite Somerby's whining that movie critics have different reactions to films than he does, and they won't tell him what a film really means.
Somerby seems to be arguing that anyone who is not like him is making this a siloed nation, and he clearly thinks that is a bad thing, not a source of interest that makes life richer. And Somerby also found a film about a woman who is very different from himself to be entirely lacking in interest, so much that he fast forwarded because he was bored to tears (by his own admission). Who feels like that about other people? Someone who is so self-absorbed that others are not real to him, people are props and nothing more, or an annoyance because they get in his way as he pursues his own self-interest.
But Petra is beautiful in her innocence, Somerby says. Never mind what she says about Tar, why she was in the film and what she means. Somerby likes watching her.
E pluribus means from more. From many would be e multis.
DeleteEveryone everywhere is translating it as " from many" not "more." However, "plus" is being described as a comparative declension of "multus," and "pluribus" is a form of "plus." It might be accurate to say "from many more, one" but most English speakers would consider " from many more" closely similar to "from many" in meaning. So perhaps that is how we got to the current translation.
DeleteMost of the authors of the US Constitution knew Latin from their upper class education. Five were grads of Harvard where they would have studied Latin and Greek. The phrase comes from Virgil.
Wikipedia traces it to Cicero.
Deletehttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/E_pluribus_unum
As Americans, we are tracing it to the Constitution.
DeleteNo, the great seal and mint.
DeleteThe rhyme about Cock Robin is not obscure. Somerby had to look it up, he says, but it is a Mother Goose rhyme that is widely familiar to children and adults who grew up hearing them. This suggests another gap in Somerby's cultural knowledge, perhaps arising because he never had kids himself so he wouldn't have read to them or interacted with them, as Tar does in the film.
ReplyDeleteSomeone tell Somerby that he could empathize with Lydia Tar instead of putting her into a silo.
ReplyDeleteFor Cecelia, who argued that everyone should have an official nym, so they won't be able to contradict themselves from day to day:
ReplyDelete"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day. — 'Ah, so you shall be sure to be misunderstood.' — Is it so bad, then, to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood.
— Ralph Waldo Emerson, "Self-Reliance", Essays: First Series, 1841"
And then there is this, also relevant to Cecelia's argument yesterday:
Delete"Nor do I feel quite sure that Mr. Whistler has been himself always true to the dogma he seems to lay down, that a painter should paint only the dress of his age and of his actual surroundings: far be it from me to burden a butterfly with the heavy responsibility of its past: I have always been of opinion that consistency is the last refuge of the unimaginative: but have we not all seen, and most of us admired, a picture from his hand of exquisite English girls strolling by an opal sea in the fantastic dresses of Japan? Has not Tite Street been thrilled with the tidings that the models of Chelsea were posing to the master, in peplums, for pastels? Whatever comes from Mr. Whistler's brush is far too perfect in its loveliness to stand or fall by any intellectual dogmas on art, even by his own: for Beauty is justified of all her children, and cares nothing for explanations: but it is impossible to look through any collection of modern pictures in London, from Burlington House to the Grosvenor Gallery, without feeling that the professional model is ruining painting and reducing it to a condition of mere pose and pastiche.
— Oscar Wilde, "The Relation of Dress to Art: A Note in Black and White on Mr. Whistler's Lecture", Pall Mall Gazette, February 28, 1885."
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteIf you think all anonymous commenters agree with each other, you can't read.
DeleteAnonymouse 4:14pm/4:-6pm, are you so clueless as to not understand how absurd these passages are as excerpted by one anonymous among many anonymous all in agreement and all angry every single day?
DeleteOops, you took away your stoopid comment before readers could appreciate it fully.
DeleteNow it is back again, just as stupid. You should be proud to have made so many people angry. Isn't that what you trolls live on? Bile?
DeleteAnonymouse 5:03pm, you are invariably angry and offended in the same way every day.
DeleteThere is a line in Randy Rainbow's newest video that says "Lauren Boebert doesn't know what state she's from..." I'll bet that's true for you too, Cecelia.
DeleteCecelia, I think you are confusing the anonymous commenters with Somerby himself, who writes the same essay every day, and is offended in the same way every day too. How can the comments differ when the posts never do?
DeleteAnonymouse 5:05pm, the same and the same pique, no matter the subject. Every single day.
DeleteEmerson would laugh you. Especially over that last quote.
Anonymouse 5:08pm, because themes are both buoyed and made fresh by the variety of life’s circumstances.
DeleteAnd that's not also true of commenters? I think you are being internally inconsistent in this argument.
Deleteanons 4:14 & 4:16 - you are obviously the same person - no one else could have responded approving your post in 2 minutes. For some reason, you think that your anonymouse postings are beyond criticism. You apparently post several times every day, pretty much taking up the majority of space in the thread. You have posted using other names, e;g., Corby, Perry, Joe Bob etc. You respond to your own posts as an anon. Posting so frequently as anon, or using other nyms is deceptive - it gives the appearance that a slew of persons are coming after TDH in the same way. Every day, you whackily excoriate TDH, no matter what he says - you find offense everywhere. There is something deranged about it. Cecilia is one of the only ones who often makes sense and has something of a sense of humor - yet she is subjected to nasty ad hominem attacks.It the whole scheme of things, all this doesn't matter, but in this tiny world its an element of the bizarre.
DeleteYou are way out over your skiis, AC/MA. None of that is true. Yes, I did comment on Cecelia's post, which she immediately took down and then put back up again, in the space of time when I commented. That doesn't make me Corby or anyone else. I don't know how many people are commenting as anonymous and neither do you.
DeleteHave you noticed that Cecelia has said nothing whatsoever about the film that Somerby has been discussing. She didn't say anything about that medical study either. So, what exactly do you find so sensible about her comments? She is NEVER on topic. And she makes as many nasty attacks as she receives, often provoking them. You have a distorted perspective on what goes on around here. For one thing, you seem to be trying to dox people. That needs to stop.
I cannot tell what Somerby is trying to say today. Perhaps you can explain it, AC/MA. What does Somerby think should happen if rubes don't appreciate movies like Tar?
DeleteAnonymouse 5:51pm, I deleted it and reposted because I left out the word “not” in the first sentence.
DeleteThis is the first I have heard that there is a quota for how many comments a person can write on this (or any other) blog. I think Cecelia writes a lot of comments, especially when she is arguing with someone over something trivial. But AC/MA is right, hers are easy to count because of her name.
DeleteShouldn't quality count more than quantity? Has Cecelia ever said anything that contributed to any meaningful discussion here? How does bashing trans people contribute to a discussion of Tar, for example?
Cecilia is one of the only ones who often makes sense ...
DeleteBwawawa!! Right! For instance, Cecelia was very suspicious of the reporting concerning the violent home invasion and attack on Mr. Pelosi. She just knew the story smelled fishy.
Hey, Cec. Have you cracked the case yet. LOL
LOL. Makes sense, my ass, AC/MA
Anonymouse 6:10pm, check out how many media entities went to court to get the camera footage of the attack.
DeleteThanks, Judge!
That doesn't make you less of an idiot for believing garbage that was reported on the right.
DeleteAnonymouse 6;02 pm, I didn’t bash trans people, I said that gender is not a matter of feelings.
DeleteGender dysphoria, like any mental disorder, is much to be pitied. However, you don’t redefine reality in order to remedy this.
You don’t seek to do that out of empathy, but from the impulse to rule.
Anonymouse 6:32pm, I did not believe or “not believe” anything. Several news outlets had reported and later retracted reports. The police report differed with the DA’s report.
DeleteThat you had no questions with all that isn’t surprising and certainly not meritorious.
Anonymouse 5:28pm, you aren’t a blogger with a theme or particular focus.
DeleteAnonymices are commenters who are incensed by Bob’s critique of our culture in general, of which his tribe is a part.
That is your sole focus and you invariably write annoyed and insulting posts whether it’s a political post or a movie review.
You are as unique, free-thinking, and individualistic as the Borg.
Cecelia, researchers and mental health professionals know more about how gender identity is formed than you do. It is a social construct. I object to your desire to persecute trans people by denying them bathrooms and restricting access to opportnities others have. Defending freedom used to be something Republicans cared about. Not you though.
DeleteI am not interested in being the only one with my opinions. I would love it if more people agreed. Unlike the borg, I do not force anyone to believe any particular way by restricting access to books, for example, or by making laws about what can be taught.
“You are as unique, free-thinking, and individualistic as the Borg.”
DeleteSomerby is not a free thinker. He isn’t asking liberals to be more open minded.
He is asking liberals to be more conservative. He asks us to tolerate or sympathize with conservatives when they try to ban books or attack and ban transgender, force teachers to hew the right wing line, oppose gay marriage, fight gun control, accept abortion bans, and so on and so on.
Cecelia, you represent the same attitude of the crew who supported slavery in the years prior to the civil war, and Somerby is an editorialist asking abolitionists to be more “free thinking” and accept and tolerate slavery.
You and Somerby are scum, IMHO.
Sure, Cecelia, super sleuth. You were just asking questions. It would have been irresponsible not to.
DeleteBwahahahaha!!
You're a reliable conveyor or the latest bilgewater being dished out from the Right Wing fever swamps.
I did not believe or “not believe” anything.
No?
*******
CeceliaNovember 1, 2022 at 7:17 PM
No, a stupid person is one who thinks the media is supposed to unquestioningly relay conflicting or nonsensical information.
A truly stupid person is someone who thinks it’s moot to question why a multimillionaire national powerhouse family wouldn’t turn on an alarm system in their mansion at night or not wonder if it had been turned off.
A particularly stupid person reflexively argues that an alarm screeching thru the neighborhood would not deter a break-in or give the target an opportunity to hide.
But it takes an utterly disingenuous person to say that none of this matters, in a criminal case, because what happened- happened “so shut the hell up.”
*******
mh, right. It’s still 1860 with everyone who doesn’t agree with you.
DeleteMh has you pegged. Now go away.
DeleteAnonymouse 8:21pm, my Nov 1, 2022 post beef is precisely as I described it today.
DeleteYour only beef is that the media and I had one.
Anonymouse 8:32pm, I release you from having to read my responses to people who directly address or mention me.
DeleteI release you from having to read any of my posts.
Go in peace.
Anonymouse 7:34pm, if gender is merely a social construct, then gender affirming care is facilitating a phenomenon that has caused tremendous pain and confusion within a cohort you claim to support.
DeleteAnonymouse 9:45pm, I’m not pretending anything.
DeleteIt’s you who are justifying the amputation of breasts and genitalia upon the basis of a “social construct” and arguing that designating mass public bathrooms in accordance with unadulterated sexual equipment… as “denying bathrooms” to transgenders.
People modify their bodies all the time for various reasons. They have cosmetic surgery to change the shape of their noses, because they think they are ugly (another form of body dysphoria) or look too old. They pierce and tattoo for cosmetic and social/cultural reasons. I've already tried to explain to you what it feels like to be born the wrong sex. You persist in trivializing that. How people think affects the body and everything else in someone's life, so it is not merely constructed, it is central to someone's life. And you clearly lack both imagination and empathy, do not actually care about trans people and when you talk about their pain you have no clue, so yes, you are pretending to care.
DeleteAll bathrooms outside private homes are "public" bathrooms. It is unacceptable to deny their use to trans people. A transwoman is not safe using a men's room because of attitudes like yours -- she is likely to get beaten up. That leaves the women's room, where she will use a stall like everyone else and cause no trouble at all. Forbidding that is indeed denying bathrooms to trans people. A trans woman who is hounded out of the woman's room for looking insufficiently female cannot go into the men's room, again for fear of being physically attacked. In the men's room, a trans man will use a stall and not cause any trouble there at all.
It is ironic for you to talk about "unadulterated" sexual equipment when men buy penis enlargers and erectile dysfunction pills all the time, have implants and even enlargement surgery. It clearly depends on the type of surgery with people like you. But it is none of your business what changes someone wishes to make. You need to learn to live and let live and stop targeting those whose problems you clearly do not understand.
Because of attitudes like Cecelia's about trans people, many men and women who are not transgender are being harrassed in public restrooms. If you are not sufficiently dressed or built like the stereotypical man or women, you are accused of being transgender, even when you are not. This happens to masculine-looking women, women who don't use cosmetics or dress in feminine clothing (by taste or for comfort) or who are lesbian with a masculine self-presentation. Men who are smaller or rounder or overweight or have longish hair can be accused of being transgender too. And those who prefer androgynous or gender fluid clothing, makeup and hairstyles are being harassed in public by know-nothings with attitudes like Cecelia.
DeleteThese ignoramuses don't realize that men's fashion has included velvet and lace, corsets, pantaloons and tights, feathers, and jewelry in other times and places. Men still wear skirts and sarongs in some cultures. There is nothing inherently masculine or feminine about any mode of dress, that hasn't been worn by either gender in history. That means that Cecelia's ilk are insisting on tradition only because it makes them feel comfortable -- not because of any inherent association with sex, and not because they "care" about anyone but themselves. Times are changing and that does not mean transphobes get to throw tantrums and change other people's behaviors to suit their own prejudices.
I am so tired of Cecelia's stinking ignorance.
Anonymouse 11:06pm, if gender is a social construct then your vast concern for trans genders is better served by discouraging gender affirmative changes.
DeleteTurning a boy into a soprano or a girl into a baritone is far more psychologically and physically challenging than rhinoplasty. It’s time we moved on from such troupes.
Why bother? To care means that you’re bigoted enough to associate physical characteristics as having any relevance to a specific gender.
Anonymouse 11:16pm, yes I know. Women with small breasts and slim hips are being threatened in the ladies room right and left.
DeleteGoodness knows the harassment that men, with no discernible crotch bulges or facial hair, suffer at the hands of bigoted xyers in the men’s john.
But then in the men's room, trans males would truly be imperiled.
That’s the difference between genetic women and men. It takes a lot hormone injections to get around that ”social construct”.
Cecelia, it's so cute how you go running for cover by associating your insane speculations with those of the "media". By "media" what do you mean? Cause the news I watched and read didn't start playing sherlock holmes and spreading false information like Fox Nooz did.
DeleteYou accused people of being "truly stupid" to believe the report by authorities of what occurred. Which was exactly as what appeared. A fucking crazy right wing lunatic who has been marinating in RW hate for so long he decided he needed to invade the home of the Democatic Speaker of the House and take her hostage. Just normal fucking RW politics nowadays.
If you think your crazy wild speculations at the time were reasonable, that's more of a problem than you realize.
As I said, Cecelia, your stinking ignorance is coupled with a lack of empathy and delight in cruelty toward others. All of that is on display in what you write here, for everyone to see.
DeleteAnonymouse 8:16am, all the major news networks and newspapers had to sue in order to get police body cam footage.
DeleteThe police and DA contradicted each other and the two news stories on the matter were retracted.
It’s not surprising that anyone would question the investigation concerning the importance of this family.
If you don’t want questions or conspiracy theories, and must be sued for public information, don’t be surprised when you end up with both.
Grow up.
Anonymouse 10:29am, oh, well.
DeleteSo, is Somerby arguing that films like Tar should be cancelled because they confuse the rubes, or is he arguing that reviewers should pretend not to understand such films, so that the rubes won't be alone in their confusion?
ReplyDeleteWhat exactly is Somerby's point?
No, anonymouse 5:02pm, Bob thinks that the film is obviously hard to follow and obscure at times and that this ought to have been remarked upon by reviewers who may have been helped by synopses provided by PR agents.
DeleteThe films murkiness, resulted in the its dismal numbers. You wonder how the move could have broken even and wonder too with all the swooning, why some of the reviewers didn’t suggest that more clarity could have resulted in more viewers seeing what critics think is a superb film.
No, the murkiness (if any) occurs after one has bought a ticket. It cannot cause low sales, especially if critics aren’t calling the film murky, as you say Somerby says they aren’t. There are similarly obscure films with much lower box office receipts. That is Somerby’s bogus attack on the film.
DeleteCecelia, no one here believes that you know Somerby’s mind any better than the rest of us. There are others who have said the film isn’t that murky, that there are dream sequences, for example. Is it the job of critics to explain films to those who don’t get them? Is Somerby really saying that?
DeleteAnonymouse 7:47pm, no, Somerby is not saying that film critics should explain films to the audience.
DeleteHe didn’t say that. I didn’t say that he said that.
This is the usual distortion.
Anonymices never sleep.
Anonymouse 7:40pm people buy tickets based upon word of mouth, not from critics, but from peer buzz.
DeleteDo you understand the paltriness of five million in returns? That there are “similarly obscure films with low receipts” doesn’t prove your point (whatever the hell that is…), it proves his.
Can’t resist interpreting Somerby, can you? He is murkier than Tar.
DeleteYou wouldn’t recognize a distortion if it slapped you in the face. You are typing nonsense to get attention. Go away.
DeleteAnonymouse 8:30pm, always the distortions.
DeleteI’m responding to posts that address me.
It is always better when you aren’t here because people can actually discuss topics.
DeleteAnonymouse 9:52pm, by discussing topics you mean that anonymices can rage at Bob unimpeded.
DeleteHere's a fun thing to do on social media.
ReplyDeleteWhen a Right-winger complains about "illegal immigrants", ask them what they have done to make immigration easier.
Get ready to find out "illegal" is a red herring, and their actual problem is with immigrants.
Shocking! (sarcasm).
That Tar is a finical loser is far from a settled point, many films in various situations have come back from being losers on their opening.
ReplyDeleteThat was certainly the case for Avatar: The Way Of Water.
DeleteWhat are you talking about? Avatar 2 grossed $1.5 billion in 2022, 9th on all time highest list. Not a loser on opening at all. Do you think before you comment?
DeleteAnonymouse 8:28pm:
Deletehttps://screenrant.com/avatar-2-box-office-week-details/
You didn’t read down to the end where it said it did as well as other high grossing films in its first 8 days.
Delete“The film is now standing alongside other high-grossing but not record-breaking (my emphasis) films that took 8 days to cross that line, including Jurassic World Dominion, Thor: Love and Thunder, and 2019's Captain Marvel.”
DeleteIt ended up being the 7th highest grossing movie ever.
Do you think before you comment?
You said Avatar was doing poorly at the box-office but it was not. Admit you were wrong.
DeleteI didn’t say anything about Avatar doing poorly. I agreed with the premise of waiting before you start making pronouncements on the relative success or failure of a film.
DeleteI linked to an article that said as much. You summarized a quote from the article, but left off the salient part of the sentence (“…but not record breaking films…”).
So what…if the release is not record breaking, within the context of what later plays out via word of mouth within the public, etc.
You’re going to have to work harder at finding fault for no good reason.
Streaming, some awards, cult momentum could make it profitable in a few years….
ReplyDeleteCecelia, what is wrong with you that you cannot learn not to leave all that extra space at the ends of your comments? It increases the scrolling needed by others and is inconsiderate of others.
ReplyDeleteAnonymouse 11:44pm, life is hard.
DeleteBrace yourself.
Standing on the corner drinking cheap wine
ReplyDeleteIt's a Saturday night, yo, let's all get high
Puffing on the blunts and sipping on the brews
Mess with LOB!
Punk! Yo! You lose
I'm out getting drunk, writing on the walls
Step to ADM If you got the balls
I come full fisted swinging the bat
So tell me right now man
Who's the mack?
I'm in my Cadillac, running red lights
The cops on my tail
It's a Saturday night..
32/87
ReplyDeleteFresh Fullz/Pros/Leads are available
ReplyDeleteSSN DOB & SSN DOB wtih DL
High Credit Scores Fullz 700+
CC with CVV USA/CANADA/UK
Dumps with PIN & without PIN
Fresh Fullz/Pros for tax return
Spammed from good sources
Invalid & wrong info will be replaced
Telegram @killhacks/@leadsupplier
ICQ - 752822040
WA - +92 317 2721122
Mail - exploit(dot)tools4u @ gmail(dot)com
Tools & Tutorials are also available For
Spamming, Hacking, Carding, Spying, Cracking, Scripting
Kali Linux Complete
BTC Flasher/Cracker
Keyloggers/Viruses/Rats
D**P/D**K web complete courses with valid onion links
Fr**d Bi**e 2021/22/23 Updated
Mailers/SMTP's/RDP's/Shell/C-panels
Web-mailers/Spoofers/Bomber
All genuine tools in cheap prices
ICQ - 752822040
TG - @killhacks
jordan shoes
ReplyDeleteretro jordans
off white
bape
kyrie 5 spongebob