What was wrong with his last interview? I don't get why you're all mad...
Well, I’m not mad. Nothing any actor does warrants me getting mad. Sean Spicer banning the NYT and CNN from the daily White House briefing makes me mad.
But. I love the Hunger Games. Before I ever was a fan of Josh, I loved it. By using a term like “sellout,” Josh gives the impression that he doesn’t appreciate his time as Peeta, after he spent years saying how much he loved the franchise. This is the role he said he so clearly identified with on a personal level. We loved him because, among other things, he loved THG like the rest of us.
He’s trying to establish an identity that isn’t Peeta. The franchise was a blessing and a curse. Okay. Go forth, Josh, and do the work you want to do. But can you come to terms with the HG franchise without belittling the work you did on it? Because that belittles what the fans love.
And if he didn’t intend to insult fans, he needs to work on how he articulates his thoughts. Which is a surprising thing for me to say because I never thought connecting with people was an issue for Josh before.
Everyone is quite upset this Oscar season with La La Land and for many warranted reasons. One small reason, I began seeing early on, is that Ryan Gosling’s character Sebastien “mansplains” jazz to Emma Stone’s character Mia.
If anything I think we can agree that he really mostly whitesplains jazz to the audience, if he is “splaining” anything pretentiously to anyone in this film. But “mansplaining” I just didn’t see. As a female critic who has had music I am well versed in “explained” to me several times by men who assume I know nothing, I just didn’t see that in this scene, in which Mia is kind of making fun of Sebastien’s nerdery in a way that invites us to do so too.
La La Land is a movie about self-described creative underdogs, trying to make art that’s true to themselves because the mainstream systems (auditions) or pathways (being in a pop group) reject or disgust them. But I ultimately never saw an imbalanced power dynamic between the two characters in terms of owning their own creativity. Mia had her own creative pursuits (she writes and stars in a one-woman play) and Gosling has his own dreams (he wants to open a jazz bar.) They were creative equals.
What’s more troubling, when it comes to creativity, are the power dynamics in Paterson, Jim Jarmusch’s new film. I really liked Paterson when I saw it, particularly the portrait of the city itself and the way Jarmusch depicts the struggle of being a writer who doesn’t want to share their work, but I couldn’t shake my feelings regarding Laura, the protagonist’s girlfriend. In the film, Adam Driver plays Paterson (a person) who is a bus driver in Paterson (the NJ city.) He is also a poet, a protective one, who keeps his poems (mostly love poems) in a paper notebook with zero copies. He also doesn’t use a cell phone. He is a stoic, quiet person whose life has a steady routine and enjoys listening in on other people’s problems and conversations, whether on the bus or in his favorite bar.
Laura, played by Golshifteh Farahani, is Paterson’s beautiful muse and live-in partner. She doesn’t seem to have a job, instead spending her days painting black and white designs over every inch of the house (it’s her signature, eclectic style.) She makes odd dinners when Paterson comes home from work (cheddar cheese and brussel sprouts pie!) and is obsessed with baking cupcakes which she hopes will turn into a full-blown business if they sell well at the market. One day, she decides she can be a musician, a famous country star. The desire is spurred by a black and white acoustic guitar she sees online, which Paterson begrudgingly buys for her.
It wasn’t lost on me that Laura’s creative pursuits, baking, interior decorating, etc. are very feminine. Eventually, when Laura gets her guitar, she seems to spend more time picking out the outfits that will make her a star rather than seriously learning to play it. She fully supports Paterson’s poetry and even wants him to copy them for her. She wants him to be a famous poet one day. But as a viewer, you are trained to laugh at Laura’s small dreams. “Laura is the movie’s one minor letdown, partly because she seems more frivolous than Paterson, with pursuits that are more hobbies than they are brow-furrowing art,” Manohla Dargis wrote in her otherwise glowing review.
Like the manic designs decorating their house, Paterson’s approach and Laura’s approach to success might as well be black and white. Laura is outgoing with dreams of being a big singer or baker. She wants you to see her work, taste her work, scrawled over cupcake tops and curtains. She has a computer and smartphone and iPad, which sounds like Paterson’s hell. And she wants Paterson to show his work to the world. Instead, he is reclusive, working alone in a tiny office in the basement. While Laura decorates the house with big, cartoonish paintings of her funny english bull dog Marvin, we see Paterson’s favorite painting is a miniature of Paterson’s Great Falls, so small you might miss it.
It’s within this context that I can live, for a moment, with Laura as a character. She is a different kind of dreamer than Paterson and I don’t think her way of dreaming is stereotypically feminine. But the fact that she is the more comical one, that her dreams are more scatterbrained and pedestrian, is kind of sexist! History goes that women don’t make art, they just exist within it. And when they do create, what should they make? Things for the home? Dinners for their husbands? The real artistic pursuit Laura has to her name in this movie, music, is downgraded by the fact that she seems more interested in her look as a singer rather than the kind of music she wants to make. A muse, doting girlfriend, a homemaker, but not much more, Laura deserved better.
Problems in privacy engineering that seem unsolvable:
- sending information to another party that lets them observe and interact with it, but not store it indefinitely (or only lets them store it imperfectly)*
- sending information to another party that lets them save it and interact with it however they want, but not share it with a third party*
- verifying that one is not currently being observed (maybe use short-range EMPs to solve this in the case of checking a room for bugs?)*
- being able to store and retrieve information from a device in a quickly and easily human-readabe format that no one else can understand
- being able to e.g. enter passwords without anyone observing or understanding the step between thinking of the password in your mind and the device receiving the password*
- encryption that can be broken only with a warrant somehow
- being able to store information in such a way that it can be retrieved and used publicly, but not without the owner learned why and how you used it (this one may be very bad for people interested in reducing the power of IP laws)
Pretty sure many of these are actually theoretically impossible unless you can restrict the amount of surveillance or computational power that potential observers have access to.
The ones marked with a * are things that, as far as I can tell, intuitive social interaction and subjective feelings of security and privacy depend on. If they end up being major problems and sources of risk, I predict widespread mental health problems.
Again, we won’t be answering anymore anons about the racism tag. You’re welcome to come to us off anon (as a few of you have done) if you have further questions, but there’s no way to have a discussion on anon. As the last mod note said, graphic images and videos of racist acts are currently on the trigger warning list (including images, videos, and in-depth writing describing brutality), but we won’t be asking people to tag posts where they simply want to discuss racism as a whole for the same reason we won’t be asking people to tag posts where they discuss transphobia, misogyny, islamophobia, etc. We think these discussions are important to have in order to be educated, socially aware individuals, and we won’t ask people to stop blogging about them.
P.S. Regardless of the subject, if you, personally, feel that a post you’re making warrants a tag because it may be triggering for other writers, then we’re in no way telling you that you can’t tag it! You can obviously tag whatever you want, even if it’s not listed. That’s your call.
Speakin of Genji… what in gods name did Hanzo do to him… that would warrant like needing such extreme body modification… Hanzos a bowman yeah? Like… WHAT HAPPENED? He seems untouched… did he just go for the overkill straight up… the fuck did he do? LMAO Like if he needed to kill him… thats one thing- you got a bow and arrow. ‘shot through the heart and youre to blame’ a motherfucker… dont do.. whatever the fuck it is ya did to Genji, man…
I don't know much about Cathy but the way everyone attacks her, even though her comments were not that serious (ex: she did not use racial slurs or actively discriminated against anyone) is ridiculous. We don't personally know her and it's wrong to assume and make allegations against a person like that.
With all due respect anon, what the hell are you talking about?. Her comments were sexist and homophobic. No one is making any allegations against her. This criticism is based on things she has in fact said herself, and is more than warranted. We don’t personally know her yes, but she’s given us more than enough evidence to believe she is not a good person.
And since when is using racial slurs the only way a person can be offensive? she said Cris is not a real man based on how he looks and acts. You have no idea how damaging that thought process is; it’s one of the main reasons gay men are discriminated against (for not being manly enough). And she discriminated against an entire country by diminishing it to nothing more than a country of thieves and uncultured individuals.
Cathy is not a good person and I still don’t understand how people defend her actions.