popular critic

Steven-Lars fusion good end: steven is super pumped about successfully creating ‘Stars’; it takes lars a bit to get used to it, but he eventually comes to terms with being part of a ~weird alien thing~, the two become closer because of it

Steven-Lars fusion neutral end: the two fuse with only a bit of fanfare, and while it’s exciting and important at the time, ‘Stars’ is never brought up again in any later episodes.

Steven-Lars fusion bad end: 'Stars’ has a boring design and doesn’t talk much or anything; he fulfills a purpose and nothing more.

Steven-Lars fusion true end: any of the above except the fusion is named 'Larven’

Now Presenting: Brujos


Installment 1: The Devil

Episode 1: Aries

Episode 2: Taurus

Episode 3: Gemini 

Episode 4: Cancer

TV can be art. TV can be revolutionary. TV can be popular entertainment AND incite critical dialogue. Audiences are hungry and intelligent enough for challenging work. This describes the philosophy behind BRUJOS, a counter-hegehmonic web series. Produced by Open TV (beta), conceived, written and directed by Ricardo Gamboa and to be shot by cinematographer Ben Kolak, BRUJOS is a queer-of-color web series.

BRUJOS blends the Latin American soap opera, American sitcom, and critical theory as it follows a coven of four queer Latino doctoral candidates as they learn magic, indulge in nightlife, navigate intimate relationships, and write seminar papers all while trying to survive a witch-hunt. These young protagonists confront histories and realities of racial and gendered inequality as they battle the secret society of white, heteronormative male descendants of the first New World colonizers behind the witch-hunt. Twelve, seven-minute episodes corresponding to signs of the zodiac cycle have been developed through queer men of color testimony; interviews with actual practitioners of divination and magic, i.e. psychics, santeras, tarot readers, etc.; and with academics of cultural studies, performance studies, and queer theory.

BRUJOS addresses the current the landscape of television: Gay men and people of color are more apparent than ever in mainstream television. Sitcoms like “Blackish” and “Fresh Off The Boat” depict families of color attaining the American dream. Programs such as “Looking” and “Modern Family” feature middle and upper class white gay men searching for love or functioning as an all-American family. While these shows are representational achievements, they are not revolutionary ones.

In these cases, ethnic, racial and sexual minorities are portrayed in ways that support dominant culture, narratives, values and relationality. Commercial television studios and networks preoccupied with “scale” and “big data” seldom produce aesthetically or politically challenging work to secure mass viewership. This only further marginalizes non-normative people who’s lives, realities, and stories do not fit within their depictions and who devise new ways of being under the pressures of inequality that are never affirmed.

Moreover, Chicago has become a hotbed for television production. However, series such as Chicago P.D. reiterate stereotypes of people of color as criminals. Mega-hit EMPIRE provides more complex portrayals but it’s get-rich-or-die-trying messaging is consistent with popular culture. Too often work that offers alternative images, narratives, and values is not seen as viable by mainstream producers.

For such reasons, Stephanie Jeter moved from big budget television producing to assume a critical and creative approach to television production. Jeter’s commitment to working with independent artists led her to BRUJOS. BRUJOS was conceived by Ricardo Gamboa, an award-winning “artivist” committed to creating work outside institutional frameworks. Gamboa began development for BRUJOS in 2014 through informal interviews with queer Latino men and healers and psychics.

people abt that fidget spinner post: lol some people just dont know how to take a joke it seems!

zuke: boarded that deleted scene where peridot (autistic coded) was put in one of those baby chair things + being treated like a child despite the fact she absolutely doesn’t need to be treated like a child

me: hmmmmmmmm yes this is a joke

but when i saw topaz crying i was honestly flabbergasted like… a muscular butch female character?? being allowed to express emotions other than anger??? under a positive light that doesn’t demonize her???? in stephen university????? i didn’t believe what my eyes saw at first and don’t get me wrong i still hate this shitty show and i’m never forgiving the crewniverse for the horrible plot decisions they’ve made and i’m sure sooner or later they’re gonna end up either turning her into a bad guy or ridiculizing her and barning her up with the neon abominations, but thanks to topaz this episode didn’t suck as much as others have lately.

It’s interesting to watch SU with my husband. Since he’s not in the fandom (or any fandom for that matter), talking to him I get the perspective of a casual viewer.

He told me recently that he hasn’t been enjoying the show as much lately because it seems like “it’s mostly filler episodes” with not much going on to advance the plot. Keep in mind that he said that with no prompting from me, nor does he know anything about the SU critical trend.

It just goes to show that this SU critical stuff doesn’t come from nowhere. Even casual viewers are noticing this stuff.


7 Signs of Tyranny

As tyrants take control of democracies, they typically do 7 things:

1. They exaggerate their mandate to govern – claiming, for example, that they won an election by a “landslide” even after losing the popular vote. They criticize any finding that they or co-conspirators stole the election. And they repeatedly claim “massive voter fraud” in the absence of any evidence, in order to have an excuse to restrict voting by opponents in subsequent elections.

2. They turn the public against journalists or media outlets that criticize them, calling them “deceitful” and “scum,” and telling the public that the press is a “public enemy.” They hold few, if any, press conferences, and prefer to communicate with the public directly through mass rallies and unfiltered statements (or what we might now call “tweets”).

3. They repeatedly lie to the public, even when confronted with the facts.  Repeated enough, these lies cause some of the public to doubt the truth, and to believe fictions that support the tyrants’ goals.

4. They blame economic stresses on immigrants or racial or religious minorities, and foment public bias or even violence against them. They threaten mass deportations, “registries” of religious minorities, and the banning of refugees.

5. They attack the motives of anyone who opposes them, including judges. They attribute acts of domestic violence to “enemies within,” and use such events as excuses to beef up internal security and limit civil liberties.

6. They appoint family members to high positions of authority. They ppoint their own personal security force rather than a security detail accountable to the public. And they put generals into top civilian posts.

7.They keep their personal finances secret, and draw no distinction between personal property and public property – profiteering from their public office.

Consider yourself warned.

As a companion to my list of college-set movies written by women, I now bring a list of high school oriented movies written by women, for those who have just begun, returned to, or are nostalgic for high school. 

Keep reading

people who act like only parents are allowed to criticize parenting styles are sooooo ridiculous

everyone has experienced parenting from the perspective of the child, which is a necessary perspective to understand if you want your children to have a positive relationship with you. i could say exactly how my parents failed to build a positive relationship with me, long before I had a child of my own.

also: a special very long fart noise to the person who immediately assumed that i must not be a parent if I’m critical of parents who think their small children are brats, especially because “stay at home parent” is right heckin there in my blog description lol

tldr: you’re allowed to be critical of popular parenting choices without being a parent yourself, because you have experienced parenting from the child’s point of view