caitri: (bullshit)
I'm rewatching Rome for the first time in years, and it's interesting how it hits different in 2022. The two seasons chronicle the rise and fall of Caesar and the Republic, with an emphasis on how Octavian is cold and smart af, and the dictatorial nature of his power grab. One of the final scenes, when he marches in his Praetorian Guard to surround the Senate as he makes a speech, is rather like most of the times Daenerys burns shit down in Game of Thrones: the audience is meant to enjoy it. 

But what strikes me during this rewatch is how the show continuously presents the Republicans as stupid and/or as emphasizing the status quo of Roman class relations. "The plebs are revolting" is a recurrent theme. Brutus is an absolute dummy. Cato is his Stoic self, but gets a bunch of the pleb lines. Cicero gets treated similarly. It's such A Choice, to consistently show dictatorial control as....what smart people do and how the non-elite classes benefit from it.

Incomplete thoughts. But there's a paper in here.
caitri: (Books)
 
Via this review essay in the NYT on Why Intellectuals Support Dictators:

This sounds like the contemporary equivalent to Milosz's The Captive Mind, which I read a few months ago, but as extended op-ed rather than literary polemic:

snip: 
 
Anne Applebaum’s contribution to this discussion, “Twilight of Democracy: The Seductive Lure of Authoritarianism,” is concerned less with the aspiring autocrats and their compliant mobs than with the mentality of the courtiers who make a tyrant possible: “the writers, intellectuals, pamphleteers, bloggers, spin doctors, producers of television programs and creators of memes who can sell his image to the public.”

Are these enablers true believers or just cynical opportunists? Do they believe the lies they tell and the conspiracies they invent or are they simply greedy for wealth and power? The answers she reaches are frankly equivocal, which in our era of dueling absolutes is commendable if sometimes a little frustrating.
 
I have zero faith that there's actually any discussion of popular culture (eg the blogs and the television promised) since those are often the anti-thesis of what modern intellectuals embrace. And yet I think it would be interesting to actually discuss that; we really only discuss Conservative backlash in pop culture as a functions of sexism and racism--Hugogate, Gamergate, the hot mess of Star Wars fandom writ large. I have a forthcoming essay that looks at Supernatural as an extended meditation on nationalism and American exceptionalism; a recurrent theme is that immigrants and people of color have to die in order for the white characters to succeed. (The editor tried to argue with me, and then I shut him up with so many numbers, which is easy to do with fandom wikis.) Despite drawing on material from The Ultimates, MCU never went full-tilt on nationalist/fascist Cap, but at the same time they did opt to write him off to an idyllic past that is so fucking problematic in so many ways, and I'm REALLY curious what they are gonna do with the tv show, but it still speaks volumes that if you get Black Captain America he gets relegated to a subscription tv series instead of his own megafranchise.
caitri: (Chris Vocabulary)
 Incomplete thoughts on pop culture consumption and spoiler anxiety--and keep in mind this comes from a Gemini, so I'm going back and forth on this a lot.
 
One of the big papers--prob the NYT--had a piece yesterday about how everyone watching Game of Thrones talked about it on social media while watching or immediately afterwards, as if this was a new thing and not just fan culture gone mainstream.
 
Like, I remember doing that back in the 90s with Highlander and Buffy. "Social media" consisted of Yahoo chat rooms, licensed message boards, and fan message boards, but we were there. Then came the mid-2000s, and Television Without Pity, and thus the episode recap was born. (Does anyone remember recaps before TWOP?) (Also, RIP, TWOP.) I honestly don't remember if/how spoilers figured into it, back in those days before DVR and if you missed it and didn't record it, you missed it.
 
(Side-note for those who weren't there for the 1990s: If you liked a cult show and they didn't make a box set and it wasn't in syndication, you were SOL. I literally never saw all of season 1 of Buffy until ca. 2002 when I got the dvd set, as a VHS copy of the full season was not released, or not released where I could get it anyhow. I had to experience S1 of Buffy by READING FAN TRANSCRIPTIONS OF ENTIRE EPISODES.)
 
And now here we are today and we have mass media but it's also tiered because premium channels and subscriptions and stuff. I have my well-worn gripe here about why do people complain about subscribing to CBS All-Access for Star Trek Discovery when literally NO ONE gripes about getting HBO for 2 months every year for Game of Thrones. WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE I DO NOT UNDERSTAAAAAAAND.
 
I mean aside from, yes all the services and competition and blah blah, and consumption as means and as cultural performativity maybe and--something something?
 
Which ALL COMES DOWN TO ME WONDERING: If 18 million people watched Game of Thrones this weekend--and they did--how is that different than watching a big football game? Is it because a football game loses its value after the epic conclusion and thus the...plot will not be diminished? .... This might be a bad metaphor, I will never know because I do not understand the sportsballs. But in terms of people accessing the same content widely to communicate about it?
 
And it's very different from watching Avengers: Endgame because of the finite number of seats in theaters and so on, to say nothing of managing babysitting and whatnot for people with kids who can watch GoT when they have gone to bed.
 
Except it's maybe not so different because again cultural consumption and a $15 movie ticket vs. $15/month tv subscription? Or maybe it is, I'm not sure.
 
(Told you I was gonna Gemini this.)
 
TL:DR What does it mean to consume--or not--popular culture en masse at once (or not)?
caitri: (Guthwine 3 - world ahead)
Dear Daria: Revisiting the Misery Chick: An interview with Tracy Grandstaff, the voice of Daria.

I LOVED Daria when I was a teenager. I love it almost even more as an adult. That is all.]

~

The Geek and Gamer Girls Song:


Geek and Gamer Girls Song - Watch more Funny Videos

I could write a paper on this, I swear to fucking God. Also, can't decide what I lvoe it more: the Han shot first refrain, Starbuck's cameo, or the girl in Browncoat gear.
caitri: (Default)
Elizabeth: The Golden Age is one of the stupider films I've sat through in a while. Why did I sit through it? Because Clive Owen was in it, that was why. I didn't learn from the first film, with its exceedingly oversimplified Essex Rebellion or misplaced speeches. (Yeah, the really good one about how Elizabeth has the body of a woman but the heart of a king? It's in her drawing room in the first one. Not on horse in armor as the Armida attacks, like it should have been.)

Elizabeth walks about with a pinched face because she's a monarch and can't get any. She's in a romantic triangle with her favorite lady-in-waiting and Sir Raleigh. She whimpers and whines when she has to kill Mary.

Y'know what the Real Elizabeth (TM) did? Had a portrait painted of the bitch's head on a pillow and kept it around, that's what she did. (It's still in the Tower. It's pretty creepifying.)

The destruction of the Spanish Armada is at best an afterthought. An expensive afterthought that would have been cooler if we hadn't already had cool ship battles in Master and Commander four years ago. I'm glad the pretty white horsie makes it out of there, though. (Symbolism? Hell if I know.)

The Inquisition huffs and puffs about. They might be plotting or they might have really bad indigestion, it's hard to say. The Spaniards come off as rather hysterical, and since they are always in black, rather like goth clubbers who got kicked out for being too annoying. You can't ever feel remotely worried about them, let alone horrified at the Inquisition. Frankly, everyone expects the Spanish Inquisition and are only worried about the actual mathematics of defeating them. (There's a lot of math talk in this one, especially when advisors pass around notes in study hall, I mean reports.)

Mostly I wonder why the hell popular culture is so intent on dumbing down kickass women. The Cleopatra of Rome was, shall we say, squirrelly at best. The Boudicca of the titular BBC film was also on the weak and whiny side, and for gods' sakes, she was the one who crucified whole Roman settlements! If I was in a very argumentative mood, I would note down some Hillary dissections, but as it is I'm just too cranky right now.

Grr. Argh.
caitri: (Default)
Today’s NYT brings us yet more cultural handwringing via an Op-Ed with the glimmering title of ”Dumb and Dumber: Are Americans Hostile to Knowledge?”.

Ms. Jacoby, whose book came out on Tuesday, doesn’t zero in on a particular technology or emotion, but rather on what she feels is a generalized hostility to knowledge. She is well aware that some may tag her a crank. “I expect to get bashed,” said Ms. Jacoby, 62, either as an older person who upbraids the young for plummeting standards and values, or as a secularist whose defense of scientific rationalism is a way to disparage religion.

Per the Barenaked Ladies, it’s all been done before.

Seriously. I think I should start making a table of these types of articles with dates and see how often they pop up. I bet that would be illuminating.

Not only are citizens ignorant about essential scientific, civic and cultural knowledge, she said, but they also don’t think it matters.

Which begs the age-old question, Is our children learning? Alright, obligatory potshot out of the way. Now here’s the real question: Why is it that this type of story is so consistently reported?

That the country’s test scores are in the toilet is no longer breaking news. That you are more likely to turn on the TV and view a reality contest show has nothing to do with the thankfully-ended writers’ strike and everything to do with companies trying to make the most profit with the least investment.

[This paragraph has been removed due to my inability to not make political cheap shots even when I’m honestly trying to behave. Since I don’t want to lower the tone of my own discourse—ha—I’m just putting in this filler.]

[Also, don’t read the comments on the article unless you have blood pressure meds nearby. NYT readers are as bad as their reporters. Yes I do count myself in this group.]

Now let us ask two more questions:
1) What is knowledge?
2) How does one know?

These are simple questions that aren’t that simple. Kind of like finding the ultimate question in Hitchhiker’s Guide. We think we know the answer we’re looking for, we’re just not sure how to go about it.

Our educational system has been running pretty solidly on the regurgitation format for the last hundred years and more. We feed information into little gullets and ask for it back, and generally get it all mangled. (It’s called regurgitation for a reason, people.)

Now for once at least Jacoby has a clue and wants to teach critical thinking. However, I think it’s telling that she doesn’t want this critical thinking applied to popular culture:
Ms. Jacoby doesn’t leave liberals out of her analysis, mentioning the New Left’s attacks on universities in the 1960s, the decision to consign African-American and women’s studies to an “academic ghetto” instead of integrating them into the core curriculum, ponderous musings on rock music and pop culture courses on everything from sitcoms to fat that trivialize college-level learning. … Avoiding the liberal or conservative label in this particular argument, she prefers to call herself a “cultural conservationist.”

Leaving aside how the reporter herself wants to merge politicization into the text, what I find interesting is that by disparaging popular culture Jacoby is inadvertently disparaging all culture—because, sorry, everything that is “high” used to be “low.” Sorry, but it’s true, and that’s a whole ‘nother post for another day. And then there’s this kicker:

For all her scholarly interests, though, Ms. Jacoby said she recognized just how hard it is to tune out the 24/7 entertainment culture. A few years ago she participated in the annual campaign to turn off the television for a week. “I was stunned at how difficult it was for me,” she said. The surprise at her own dependency on electronic and visual media made her realize just how pervasive the culture of distraction is and how susceptible everyone is — even curmudgeons.

First of all I hate it when academics are labeled “curmudgeons.” Academics actually tend to be on the forefront of things, which is why they’re, y’know, academics. Second of all I hate it when televisions are referred to solely in the context of entertainment—as if when something major happens *coff*gratuitous 9/11 insertion*coff* the television isn’t the first place we all run to.

Thought experiment: Try buying a newspaper on your way home tonight rather than turning on the news when you go home. Don’t turn on your computer. Let me know how it works.
caitri: (Default)
Like his previous picture The Island, which I reviewed many moons ago, Michael Bay loves him some chase scenes. I love me some Optimus Prime (don't we all?).

Tom Lenk was in this for about 75 seconds but they were worth it! I squealed "Andrew!!!!!!!!!!" involuntarily.

Me like. Night night.

Can't stop humming "More Than Meeeeeeeeeeets the Eye!"

Profile

caitri: (Default)
caitri

July 2025

S M T W T F S
  1234 5
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 23rd, 2025 11:28 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios