Daily Archives: July 7, 2022

Its hard to know where to start in reviewing Thor: Love and Thunder. The movie feels like several movies in onetheres the standard Marvel superhero fare, theres a rousing adventure for kids about being your own savior, theres a touching and emotionally mature love story, and theres the film about a villain so steeped in self-righteous nihilism hes out to prove that God is dead by killing all the Gods. Theres so much happening here that its hard to not get some whiplash, and the plot threads binding it all together dont hold up to much scrutiny. This is, however, a Taika Waititi movie more than anything else, which means its more than worth the trip, and we can rest assured that Thor: Love and Thunder, the singular product from all these moving parts, is deeply funny and lovely to look at.

Waititi, who directed and co-wrote Love and Thunder, is responsiblealong with star Chris Hemsworthfor giving Thor an entirely new lease on life. The MCU never seemed to really know what to do with the strapping space viking, even though his successful origin story, Thor (2011), helped kick off the Marvel universe as we know it today. In contrast to Thors troublemaking brother Loki (Tom Hiddleston), who was such a breakout hit from that film that he became the main antagonist in The Avengers and a firm fan favorite, characterization for Thor remained stilted. It felt like Marvels writers and directors couldnt decide if they wanted him speaking like Shakespeare in the Park, to paraphrase Tony Stark, or a sort of dim bulb fish perpetually out of water. Then the narrative misfire of Thor: The Dark World bogged down the Thorverse characters, not to mention whatever Thors up to in Age of Ultron. It was a simple thing to write off his character as one of the least interesting in the superhero pantheon, and even Hemsworth expressed reluctance to wield the hammer in more Thor movies.

Then along came the Waititi-directed Ragnarok in 2017. Its easy to forget these days, with Waititi absolutely everywhere, that he was a bold and surprising pick for Marvel Studios at the time. The offbeat, irreverent auteur brought his unique voice and visuals to Thor, and the result was an explosive success both critically and at the box office. Painted in candy colors and backed by show-stopping action set to Led Zeppelins Immigrant Song, Ragnarok kept true to the superhero beats while also taking us on an all-original sci-fi romp. Hemsworths comedic chops were finally given the room and script to shine, introducing a fresh new spin on Thor, who comes into his own by movies end. Considering its central core of zaniness and winking fun, Ragnarok was also a masterful balancing act in tone, with serious themes like Thor and Lokis father Odin dying, the brothers on-again-off-again relationship, and the relentless brutality of villain Hela, played by Cate Blanchett, who acts as an embodiment of colonialism. Its one of my favorite films, and I have watched it an ungodly amount of times.

Thus I have been looking forward to Thor: Love and Thunder for many years, during which the whole world underwent a sea change. With that kind of anticipation, its unlikely that any movie could satisfy the laundry list of things I wanted to see or my hopes for Thor and his pals. Love and Thunder comes close, but after Ragnarok, its almost impossible to capture the same kind of lightning in a bottle. Like most follow-ups to a big success, its, well, bigger, brighter, brasher, and considerably less coherent. Having seen it twice now, I keep thinking about how Love and Thunder is many movies rolled into one, and that the fun summer tentpole flick and the spirited movie for kids dont always play so nicely with the heavier themes Waititi introduces. The fact remains, however, that I have now cried twice while watching this cinematic event. Even after telling myself I wouldnt cry upon the second viewing, there I was crying again. Ultimately, Love and Thunder strikes enough of the right notes to make you care and make you glad to be along for the zig-zagging adventure.

Love and Thunder finds Thor still traveling with the Guardians of the Galaxy, searching for his place and purpose in the cosmos. Having lost his family, his home world, and everyone hes loved, Thor considers himself cursed and is resigned to being alone. But a new threat in the form of Christian Bales Gorr the God Butcher (who does what he says on the tin) brings Thor back to New Asgard on Earth to reunite with his bestie Valkyrie (Tessa Thompson, who remains so good she needs her own movie, like, yesterday). Valkyrie, who took over Thors duties as King, has been chafing at the boring diplomacy and commercialism that comes with being a head of state and is glad to join in the fight. Also joining the team is Waititis Korg, a kindly hunk of rock who provides comedic relief and knowing commentary, and the screaming goats Toothgnasher and Toothgrinder (more on them later). Its very, very hard not to miss Tom Hiddlestons Loki, who provided such a perfect foil for Thor in the previous movies, but at least Thors new friends arent as liable to stab him in the back.

Thors unexpected reunion arrives in the form of Dr. Jane Foster (Natalie Portman), his ex and the one who got away. Jane, a genius astrophysicist who has achieved a sort of Stephen Hawking-level fame since we last saw her, also has a secret the audience knows but Thor doesnt: she has stage four cancer. (If that feels like an abrupt turn, the storyline is in part taken directly from Janes development in the comics.) Unable to slow the cancers progression via science, she finds herself drawn to space viking magic, and ends up wielding Thors old weapon, the hammer Mjolnir. With Mjolnir in hand, Jane transforms into the Mighty Thor (not Lady Thor, thank you very much), but becoming a superhero also exacts a toll.

Portman may be the biggest revelation here. She was absent from Ragnarok, and had seemed content to leave the Thorverse behind her. But Waititi appears to have lured her back with a meaty role that finally does justice to Jane and finally gives her and Thor with the kind of storyline that makes you appreciate them together. In Thor movies past, Portman had frankly looked like she wanted to be anywhere but there. In Love and Thunder, she throws herself into the part headfirst. Its an astonishing transformationnot just those buff arms that have been the talk of the Internet, but also a chance to showcase her talents as a comedic and dramatic actress and a newly minted action hero. Under Waititis direction, including a moving sequence that shows us how their relationship fell apart, Portman and Hemsworth have a sparkling chemistry that was not present until now. As a Jane/Thor naysayer for well on a decade, Im thrilled to stand corrected here. Its impossible not to root for them. In a galaxy of half-baked superhero couples, their interactions help set a new standard.

Bale also turns in a memorable performance as the villainous Gorr. Gorr, who resembles the lovechild of Voldemort and Gollum, has my favorite hallmarks of a bad guyone whose reasons and motivations for doing what hes doing make sense. Were meant to sympathize with Gorr somewhat, and he spouts a constant philosophy about how the Gods have abandoned us that seems rather bleak for popcorn fare but feels all too true in our trying times. One could argue that, really, Gorr does nothing wrong, save that some of the Gods hes butchering are innocent and nice, according to Thor, a fellow God. However, all of the other Gods that we encounter, especially Russell Crowes bloviating Zeus in his glittering golden city, seem like they could use some cutting down to size.

Because its hard to see what the problem really is with Gorrs mission considering how much the Gods appear to suck, Love and Thunder turns to the oldest trope in the action movie book. Gorr kidnaps a bunch of the New Asgardian children, and, well, you cant argue with saving the children. We must save the children at all costs. Think of the children! Its hard not to feel a little disappointed in this aspect of the film, which takes the place of a compelling plot line after its introduced, but at least the kids are great. The young actor Kieron L. Dyer steals the whole movie every time hes onscreen, and Waititi has assembled a vibrant cast of kids, including his own daughters, for scenes both fun and scary. Theres a battle that should delight children everywhere, the kind of moment that feels like a culmination of Waititis stated intention to make the movie of a ten-year-olds dreams.

Theres no real issue with Love and Thunder being geared in a big way toward kids, and it bears some empowering messages for them. But theres so much else going on for the adults watching, including some frightening moments with Gorr and some far more terrifying moments about the realities of cancer, that it leaves me wondering what actual kids in the audience will think. As a kid who enjoyed some pretty grown-up movies in my time, I like to give current kids the benefit of the doubt. Yet its difficult not to feel some dissonance between the tone-shifts that happen hereone moment, a child standing up to a bullying villain, and the next, a rumination about how the Gods have lied and cruelly used us, and theres nothing for us after death but more death. Dont get me wrong, I think its important for kids to hear the latter message, but Love and Thunder starts to become more a patchwork of smart ideas and very Waititi moments rather than, say, a tightly woven tapestry of a story.

In the end, thats fine. Lets be real, youre here for the vibes. And Love and Thunder has vibes to spare. It kicks a lot of ass, has one of the most visually striking fights in Marvel memory, and rocks out to a electric soundtrack of Guns N Roses. Its also laugh-out-loud funny innumerable times, including two fantastic running gags. Thors magical goats Toothgnasher and Toothgrinder are always screaming, and theyre never not hilarious. Then theres the love triangle between Thor, Mjolnir, and Thors new weapon, the axe Stormbreaker, who is jealous of Thors affection for his old hammer. Its the kind of excellently bonkers comedic bit that could only come about in a Waititi Marvel movie, and we should be very glad such things exist. Also due to Waititis sensibilities, we get some queerness represented here that was once infamously axed from Ragnarok, and that feels good, even if it doesnt feel like nearly enough in a film with love in the title. At least were making some small progress in Marvel movies while the rest of society is backsliding.

Throughout Love and Thunder, Thor is on a mission to figure out who he is and who he wants to be. It would appear that the script wants to take us on the same journey of discovery, as we move through sequences exploring the nature of romance, friendship, parenthood, worship, capitalism, death, and, yeah, that love kicker. Whether the ending Thor arrives at works for you is probably a matter of who you are as a person, and thats cool. Or maybe Im overthinking this whole thing and its time to sit back and enjoy a summer superhero movie about space vikings and screaming goats. Either way, youre gonna cry! Have fun, kids.

(images: Marvel Studios)

The Mary Sue has a strict comment policythat forbids, but is not limited to, personal insults towardanyone, hate speech, and trolling.

Have a tip we should know? [emailprotected]

See the original post:

'Thor: Love and Thunder' Review - The Mary Sue

In the NFL, one might assume that it's impossible to perfectly distribute running back carries across a full 17-game season. However, that's exactly how it shook out for the Denver Broncos' top-two backs last year in Melvin Gordon III and Javonte Williams.

Each back carried the ball 203 times. However, it was Williams who ultimately gained the advantage in touches by catching 43 passes to Gordon's 30.

Entering the 2022 offseason, Gordon's contract expired and it was assumed that the Broncos would turn their focus to an all-in sort of commitment in Williams, who, after all, was the team's 2021 second-round draft pick. The Broncos even traded up for the privilege of drafting Williams early Day 2.

Then, on the doorstep of the 2022 NFL draft, the Broncos agreed to terms with Gordon on a new contract albeit one that will pay him almost a quarter of what he earned on his previous two-year, $8 million deal. With a $2.485M cap number this season, the Broncos are paying Gordon just enough to keep him locked in.

It's also just enough to keep the Broncos' coaches up at night if they're not using Gordon. Thus, head coach Nathaniel Hackett's running-back-by-committee philosophy will be meted out by the Broncos in 2022.

The question on many fans' minds is, which running back will receive the lion's share of the carries? I was asked this very question today by a colleague in NFL media and frankly, I was at a relative loss in answering it with confidence.

But the question inspired me to tackle the topic by writing about it and, thus, providing the chance to more thoughtfully suss out the answer. However, regardless of what even the most ardent hot-take artists in media will lead you to believe, nobody has a crystal ball.

It's impossible to perfectly predict anything in the NFL, let alone how the touch share between two very good running backs might shake out. Still, what's the fun in surrendering to that sort of football nihilism?

Let's dive into the subject matter.

What happens next on the Broncos? Don't miss out on any news and analysis! Please take a second, sign up for our free newsletter, and get breaking Broncos news delivered to your inbox daily!

At the end of the day, Williams is 22 years old and Gordon is 29. That alone provides a hint at how the Broncos might be viewing the distribution of touches this coming season. Williams still has plenty of tread left on his tires because he's been in a backfield time share dating all the way back to his beginnings at North Carolina.

Gordon has split carries for the majority of his NFL career, too. So even though he's entering his eighth season, he's not the typical near-30 NFL veteran back on the brink of falling off the cliff.

No, Gordon looked just as spry and explosive as he ever has last season. But Williams seems to be the hungrier, more fierce, and fearless back.

Scroll to Continue

Last season in Green Bay, as Packers offensive coordinator, Hackett presided over a distribution of running back carries that skewed from 187 for AJ Dillon to 171 for Aaron Jones. Despite being a 15-game starter last year, Jones was edged out by Dillon.

It wouldn't be shocking to see Hackett name Gordon the starter in Denver after the dust of training camp settles only to see Williams finish the season with more touches, yards, and scores. Then again, reverse that and nobody would be surprised.

One fly in the ointment of unthinkingly predicting Williams the eventual touch-share winner in Denver is the team's move to a wide-zone rushing attack, which is a modest departure from Pat Shurmur's gap-centric-slightly-sprinkled-with-inside-zone philosophy of the past two years. We already know that Gordon can thrive in the wide-zone scheme.

It takes more of a true projection to say the same for Williams. However, the kid has a big football IQ so I'm reluctant to sell him short on how he'll acclimate to Hackett's new scheme and if the early returns from OTAs are any indication, Williams will take to the wide-zone like a duck to water.

At this stage, I'm inclined to err on the side of Williams' youthful mojo and hunger to prove himself over a veteran in Gordon who couldn't be bothered to show up to any of the non-mandatory offseason workouts the Broncos hosted. To each his own, but Williams' commitment juxtaposed with Gordon's reticence reveals arguably the more driven player.

Drive plays a big role in which of these elite athletes win jobs in the NFL where the talent margin between players is often razor-thin. For that reason, I'm betting on Williams being this team's RB1 from a statistical standpoint.

Call it a 60/40 split in Williams' favor.

But make no mistake: Gordon is going to see the field... a lot. Where this leaves Mike Boone on Year 2 of his $3.85M deal is anybody's guess.

Williams is out to prove himself in the NFL while Gordon has two Pro Bowl nods under his belt and has already made most of the money he ever will as a professional. Don't underestimate the power of drive in any young player, especially one as focused, smart, and intense as Williams.

Follow Chad on Twitter @ChadNJensen.

Follow Mile High Huddle on Twitter and Facebook.

Subscribe to Mile High Huddle on YouTube for daily Broncos live-stream podcasts!

Read more from the original source:

Predicting Which Broncos RB Will Finish with More Touches in 2022: Melvin Gordon III or Javonte Williams - Sports Illustrated

Ive long had a theory about how the shifting landscape of college sports conferences would end.

Pretty close to how it started.

I consider the constant conference expansion and contraction to be college football nihilism. The existence of conferences as we know them today is unfounded, senseless and useless. Objective definitions of values, tradition and loyalty to a conference are meaningless.

And once we get through all the conference-hopping by schools and resulting realignment in mega-conferences, we are pretty much going to be back to a college football map like we had in the 1970s and 80s.

Essentially, I picture college football being like the construction and eventual dissolution of the Soviet Union. A bunch of little conferences coming together into one or two mega-conferences, but then broken up into smaller divisions.

Were about one or two more controversial Supreme Court rulings from the entire United States of America dissolving into the same type of situation. Maybe well soon be the not-so-United 50 Colonies before long.

Frankly, I have an easier time picturing that eventuality than I do a Big Ten that features a conference rivalry between Rutgers and USC. Or Maryland and UCLA.

Cant you see a future where college football breaks off from the old-fashioned conference format and leaves that existence for mens basketball and all the other sports?

Meanwhile, for football, lets go big. Really big. Well have the ESPN Conference made up of whatever the SEC swells into and half of the current Big 12 and ACC. As many as 48 teams, split into four 12-team divisions.

Then there is the Fox Conference made up of 48 schools from the supersized Big Ten, the Pac-12 schools and the leftovers from the ACC and the Big 12. Itll have four 12-team divisions as well.

Hey, if West Virginia and Pitt get absorbed into the Fox Conference with Penn State, they will be division rivals and have to play each other all the time like the old Eastern independent days.

And, somehow, Im sure Notre Dame will manage to stay independent and worm its way into being championship eligible. How? I dont know. But Im sure NBC does. Maybe the Fighting Irish can be a member of both mega-conferences at once.

Derek Shelton acknowledges where Pirates failed to get the most out of Clay Holmes First Call: Penguins' level of interest in Marc-Andre Fleury; Matt Murray trade talk, T.J. Watt rated tops at his position

Why not? Right now, the Irish are independent in football, in the Big Ten for mens hockey and in the ACC for everything else. Would my hypothetical be all that different?

Counting Notre Dame, that plan includes 97 of the 131 FBS programs. The other 34 schools that are left out can make their own mega-conference. Or the Big East can restart football with UConn, Boston College and Syracuse again if they dont have a chair when the music stops. The MAC can stay the MAC. The Mountain West and Conference USA can still exist in some form, etc.

The mega-conference teams will play 12 games each, 11 against divisional foes and one nonconference game. The winners of each of the four divisions will then play each other over a semifinal weekend, using four Bowl games (perhaps the Sugar Bowl and Orange Bowl for the ESPN league and the Fiesta and Rose in the Fox league). Then a championship weekend to crown the two mega-conference winners (like the AFC and NFC title games in the NFL).

Then the Fox champion can play the ESPN champion for the Major Network College Football title belt.

If those 12-team divisions are made up of traditional, regional rivals, maybe well end up gliding back in time while stumbling forward with the natural evolution of college football.

By natural evolution, I mean artificially enhanced and bloated pursuit of the almighty dollar.

Hey, these NIL deals the athletes are making dont pay for themselves, right?

Sometimes you dont have to feel good about the process to achieve a positive result. If the death of conferences as we know them brings about the return of more common-sense scheduling and rivalries not to mention a more streamlined playoff system and traditional use of the Bowl games wonderful.

Or we can keep pretending that Oklahoma is in the Southeast and a 24-team Big Ten stretching from New Jersey to Los Angeles makes sense.

As if much of college athletics ever did.

Tim Benz is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Tim at tbenz@triblive.com or via Twitter. All tweets could be reposted. All emails are subject to publication unless specified otherwise.

Categories:Penn State | Pitt | Sports | Breakfast With Benz | Tim Benz Columns | WVU

Here is the original post:

Tim Benz: College football conferences may have to die for the sport to rediscover why they were important - TribLIVE

Welcome back to World War Titan! The time has come to end things. We are finally watching the final season of Attack on Titan, divided up into three parts. Things our looking pretty grim for our cast of troubled heroes. If you are new to our coverage, this is the part where I explain to you that Ive never been what youd call a regular anime watcher, but something about this strange and at times horrifying show has continued to captivate me. Its been slow going, but this episode ends with the biggest bang imaginable. Lets get into Attack on Titan season 4, episode 21, From You, 2000 Years Ago.

1. Time Warp Again

Youd think as one of the most popular animes of all time, Attack on Titan wouldnt look so cheap and weird sometimes. But then, the weirdness is so weird that it has to be on purpose. This episode started by replaying a lot of the flashback from last episode, but with a few extra gory details. We really get to see Grisha rend Freida with his titan teeth and smoosh all her little cousins. Very weird how much animation got copy/pasted, it was almost three minutes of this 22 minutes episode. But they want to remind us the important thing. And that is this: Only Eren will get what he wants.

Immediately after this repetition, we see Eren yank off his own fingers in a rage. I dont think this is the guy who should get what he wants.

2. A book within a dream within a show

But then, no! We cut to Historia and Freida. I gasped. Is this going to be a Historia/Freida episode? But not really, this is a Founder Ymir episode! Which is cool, but the framing of it is really weird. Eren and Zeke are remembering Freida read Historia a book? And then Freida remarks that Ymir is the very definition of femininity which is not what the episode conveys at all. So I guess were supposed to understand that history has forgotten what Ymir was really like. But then why this framing narrative? Its weird.

The broad strokes of the story are this: there was a tribe called the Eldians and a tribe called Marley. Ymir was a Marley slave, taken by the Eldian King Fritz. This roots the conflict in Attack on Titan in ancient tribal feuds. And I like that! I like the nihilism and pointlessness of carrying on an argument for 2000 years without any understanding of how things really started. That stuff is great. But the bloodline magic stuff sits weirdly with all of this. You get the feeling that the ancient Eldians really did have this evil in their blood. I guess Id just like to see a better reconciliation of how we honor the best and worst parts of history.

3. World of Bronze

This ancient world is super cool. Everyone is wearing red capes and Greek-style helmets. Its the Bronze Age of Attack on Titan! You got a Forum or an Agora or whatever. Big marble pillars. Though this sequence doesnt get too many minutes of screen time, I immediately fell in deep. Would I watch an ancient Rome Attack on Titan show about the very first titan war? You bet I would.

This is also where we get a weird wrinkle in the bloodline curse. Ymir gets the titan power, but barely understands it. King Fritz forced her to have his children, who he named Maria, Rose, and Sina. He wanted to usurp the titan power to pass it down through his bloodline. So lets try to follow the responsibility here. King Fritz enslaved and raped a woman, because she got titan magic and he wanted to steal it. But she only got titan magic because of her mistreatment at his hands. But his people claim that this is retribution for past crimes.

Its certainly a bold choice. It muddies things more than clarifying them. But Fritz is so monstrous, you kind of get the impression the story wants us to buy that all his decedents deserve to be cursed. I dont know if I buy that. But I think I am down with that choice thematically.

4. Source of All Living Matter

Though not named in this episode, we need to discuss the Source of All Living Matter. That sounds like a Seinfeld joke.

Its the Source of All Living Matter Jerry!All living matter?All living matter!

This is the creature that imbues Ymir with titan powers. Its certainly otherworldly and cosmic. Ymir goes through an extremely vaginal opening in a tree and falls into an underground lake where she encounters the Source. Its like a spine thats also a sea creature? It looks like a delicate anemone that is also a mammalian nervous system. And I think thats all were getting. This means the titans were also the result of a woman scorned. That seems consistent with this show.

Eren thinks this is all bullshit. Youre not a slave, youre not a god, youre just a person, he says. To Eren, a person is someone who has choice, and he thinks she does. Eren made a promise, he swore to end the titans, and he hasnt wavered. Ymir has been in this mind-space waiting for 2000 years for this monologue. Eren convinces her that she shares his deep nihilism and evidently she agrees because

5. The Rumbling is here

Smash zoom into Erens severed freaking head. From it, a spine grows and grows and grows, miles long. It is the Source of All Living Matter or something like it. Eren has the power. And he uses it. The walls start to shatter apart

I guess its time for The Rumbling.

Thatd be a hell of a cliffhanger but the episode doesnt quite end there. Armin thinks this is proof of Erens good intentions, that he is a loyal Eldian after all. But hes wrong. Eren sends out a Professor Xavier style psychic message (While you slept, the world changed) to all the Eldians. And he shares his evil plan. He is going to send all the titans marching out from Paradis island. Anyone not on the island? Doomed to die underfoot. The last shot of the episode is a rough drawing of Erens new terrifying visage.

The Rumbling has begun!

More here:

Five Thoughts on Attack on Titan's From You, 2000 Years Ago - Multiversity Comics

Ottessa Moshfeghs jam is conjuring broken, unlikeable protagonists who lurch through the world leaving ruin in their wake. McGlue, the authors 2014 novella, a 19th-century dirge, featured a gay, drunken sailor who possibly murdered his best friend. Moshfeghs 2015 debut novel, Eileen, shortlisted for the Booker Prize, centred around a self-loathing petty criminal. In her acclaimed 2019 book My Year of Rest and Relaxation, we became unfortunate observers of the interior life of a lazy misanthrope locked away in a year-long drug-induced self-exile.

In Moshfeghs latest novel, Lapvona, the author trades her distinctive first-person voice to introduce a conga line of fringe-dwellers who live in the post-plague medieval village of Lapvona, where subsistence is tough, and life is cheap. It proves a setting ripe for Moshfegh to gleefully indulge her appreciation for the grotesque; just dont expect her to conform to historical accuracy.

Ottessa Moshfeghs latest novel pushes the boundaries of existential nihilism.Credit:Alamy Stock Photo

Teenage anti-hero Marek lives with his physically and emotionally abusive father Jude, a shepherd who detests his bastard son and prefers the company of his lambs. With a face not even a mother could love, but with a searing Oedipus complex to boot, Marek has grown crookedly, his spine twisted in the middle with a misshapen head. He is a failed abortion attempt and the offspring of incest. Marek believes his mother Agata died birthing him; in fact, she ran away to a nunnery and later makes a surprise return in Mareks life.

The boy is in love with pain: He lived for hardship. It gave him cause to prove himself superior to his mortal suffering. In his search for a maternal figure, Marek suckles the withered and blind witch, Ina, once the village wet nurse, whose milk is long dried up.

Lapvonas serfs are ruled over by the corrupt lord, Villiam, a lazy, self-obsessed man-child who makes a sport of humiliating his servants and believes Terror and grief [are] good for morale. Villiam is pandered to by the sycophantic priest, Father Barnabas, whose head was soft, as though the fat in his face had travelled upward and collected there and who loves not the Christ but himself and the thrill of keeping people in line. With the priests encouragement, the lord swindles his subjects and secretly hires bandits to sack the village at any sign of insurrection.

Lapvona by Ottessa Moshfegh.

The predictable rhythm of life in Lapvona begins to unravel when Marek murders or is it an accident Villiams dashing son, Jacob. To settle the score, Villiam trades his dead son for Marek. Jacobs death invokes supernatural consequences: rain ceases to fall, plunging the once fertile village Lapvona dirt is good dirt into a long, harsh drought and famine. Many locals starve and die, while others survive by eating dead bees, bats, vermin, dirt desiccated cakes of animal dung and finally because Moshfegh cant resist the temptation to horrify each other.

Meanwhile, a bountiful life carries on for Villiam and his crew, with the villages water diverted to the manor, and Marek is propelled from a life of squalor to being anointed the lords son and heir, sinking into gluttony and indolence.

From this point in the novel, Moshfegh unleashes a cacophony of plot twists and gore that would make Shakespeare blush. She treats us to headless torsos, disembowelling, hanging, cannibalism, rape, human excrement, floods, fire, incest, death by poisoning, a virgin birth and human sacrifice. A parade of monstrous characters mines the depths of depravity; the antics in Lapvona recall the writing of the Marquis de Sade, except in Moshfeghs novel, it spills over into the absurd; she bludgeons the reader to the point of desensitisation.

More here:

Lapvonas cacophony of gore and depravity would make Shakespeare blush - Sydney Morning Herald

What is Posthumanism and what does it mean for theology?

First of all, any movement or time period with the prefix post attached to it (Postmodernism for example) lacks substance by its very name. It is literally defined by what came before it, precisely as just coming after it. Today we live in an era that is built around this proliferation of the posts, which again, says nothing about itself. We may be able to conclude that it is all embracingall inclusive, as we commonly hear todayand for that reason the posts have no real identity per se because delimitation is simply denied and thus avoided.

A grandchild of Postmodernism is the more sinister Posthumanism, the dominant philosophy today. Philosophical Postmodernism seeks to deconstruct human reason while philosophical Posthumanism intends to deconstruct the human itself. For the posthumanists, the prior era (from the Enlightenment to the 20th century, roughly), that is, the era of Humanism, was too anthropocentric. The exceptionalism of man or past anthropocentrism suppressed the emergence of other types of beings, especially artificial beings according to them.

According to the posthumanists, the very notion of human must be reassessed. Posthumanism proceeds from the Critical Theory philosophy which basically re-interprets reality, with the Marxist binary lens, as those who are oppressors and those who are oppressed (believe it or not there is a Critical Cyborg Theory based on The Cyborg Manifesto). The goal is to erase all inequalities in many different aspects, depending what the focus of the specific Critical Theory is. In the case of Posthumanism, dualisms such as human/animal, human/machine, and, more in general, human/nonhuman are re-investigated through a perception which does not work on the oppositional schemata. In the same way, the Posthumanist deconstructs the clear division between life/death, organic/synthetic and natural/artificial.

Posthumanism leads directly to nihilism or the belief of empty values, since no immutability exists. It is an attack on nature itself. For that reason, it can, in no way, be accepted as a sound philosophy for true Catholic theological progress. True progress in theology stems from solid philosophy applied to the mysteries of our faith. There is definitely philosophical pluralism within the Catholic tradition, but this in no way means that Catholicism can be philosophically all-embracing. There are philosophies that cannot be accepted for orthodox theological progress. In fact, all the heresies are simply rooted in bad philosophy (Nestorianism, Modalism, Monophysitism, etc.). The Church has a duty in promoting good philosophy for the sake of having a theology that can convey the truths of the divine mysteries in human terms.

Posthumanism cannot be applied to our faith to make a good theology. In particular, Posthumanism would eliminate a good anthropology that would allow for a correct understanding of man according to divine revelation. If man is purely mutable, and can ultimately merge with the artificial forming a new being (a cyborg), then in what aspect is man created in Gods image and likeness? How could Our Lord Jesus Christ assume a nature of something that in our day needs to be essentially reassessed? Man is substantially body and soul and he cannot essentially change.

Posthumanism promotes not only an indifference towards the essence of man, but an outright hatred for it. According to this view, the artificial being must emerge and ultimately replace our outdated and rigid concept of man in the strictly naturalistic sense. However, the truth is that man is the synthesis of Gods creation (matter plus the spirit) and God loves man for his own sake. God not only created man but re-created man in Jesus Christ, His only Begotten Son. The love of man and his dignity is fundamental in Catholic theology, especially in Christology, and this dignity is something Posthumanism negates. Profound love has to be based on an immutable good, for true love is in a sense immutable. So we see here another clear example of bad philosophical anthropology leading to bad theological anthropology.

We see clearly today that Satan is attacking nature as a means to attack supernature. The assault is extremely intelligent and strategic. The demonic attacks on philosophy have always been for the sake of attacking theology. The devil knows well the intimate relationship between heterodox theology and the condemnation of souls.

I would say that the biggest hindrance to evangelization is precisely a prevalent erroneous anthropology, especially the Posthumanist view. For if we do not know what man is, we surely will not know what is man for. For the final cause of a thing is imbedded in its very nature. Let us ask Gods grace and do our part also in studying good solid philosophy, especially anthropology. Let us also avoid theologies that diminish the importance of philosophical (metaphysical) underpinnings, like existentialist theology for example.

In the end, the existence of immutability is vital for the salvation of our very souls. Truth is essentially immutable since it refers to universal concepts (truth, charity) or historical events (Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate), and these obviously never change. Truth is our only true guide in a changing world and the basis of all truth is Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Immutable Truth Himself.

See the article here:

Posthumanism and Theological Anthropology - OnePeterFive

They were careless people, the narrator in The Great Gatsby says of two of that novels wealthiest, cruelest characters; they smashed up things and creatures. They would probably get along with the similarly careless wretches who populate The Forgiven, though especially the unhappily married couple who smash into a teenager, killing him.

David (an excellent Ralph Fiennes) and Jo (a decorative, badly used Jessica Chastain) are yelling and looking at each other while rocketing down a dark Moroccan road when they plow into the boy. For reasons that are more narratively useful than persuasive, they bring the body with them to their destination, a sprawling compound where a bacchanal is underway. There, after servants whisk away the body, David and Jo join the festivities, assuming their place among the other avatars of wealth, great privilege and bone-deep rot.

As Fitzgerald observed elsewhere, the very rich are different from you and me. They are not, though, always dissimilar onscreen, and in far too many movies, they tend to fall into reliably distinct camps of gaudy buffoons, heroic saviors or unrepentant villains. The Forgiven is about villains. Specifically, it centers on the kind of white scoundrels who with their empty hours and seemingly bottomless pockets, their cultivated cynicism and to-the-manner-born prejudices stir up trouble for less-privileged souls. These monsters twirl their mustaches, seduce the nave and rob the credulous because they can. They also do so because authors know villains provide easy entertainment, including when theyre object lessons.

Certainly, in his adaptation of the Lawrence Osborne novel, the writer-director John Michael McDonagh has done his best to be diverting while he shoots fish in a barrel. His richest, most dubiously easy targets are the partys hosts, an unctuous British libertine, Richard (Matt Smith, continuing his journey as Jeremy Irons 2.0), and his down-market American lover, Dally (Caleb Landry Jones). Theyre introduced lounging in bed the camera opens on Dallys naked rear as a visibly uneasy Moroccan servant enters with tea. Richard smiles at the man or maybe his discomfort. Is the servant uncomfortable with male intimacy, its unembarrassed display or merely his bosss amused gaze?

McDonagh lets the moment linger, which outwardly lets him off the hook. It doesnt, though, not really, and he is saying something by making two gay lovers the storys most conspicuous embodiments of neocolonialist excesses. So it goes: That night, Richard refers to the servants as boys, and Dally winds up the party (and your sensitivities) by thanking their little Moroccan friends who renovated the compound. The guests in tuxes and gowns laugh and swirl, eating and boozing as Moroccans hover and serve. A shrieking blonde jumps in a pool the size of a lake. Later, Jo casually drops that she and David killed a Moroccan en route to the festivities; at another point, David sneers about pederasts and name checks Allen Ginsberg.

The Forgiven doesnt get any subtler, although things improve when David agrees to drive off with the dead boys father, Abdellah (Ismael Kanater), and a companion, Anouar (Sad Taghmaoui). It doesnt make any sense given Davids prejudices and suspicions. He goes simply because the story needs him to, but it does get you away from the compounds claustrophobia. Mostly, though, it allows you to spend time with Fiennes, whose performance in its intricate, complex play of emotions and in the push-pull of Davids contempt for himself and for everything else says more about this worlds nihilism than all the brittle chatter. Fiennes peels David in layers, unraveling this man until you see his hollow interior.

McDonaghs work is more nuanced and his touch lighter in the scenes with David and these other men, even as the story grows heavier and then leaden. Theres less yammering and hyperbolizing, and McDonagh makes fine contrapuntal use of the landscapes visual drama and of the chasm separating these characters. Here, in the prickling, ominous spaces between David and Abdellah, in their glances and halting words, you see how power flows from man to man, from world to world, and how it nourishes but also engulfs.

Its then that you are reminded of the sharper work that McDonagh has done before, such as Calvary and The Guard, and how good he can be when characters talk because they have something to say.

The ForgivenRated R for gun and vehicular violence. Running time: 1 hour 57 minutes. In theaters.

Read more here:

The Forgiven Review: When the Haves Dispose of a Have-Not - The New York Times

The soundtrack to Everything Everywhere All At Once is now available on vinyl.

On 5 July, A24 announced the original motion picture soundtrack to their 2022 hit film Everything Everywhere All At Once will be released on vinyl. The soundtrack includes the film's original musical score composed by experimental band Son Lux, as well as original songs by Mitski, David Byrne, Andr 3000, Randy Newman, and more.

The black-and-white vinyl design mirrors the film's trademark motifs, the googly eyes and the everything bagel.

Since its premiere in March, the Michelle Yeoh-led film was met with thriving success at the box office and was recently crowned as A24's highest-grossing film of all time. Directed by Daniels, a directing duo made up of filmmakers Dan Kwan and Daniel Scheinert, the film has charmed audiences with its comical wit, authentic Asian-American representation, and careful examination of themes of nihilism and existentialism.

Check out more details of the vinyl and pre-order here.

Check out 'This Is A Life' by Son Lux, Mitski, and David Byrne here.

See more here:

Everything Everywhere All At Once original soundtrack is now available on vinyl, featuring Son Lux, Mitski, David Byrne, and more - Bandwagon

Every day billions of people devote a significant amount of time to worshiping an imaginary being. More precisely, they praise, exalt, and pray to the God of the major Abrahamic religions. They put their hopes inand they feara transcendent, supernatural deity that, they believe, created the world and now exercises providence over it.

In the prophetic writings of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, this God appears endowed with familiar psychological and moral characteristics. Hethe Abrahamic God is typically conceived as masculinehas knowledge, perception, intention, volition, and desire, and He experiences emotions such as jealousy, disappointment, pleasure, and sadness. God is powerful and free, unconstrained in His omnipotence. He issues commandments that He expects to be fulfilled, and He exercises harsh judgment over those who fail to obey them. God is also good, benevolent, and merciful, and the providential plan conceived and pursued by God is grounded in wisdom and justice.

This all-too-human God does not exist, or so argues the seventeenth-century philosopher Bento de Spinoza.1 Such a divinity is a superstitious fiction, he claims, grounded in the irrational passions of human beings who daily suffer the vicissitudes of nature. Feeling lost and abandoned in an insecure world that does not cater to their wishes and yet, at the same time, finding in that world an order and convenience that seems more than accidental, they imagine a governing Spirit that, on the model of human agency, directs all things toward certain ends. Here is how Spinoza describes the common psychological process:

They findboth in themselves and outside themselvesmany means that are very helpful in seeking their own advantage, e.g., eyes for seeing, teeth for chewing, plants and animals for food, the sun for light, the sea for supporting fish. Hence, they consider all natural things as means to their own advantage. And knowing that they had found these means, not provided them for themselves, they had reason to believe that there was someone else who had prepared those means for their use. For after they considered things as means, they could not believe that the things had made themselves; but from the means they were accustomed to prepare for themselves, they had to infer that there was a ruler, or a number of rulers of nature, endowed with human freedom, who had taken care of all things for them, and made all things for their use.2

A comforting thought indeed, but no more true for the consolation it brings. Such people who feign a God like man...wander far from the true knowledge of God. There is no transcendent deity; there is no supernatural being, no being who is separate or different from or beyond Nature. There was no creation; there will be no final judgment. There is only Nature and what belongs to Nature.

The word God is still available, even useful, particularly as it captures certain essential features of Nature that constitute (at least among philosophers in Spinozas time) the definition of God: Nature is an eternal, infinite, necessarily existing substance, the most real and self-caused cause of whatever else is real. (Spinoza defines substance, the basic category of his metaphysics, as what is in itself and conceived through itself, that is, what has true ontological and epistemological independence.) Thus, God is nothing distinct from Nature itself. God is Nature, and Nature is all there is. This is why Spinoza prefers the phrase Deus sive Natura (God or Nature).

Early in his philosophical masterpiece, the Ethics, Spinoza says that whatever is, is in God, and from the necessity of the divine nature there must follow infinitely many things in infinitely many ways.3 All things, without exception, are in and a part of Nature; they are governed by the principles of Nature and brought about by other natural causes. Spinoza can be read either as a pantheistand historically this seems to be far and away the most common interpretationor as an atheist, as some of his most vehement critics (and fans) have done. Either way, what is non-negotiable is the denial of the personal, anthropomorphic Abrahamic God.4

It follows that there is, and can be, no such thing as divine providence, at least as this is typically understood. Everything that happens in Nature and by Natures laws happens with blind, absolute necessity. Every thing and every state of affairs is causally determined to be as it is. Neither Nature itself nor anything in Nature could have been otherwise. As Spinoza puts it, In nature there is nothing contingent, but all things have been determined from the necessity of the divine nature to exist and produce an effect in a certain way.5 In Spinozas view, this is not the best of all possible worlds; it is not even one among many possible worlds. This is the only possible world. Things could have been produced by God in no other way, and in no other order than they have been produced. 6

Needless to say, there are not, and cannot be, miracles, understood as divinely caused exceptions to the laws of nature. It is not just that miracles are highly unlikely or difficult to detectthey are metaphysically impossible. Nature cannot possibly contravene its own necessary ways. Events we take to be miraculous are simply those of whose natural causal explanation we are ignorant. Nothing happens in nature which is contrary to its universal laws....The term miracle cannot be understood except in relation to mens opinions, and means nothing but a work whose natural cause we cannot explain by the example of another familiar thing, or at least which cannot be so explained by the one who writes or relates the miracle.7

Teleology, too, is a fiction.8 There are no purposes for Nature and no purposes in Nature. Nature itself does not exist for the sake of anything else, and nothing is directed by Nature toward any end. Whatever is, just is; whatever happens, just happens (and had to happen). Neither the universe itself nor anything in the universe was created to achieve some goal.

What is true for teleology is also true of moral and aesthetic values. Nothing is good or bad or beautiful or ugly in itself. As far as good and evil are concerned, they also indicate nothing positive in things, considered in themselves, nor are they anything other than modes of thinking, or notions we form because we compare things to one another.9 God did not create the world because it was good; nor is the world good because God created it. Again, whatever is, just is and had to be as it is, period.

Such is the universe that Spinoza describes and establishes through the geometrical methoda series of definitions, axioms, demonstrated propositions, corollaries, and scholiain the metaphysical parts of the Ethics. It seems, on the face of it, a rather bleak picture, one worthy of the most radical form of nihilism.

But there is more.

The inviolable necessity of Nature governs not only the world of physical bodieswhere apples fall from trees and rocks roll down hillsbut also the domain of human activity, including whatever happens in the human mind. Thoughts, ideas, intentions, feelings, judgments, desires, even volitionsour everyday acts of willing and choosingare all as strictly necessitated by the laws of thought as bodies in motion are by the laws of physics. Indeed, Spinoza boldly proclaims in the beginning of Part Three of the Ethics, where he turns to human psychology, I will treat the nature and powers of the emotions, and the power of the mind over them, by the same method by which, in the preceding parts, I treated God and the mind, and I shall consider human actions and appetites as if it were a question of lines, planes and bodies.10 One mental act or psychological event follows another with the same necessity and deductive certainty with which it follows from the nature of the triangle that its interior angles add up to 180 degrees. In the mind, no less than among bodies, a strict causal determinism rules, and nothing could have been otherwise than as it is.

This means that there is no such thing as freedom of the will. The idea that what one wills or desires or chooses is a kind of spontaneous act of mindpossibly influenced by other mental items, such as beliefs or emotions, or states of the body, but by no means absolutely determined by themis an illusion. All men are born ignorant of the causes of things....[They] think themselves free because they are conscious of their volitions and their appetite, and do not think even in their dreams, of the causes by which they are disposed to wanting and willing, because they are ignorant of those causes.11 There is, to be sure, a kind of freedom available to human beings, and it is in our best interest to strive to attain it; this is what the Ethics is all about. But human freedom does not, and cannot, consist in the classic capacity to have chosen or willed or acted otherwise than as one did. In the mind, there is no absolute, or free, will, but the mind is determined to will this or that by a cause which is also determined by another, and this again by another, and so to infinity.12

There is no point in lamenting any of thisthe demise of a providential God, the emptying of the world of all meanings and values, our loss of free willor wishing things were different (since they could not possibly be different). To spend ones life in a state of passive resignation or bewailing ones fate and cursing Nature for the hand one has been dealt is not only a waste of time, but irrational and harmful. It is, in effect, to suffer, and to be (in Spinozas word) a slave to the passions.

But what is the alternative? Is there, within that eternal, infinite, necessary, deterministic, and meaningless world, a way for finite, mortal beings such as we are, subject to the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, to flourish? When there is no wise, just, and providential God directing things to some end, when everything is governed by an inviolable, lawlike necessity and nothing could have been otherwise, can we nevertheless hope to achieve, through our own resources and effort, a life of well-being, even blessedness and salvation?

It is precisely this question that moved Spinoza, around the time of his herem (ban or excommunication) from the Amsterdam Portuguese-Jewish community, to abandon the life of a merchant and begin investigating that deepest and most important of moral inquiries: what is human happiness and how can it be achieved?

This is an excerpt from Think Least of Death:Spinoza on How to Live and How to Die bySteven Nadler.

Steven Nadleris Vilas Research Professor and the William H. Hay II Professor of Philosophy at the University of WisconsinMadison. His many books includeRembrandts Jews, which was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize,Spinoza: A Life, and (with Lawrence Shapiro)When Bad Thinking Happens to Good People: How Philosophy Can Save Us from Ourselves(Princeton).

1. Bento was Spinozas given name in the Portuguese-Jewish community of Amsterdam. Baruch was the Hebrew name used in the synagogue, and Benedictus is the Latin version of his name that appears in his published writings. All three names mean blessed.

2. Ethics I, Appendix, G II.7879/C I.44041.

3. Ethics Ip15 and Ip16.

4. For pantheistic readings, see Bennett (1984) and Curley (1988). For an atheistic reading, see Nadler (2008).

5. Ethics Ip29.

6. Ethics Ip33.

7. TTP VI, G III.8384/C II.15455.

8. The place of teleology in Spinozas philosophy is a topic of much discussion. For attempts to find a role for it in his system, see Garrett (1999) and Lin (2006b).

9. Ethics IV, Preface, G II.208/C I.545.

10. Ethics III, Preface, G II.138/C I.492.

11. Ethics, Appendix, G II.78/C I.440.

12. Ethics IIp48.

More:

A new way of life - Princeton University Press

2022 already has a Film of the Year nominee and thats the acclaimed sci-fi action-drama Everything, Everywhere at the Same Time.

Directed by Daniel Kwan and Daniel Scheinert (known artistically as Daniels), the narrative starts from a simple premise already seen in several other productions on the film circuit the multiverse. The plot centers on Evelyn Wang (Michelle Yeoh in Career Best Performance), a Chinese woman who is about to be audited and lose the washing powder she owns next to her husband, Waymond (Ke Huy Quan). However, Evelyn discovers the endless facets of a multiverse that is about to collide and sees her as a rallying point to prevent everything she knows from collapsing in the blink of an eye. . And, unlike similar works, such as the recent Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness, the production dives headlong into the aesthetics of the absurd and offers a journey full of incredible fight sequences, fantastic performances and impeccable dialogues that range from existentialism to philosophical nihilism.

Despite the films many themes, one plays a central role in building the arcs and, because its presented so subtly, goes unnoticed by the audience: language.

The concept of language is not rigid and is a subject of analysis by several linguists, historians and philosophers. The Russian thinker Mikhail Bakhtin, for example, discriminates language as the system of language, the substance of which is constituted by the social phenomenon of verbal interaction, realized through utterances; in this way, the construction between interlocutors is essential for language and language to exist and, in this way, there is dialogism between one person and another.

Enjoy watching:

And what is the relationship with Everything, everywhere at the same time?

Even though Evelyn has huge problems on her hands, one of the obstacles she faces along her journey is the constant conflict between her Asian roots and all the characters around her even her own, who struggle to build an identity that is bombarded by the social roles it has to play. This is how the clashes between Evelyn and her daughter Joy (Stephanie Hsu), her father Gong Gong (James Hong) and even IRS employee Deirdre (Jamie Lee Curtis) come to life in a metaphysical explosion that explores the language barriers in an original and thoughtful way. way, leading us to understand what is shown on the big screen instead of just teaching us from coercive didacticism.

The first layer to examine is the almost belligerent relationship between Evelyn and Joy. As a child, Evelyn was all but disowned by her family for choosing to marry Waymond, transferring the traumas of needing to be the perfect girl to Joy who was already shunning the heteronormative, Asian construct Evelyn had cultivated since her youth. But Joy refuses to be someone other than what she is, which fuels the clash of generations and foreshadows future events. In this respect, it is language that serves as a support for reiterating the conflict: Evelyn unfolds in several personalities to respond to the request that is asked of her, both from the father and from the daughter. It is for this reason that the protagonists lines waver between Mandarin and English, as if searching for common ground to converse with the two and regain the long-lost concept of family. Joy, on the other hand, seems to be moving away from the cultural roots of her father and mother by refusing, albeit unconsciously, to learn Mandarin: if the linguistic distance between her and her mother was already perceptible, the chasm between her and his grandfather is screaming.

The second layer, although less explored, rises between Evelyn and Gong Gong. Even after starting a family and establishing her own business, she still bows her head to her fathers sense of superiority, as if seeking approval lost for decades. In that same desperate tumult, she also cant shake off destructive thoughts about what her life might have been like had she not married Waymond and followed her dream of being an actress a glimpse we see in one dimensions of the multiverse. However, the weight of dishonor, so to speak, is even greater when Evelyn cannot resort to the linguistic evasion of English to express her feelings for her father, returning, in a gesture obliged, to the Cantonese dialect the roots of which still extend to permeate your mind and leave you locked in a bind.

Now even Evelyn and Deirdres relationship faces similar obstacles: the character played by Curtis is the ultimate representation of American predatory neo-imperialism, whose lack of empathy with Evelyns daily struggle (in this case , Asian immigrants) is reinforced by the way you speak. The dialogism between the two is nil; what exists is a one-dimensional rhetoric through which Deirdre touches on condescension and uses Evelyns lack of language skills to put her in her place and make her tremble for fear of losing the last shred of independence she has. .

The intersection of these structural issues is Waymond: even shunned by the more humble background and lack of ambition, the character is tasked with enabling Evelyn to be who she is, serving as the intangible and tangible support that keeps her from to commit madness. . After all, as can be seen in the films acclaimed conclusion, the variables of the multiverse are out of control but Waymond remains there as the only constant, metaphysical and linguistic.

Everything, Everywhere at the Same Time goes beyond what the eye can see and, for that reason, it establishes itself as a dense, complex film that reveals its deepest layers every time we look at it. lets see again. And, when we stop to analyze it, the impulses of language function as a link between the endless subplots, allowing us to create a bridge between the reality of the film and our own.

Dont forget to watch:

See the rest here:

Items | How language became the protagonist of Everything, everywhere at the same time Designer Women - Designer Women