Oh Shit I Just Realized I Can Post The “Gaussian Blur Wizard That Gaussian Blurs You” Here

#i like to sit around thinking about what life would have been like in the naberrie-skywalker household#padme would have been amazing when the twins were just little kids but when they hit puberty she’d be like ???#padme was a queen when she was 14; she couldn’t afford temper tantrums; she doesn’t understand any of this#and anakin stands up and he’s like MY TIME HAS COME#he is the chosen one prophecied to bring balance to this household#leia is the best at everything until anakin starts seriously training them and luke is a natural at Meditation and Jedi Stuff#and leia gets SO PISSED and luke’s like WHY CAN’T I BE BETTER THAN YOU AT ONE THING#and leia’s like WHY CAN’T YOU STOP RUBBING IT IN MY FACE#and then they yell incoherently at each other and padme’s like ????????? STOP???????????#she can get the senate to shut the fuck up and listen but she can’t get her 13yo twins to do the same#and then anakin walks in and starts yelling just as incoherently and padme’s like i’m leaving#but it works. whatever strange terrifying things they were all yelling at dinner everyone’s happy again#and padme’s like oh my god if politics were like this i’d kill all my coworkers#and anakin’s like hahahahahhahahaha.#and in another universe darth vader stops and stares out a window and he’s like huh. that was weird#‘it’s as if i felt padme again and we were in complete agreement on something’#and then he continues choking out an admiral#STAR WARS COMEDY

Meanwhile, Monday is extremely 2 + 2 = 5 energy

nobody gets me like they get me

Obligatory Oscar Predictions (now with gratuitous gifs!)

I’ll be belatedly posting my reviews of various movies including a top ten list over the next few weeks, but if I’m going to turn this into a consistent (mostly) movie review blog, I may as well start with the obvious.

BEST PICTURE

There are about a half-dozen that seem to be locks at this point -- Three Billboards, The Shape of Water, Dunkirk, The Post, Lady Bird, and Get Out. (if one is missing tomorrow morning, expect it to be the last, but I doubt it) 

First off, let’s pour one out for 2017, a year so bizarre and awesome that a fantasy about a mute woman having an affair with a fish-monster and a horror-comedy are front-runners. That’s like if the 1987 Best Picture nominees had been The Last Emperor, Hope and Glory, Broadcast News, Evil Dead II, and The Witches of Eastwick.

The remaining 3 or 4 slots are where it gets trickier.

Now, the Academy obviously isn’t cool enough to go for Wonder Woman, Logan, Guardians of the Galaxy 2, and The Last Jedi. That said, if they do go for one of the critically beloved blockbusters, I’d bank on the first one, with Logan being an extremely dark horse. 

The remaining probable options are: Call Me By Your Name, I Tonya, The Darkest Hour, The Big Sick, Mudbound and Molly’s Game. All should get screenplay nominations and at least one acting nod; the question is just which of them are going to carry over to the big prize. 

The Big Sick mostly has the problem that there’s already three comedy slots taken between Three Billboards, Lady Bird, and Get  Out; they don’t typically go for one comedy, let alone a whole slate. Still, it was widely embraced enough that it certainly will have some momentum.

Call Me By Your Name is a good bet simply on the cynical account of being the serious gay romance of the year. I suspect its support will be better than for The Danish Girl but not as strong as Moonlight simply on account of it being much better than the former but not as great as the latter; that said, it’s lovingly crafted enough to push over the line, I suspect.

I, Tonya is probably a lock for Actress, and seems like the sort of film to get an extra boost on the power of that incredible lead performance; it helps that it’s a really good film that scores very strongly on feminist scales in a year where that’s going to be the groundswell in the Academy.

The Darkest Hour is trickier to guess; similarly, it’s a film built around one astounding performance, but isn’t nearly as strong as I, Tonya outside of Oldman Oldmaning the hell out of his best role in years.

Molly’s Game falls in the same category; Chastain is sensational, and I’m surprised Idris Elba doesn’t have more buzz and Costner doesn’t have any, but the movie itself is good, not great. Aaron Sorkin truly has a way with words, but as director, he’s a little too in love with his words, and too often doesn’t trust his visual telling of the story to carry it when he can dilute the impact with a 500 word speech explaining the images.

Finally, Mudbound has the severe disadvantage of Netflix’s hostility toward theaters and the traditional film business, which I suspect keeps them from really effectively campaigning. Although it’ll probably get noticed somewhere, the big prize will likely elude it.

FINAL CHOICE FOR BEST PICTURE: 

(in decreasing order of likeliness)

Three Billboards

The Shape of Water

Dunkirk

The Post

Lady Bird

Get Out

Call Me By Your Name

I, Tonya

The Big Sick

Wonder Woman

BEST DIRECTOR

The picture pool largely shows who’s in line, with the bottom three films unlikely to show up here. McDonough and Del Toro are locks, and Greta Gerwig probably is, as well. Christopher Nolan seems like he should be a lock, but you would have thought so for The Dark Knight and Inception, too; has the director’s branch has gotten over whatever their Nolan-hate? Conversely, Spielberg would normally seem to be a lock, but he has so many nominations over the years that he might seem too obvious a choice; would they be voting because he did such a great job, or just because he’s frickin’ Spielberg? (in this case, definitely the former; his work in The Post is masterful) Then there’s the question of whether Jordan Peele has even more momentum than he seems to have, and if Luca Guadagnino manages a spoiler. Peele and Nolan getting DGA nods suggests they have the strongest support among the directors; I’ll chose them, but won’t be shocked to see wither Spielberg or Gaudagnino on there. (call Patty Jenkins the one-in-a-million longshot)

Martin McDonough - Three Billboards

Guillermo Del Toro - The Shape of Water

Greta Gerwig - Lady Bird

Christopher Nolan - Dunkirk

Jordan Peele - Get Out

BEST ACTOR

Gary Oldman, Darkest Hour

Daniel Day-Lewis, Phantom Thread

Timothy Chalamet, Call Me By Your Name

Daniel Kaluuya, Get Out

Tom Hanks, The Post

POSSIBLE SPOILERS: Denzel - Roman J Israel Esq. (though nobody seemed to like anything else about the movie); James Franco - The Disaster Artist (reports of his long-known douchey, misogynist behavior may keep him down, but then again, Casey Affleck); Hugh Jackman - either The Greatest Shomwan or Logan (having both in the mix probably kills his chances, and with The Greatest Showman embraced by audiences but loathed by critics, and Logan being a superhero movie released way back in Spring, it’s a hell of a longshot either way. I just really want him to get it for Logan.)

BEST ACTRESS

Sally Hawkins, The Shape of Water

Frances McDormand, Three Billboards

Margot Robbie, I, Tonya

Saoirse Ronan, Lady Bird

Meryl Streep, The Post

SPOILERS: Jessica Chastain, Molly’s Game (honestly a tossup between her and Streep); Jude Dench, Victoria and Abdul (minor, barely seen film, but it’s Dench); Michelle Williams, All the Money in the World; Diane Kruger, In the Fade

SUPPORTING ACTOR

Sam Rockwell, Three Billboards

Willem Dafoe, The Florida Project

Christopher Plummer, All the Money in the World

Armie Hammer, Call Me By Your Name

Woody Harrelson, Three Billboards

SPOILERS: Richard Jenkins or, less likely, Michael Shannon, The Shape of Water; Michael Stuhlberg, Call Me By Your Name; Idris Elba, Molly’s Game; Patrick Stewart, Logan (I will mention Logan every chance I get in an effort to will nominations into existence) 

(and yes, that gif is from Iron Man 2)

SUPPORTING ACTRESS

Allison Janey, I, Tonya

Laurie Metcalf, Lady Bird

Mary J. Blige, Mudbound

Octavia Spencer, The Shape of Water

Holly Hunter, The Big Sick

SPOILERS: Hong Chau, Downsizing (but everyone seems to have hated the movie otherwise); Lesley Manville, Phantom Thread; Tiffany Haddish, Girls Trip (if there’s an out of nowhere nod); Kristin Scott Thomas, The Darkest Hour; Michelle Pfieffer, mother!; Dafne Keene, Logan (see above)

OTHER VARIOUS NOTES

Murder on the Orient Express was one of my favorite films this year, but it seems to have been largely forgotten by the various awards communities. Still, it should at least get nominations for Costume Design and Production Design, and just possibly Cinematography. Tragically, there is no category for “Best Mustache”, a category this film would not only win but fill all the nominations.

The Shape of Water, apparently, is not even being considered for best makeup for reasons that I can’t possibly fathom. It will be one of the films that really cleans up in the tech categories, though.

Star Wars, Wonder Woman, Beauty and the Beast, and Dunkirk will dominate the technical awards. War For the Planet of the Apes, the best in the series since the original in ‘68 and one of the highlights of the year, will be ghettoed into just Visual Effects.

Kinda of random but what do you think of Alan's Moore comments about people liking comic book movies could lead into fascism? Seems like bitter old man territory but what do you think?

I think it's fair to say that fascism has been something of an obsession of Alan Moore's and a recurring although not omnipresent theme in many of his works.

While Miracleman is technically an expy of Captain Marvel, I would argue that the series is Moore's most extended commentary on Superman instead and especially the idea of the ubermensch. In Miracleman, our protagonist is initially thought to have been made into a superhero by a benevolent enlightened scientist, but eventually we learn that Miracleman is the product of an Operation Paperclip Nazi science project called the Zarathusa Project designed to create the literal Nietzschean Ubermensch, complete with a fixation on "blond gods" and a eugenicist breeding program. A superhero fight in the midle of London causes mass civilian casualties on the scale of an atomic bomb going off. Ultimately, Miracleman effectively overthrows Thatcher's government and rules as an enlightened despot before eventually leaving Earth for space.

Likewise, I think Watchmen is Moore's most extended commentary on masked vigilantism and thus on Batman. In Watchmen, the phenomenon of vigilantism is repeatedly associated with right-wing politics: Hooded Justice is a German circus strongman who has pro-Nazi politics; Captain Metropolis wanted his superhero teams to target "black unrest," "campus subversion," and "anti-war demos;" and the Comedian is a brutal nihilist who ultimately joins the U.S security state where he cheerfully follows orders to assassinate JFK and Woodward and Bernstein, commit atrocities in Vietnam, kill protesting hippies, etc. Finally, there's Rorschach, Moore's most famous mis-interpreted creation - Rorschach is a paranoid conspiracy theorist who's an anti-communist, anti-liberal, militant and militaristic nationalist, homophobe, misogynist, and avid follower of the John Birch Society-like New Frontiersman.

And then there's V for Vendetta, which I would argue is Moore's attempt to create a masked vigilante superhero with his own anarchist politics. In this story, the vigilante isn't a crimefighter but rather a revolutionary who seeks the overthrow of a fascist state and the creation of an anarchist utopia.

Moreover, his more recent comments about comic book movies being linked to fascism are arguably just part of his much longer-running commentary that superheroes as a concept are at the very least proto-fascist.

Having read a lot of Moore's work and interviews on the subject, I don't find his critique compelling. I think his definition of fascism is far too loose, I think his lens on the superhero genre is overly narrow, and I think his mode of analysis tends to neglect the vital area of historical context.

Definitions

So let's start with Moore's definition of fascism. I think Moore tends to really over-emphasize the whole idea of the Nietzschean ubermensch and the use of force to solve problems, and more recently he's been on this weird kick of saying that nostalgia and a childlike desire for easy solutions leads to fascism. I have several problems with this definition:

the first is that, as I've talked about in the past, fascism is a very complex historical phenomenon that can't be boiled down to a single idea, and in particular the idea of the ubermensch is a pretty small part of the German case (and even then how do you balance it against Nazism's more anti-individualistic aspects, like the mass party and the mass party organization).

the second is that the idea of a larger-than-life individual using physical prowess to solve problems is not unique to fascism. After all, during the 30s, you also had the Soviet Union promoting the heroic ideal of Stakhanovitism and the depiction of the heroic male factory worker in socialist realism. More importantly, the idea of a "larger-than-life individual using physical prowess to solve problems" is basically the same description for any number of literary figures from pulp cowboys to the Greek heroes of the Iliad and the Oddessy to the epic of Gilgamesh.

the third is that I think Moore's definition overlooks the actual drivers of the rise of contemporary fascism. Anti-semitism, racism, homophobia and transphobia, misogyny - all of these are real social and cultural forces that are actually motivating people to join the ranks of the alt-right, to commit massacres, to riot at the Capitol, and so forth. It is incredibly self-involved to think that superheroes and superhero movies are worth discussing in the same breath. At the end of the day, they're harmless entertainment compared to the real political issues that need to be tackled.

Moore's Model of Superheroes

Here's where I'm going to say something that's going to be a bit controversial - I don't think Alan Moore has read widely enough in the superhero genre to make an accurate assessment of its relationship to fascism. If we look at his comics work, and we look at his writings, and we look at his interviews, Moore's mental model of the superhero really only includes two figures, Superman as the representative of the superpowered ubermensch and Batman as the representative of the masked vigilante crimefighter. Notably, Moore hasn't really touched the last of the Big Three - Wonder Woman, a superhero with a strong legacy of radical left-wing politics. I do think we have to mention, given Moore's somewhat troubled history when it comes to issues of gender, that Moore's model of the superhero doesn't include any female superheroes (or for that matter, any superheroes of color or queer superheroes). (EDIT: I should clarify - Promethea is Moore's version of Wonder Woman, but she doesn't really come up in his discussions of fascism, and her thematic profile has more to do with Moore's interests in magic.)

And other than Captain Britain, Moore never worked with any Marvel character and basically ignores them.

To me, this is like having a career as a painter and never working with colors. Moore's model of the superhero leaves out the Fantastic Four and how their flawed psychologies revolutionized the industry and the whole idea of the superhero-as-explorer, it leaves out Spider-man and the idea of the superhero-as-everyman who's central struggle is about work-life balance and altruism, and most importantly it leaves out the X-Men and the idea of the mutant metaphor.

If as a critic you're going to make grand pronouncements about something as morally evil as fascism, I think it really is incumbent on you to have read and analyzed wildly rather than cherry-picking a couple of case studies. Especially if you have something of a tendency to mis-characterize those case studies by ignoring historical context.

Historical Context

So let's talk about Superman and Batman and their emergence in the 1930s. One vital bit of context is that the U.S experienced a significant crime wave in the 1920s and 1930s as Prohibition encouraged the rise of organized crime and then the Great Depression spurred the rise of kidnapping and bank robbery gangs. Moreover, municipal police forces tended to be wildly corrupt, accepting bribes from organized crime to let them operate with impunity, while not letting up in the slightest in their brutal oppression of workers and minorities.

In this context, I think the idea of vigilantism - while it has an undeniably racist legacy dating back to Reconstruction - is not purely a conservative phenomena. It's also an expression of a desire for help from somebody, anybody when the powers that be are of no help. And at the end of the day, unsanctioned use of force can equally be traced back to left-wing self-defense efforts from the Panthers back to the Communist Party's streetfighting corps to unions packing two-by-fours on the picket line - so I don't think we can simply equate punching a bad guy with racist lynch mobs and call it a day.

So let's talk about Superman and the ubermensch. I think Moore has a bad tendency to focus on his nightmare scenrio of a godlike being tyrannizing and destroying hapless humanity, while minimizing the actual ideas of Siegel and Schuster. He tends to take their use of the Nietzschean as a straighforward invocation instead of the clear subversion it was intended to be - rather than a blond god who imposed tyrannical rule with horrific violence, Siegel and Schuster made their Superman a dark-haired Moses allegory, who rather than solely fighting crime acted to stop wife-beaters, war profiteers, and save the life of death row inmates, and whose secret identity was of a crusading journalist who uncovered corrupt politicians.

To be fair, Alan Moore admits that Superman started out as "very much a New Deal American” - but because this kind of does near-fatal damage to his argument, he quickly minimizes that by saying that Superman got co-opted and thus it doesn't count. This is some No True Scotsman bullshit - Moore knows that his example just imploded so he tries to wriggle out of it by arguing that Superman sold out to the Man. If we go back to the actual historical evidence, we can see that at the outset of the Red Scare, the Superman radio show went on a crusade against the Klan, and throughout the conservative 1950s, Superman was used to propagandize liberal values of religious and racial equality:

So much for selling out.

On the other hand, Batman is a tougher case, given that his whole deal is being a masked vigilante who wages an unending war on crime to avenge his murdered parents. So is Batman an inherently fascist figure, a wealthy sadist who spends his time brutally beating the poor and the mentally ill when he could be using his riches to tackle social issues? I would argue that this version of Batman is actually pretty recent - very much a legacy of the work of Frank Miller and then the post-9/11 writings of Christopher Nolan, Johnathan Nolan, and David Goyer - and that there have been many different Batmen with very different thematic foci.

For example, the early Batman was as much a figure of horror as he was of superheroics - he fought Frankensteins and Draculas, he killed with silver bullets, etc. Then in the 40s and 50s, you got the much more cartoony and light-hearted Batman who pretty much exclusively fought equally oddball supervillains in such a heightened world of riddles and giant pennies and mechanical T-Rexes that I don't think you can particularly describe it as "crime-fighting." Then in the 1960s, you have the titanic influence of the Batman TV show, where Adam West as Batman was officially licensed by the Gotham P.D (so much for vigilantism) and extolled the virtues of constitutional due process and the Equal Pay Act in PSAs and episodes alike. You can call the 1966 Batman a lot of things, but fascist isn't one of them.

Conclusion

I want to emphasize at the end of the day that I'm a huge Alan Moore fan; I've read most of his vast bibliography, I find him a fascinating if very odd thinker and critic, I've even tried to read his mammoth novel Jerusalem (which is not easy reading, let me tell you). At the same time, it's important not to treat creators, even the very titans of the medium, as incapable of error. And in this case, I think Alan Moore is simply wrong about fascism and superheroes and people should really stop asking him about it, because I don't think he has anything new to say about it.

Minor correction -- Reagan didn’t fund Bin Laden. Bin Laden was in Afghanistan, but was sitting on the sidelines watching everything go down. The Saudis were initially highly resented for that approach.

It was in the aftermath of the disastrous civil war that followed out departure without building infrastructure or bothering to support the right people that he was able to gain a foothold with the angry.

Now, America was funding Bin Laden for decades -- but not because of the Soviet-Afghan war. The Saudi royal family belongs to the Wahhabi sect of Islam, the same radical school that birthed both Al Qaeda and ISIS, and have spend decades funneling the money we pay them for oil directly back into terrorism against us. Our thirst for black gold has been paid in blood for decades, and that’s fueled endless violence.

But nobody talks about this because we don’t want to have a mess fighting the Saudis -- the do, after all, have the Muslim Holy City, and can you imagine that disaster? --, it’s easier for liberals to just blame Reagan than acknowledge the more complex truth of what we’ve done (and our own complicity), and heaven knows we don’t want to be paying $3 a gallon.

To be clear, this is just a correction of a minor point. The thrust of everything above? Important truth.

wait….are any americans aware that the cia overthrew the democratically-elected premier of iran in 1953 because he wouldn’t concede to western oil demands….and how that coup was the reason for the shah’s return to power, the iranian revolution, and the resulting fundamentalist dictatorship…..like, america literally dissolved iranian democracy and no one knows about it???

Natalie Portman is Asian. She was born in Jerusalem, to Jewish parents. Two of her great-grandparents died at Auschwitz

She should still be listed.

No asian woman has ever won “best actress” from the academy awards. 

Just nominated. Once. In 1935. 

If there are no leading roles “written” for asian women, that is still a problem. 

A leading role doesn’t have to be written to be asian. Or black. Or any other race. A POC can just be a person, you know. A person in a leading role. 

And I’m tired of real life POC people being played by white actors, taking that opportunity away from POC actors and actresses. 

The wiki page used to say “natalie portman” as a winner. Which has since been corrected. Natalie Portman is a wonderful person and amazing actress, but she isn’t asian. I don’t know why she was put there.

So a free tool called GLAZE has been developed that allows artists to cloak their artwork so it can't be mimicked by AI art tools.

AI art bros are big mad about it.

If that doesn't have potential for some fairytale nonsense, I don't know what does.