I don't see that much of a resemblance, but I don't think they're so dissimilar as to offend. I haven't seen the movie and have no particular connection to Elvis however.

I don't really discuss movies too much in real life except with people who have a baseline of curiosity about the subject, but I don't think it's uncommon to hear people say that they only watch "new" movies (from within the last ten or twenty years). I don't know how adamantly they avoid seeing things outside that criteria however. I have a work friend who would ask me for recommendations for "action movies on Netflix from within the last ten years" and I just went ahead and recommended whatever action movies were on my mind and she still watched them as far as I'm aware. I don't worry too much about what other people are watching, but if someone asked me for a rec and then ruled out something based on age, that would be pretty obnoxious. The lesson here is, never EVER recommend anything to anyone. EVER.

Turns out the correct spelling is Fran Lebowitz.  Lebowitz.  Not Liebowitz, as I improv'd the phonetics.  I regret the error.

I seriously have to stop reading these G/O Media sites.  The legacy one is obviously The Onion, although they're just a shell of their former publication anyway.  Deadspin is as well, since the entire staff left in 2019 shortly after G/O bought the site.  So what does that leave?  The AV Club which was originally The Onion's companion media newssite, and a couple of "woke" sites devoted to women (Jezebel) and POC (TheRoot).  And so when I go to the Onion (old habits) for a chuckle or two, there's the other sites, temptingly within click-reach.  And it never fails to irritate (or "engage" in algorithmic parlance).



I put "woke" in quotes not because I'm someone who likes to shit on the concept of being aware and sensitive to marginalized people.  I put it in quotes because I'm not convinced that these folks are actually as woke as they claim to be.  They weaponize wokeness.  They use wokeness to accumulate a headcount.  Because, in all honesty, sites like Jezebel and TheRoot are not journalism, at least not anything considered journalism this side of Gawker, not coincidently the flagship G/O Media product.  Like Gawker, these sites are front and foremost tabloid publications, which is why they tend to be more focused on clickbait like listicles and celebrity gossip.  And it's the latter that becomes the problem, when combined with wokeness, because they then will take this gossip (usually without questioning the source's intent) and use it for faux-moralizing. 

So Jezebel and AV can engage in performative outrage that Brad Pitt is still getting work even though Angelina Jolie's lawyers leaked selective documents about a familial scuffle on a private jet to make Pitt out as an abuser, and with no context such as exactly what was the cause of the scuffle, or even ignoring actual inconvenient facts in the documents themselves like how it was Jolie herself who first physically engaged by putting Pitt in a chokehold.  Look, I don't care about Brad Pitt's guilt or innocence, I'm not trying to defend him.  I just saying that anyone with a non-Twitter-reflexive brain can see that 1) We don't know what was going on in this relationship, this family on the precipice of the Pitt/Jolie divorce in 2016; 2) We're not really entitled to know; 3) Those who do know, beyond the participants, such as law enforcement and the courts, have not made any of this an issue; 4) What we do know is that Jolie's lawyers leaked these documents, years after she agreed to have them sealed, because their negotiations with Pitt over property holdings have not been going in Jolie's favor.  So, since we're not going to restrain ourselves from judging celebrities over their perceived misdeeds without full knowledge of the situation, allow me from my admittedly limited vantage point to suggest that the only reason why we know about this incident is because maybe Jolie was using these documents to try to leverage Pitt into a more favorable divorce settlement?

These types of weaponized woke sites like to claim that cancel culture doesn't really exist, as a way of defusing the controversy over the use of this kind of pitchfork hysteria.  What they actually mean is that they're routinely disappointed that cancel culture doesn't actually exist, which is why they spend so much proverbial ink space complaining about why Pitt is still a respected actor, why Depp is keeping his perfume money, why Chappelle is still allowed to perform and win grammies, why Spacey is getting Italian awards, and attacking anyone (including transwoman Eddie Izzard) who continues to insist on personally defending JK Rowling.

Another reason why I call bullshit on their woke sincerity has to be their reaction to the Will Smith/Chris Rock slap.  These sites were, and continuing to be, overwhelmingly supportive of Will Smith, to the point of criticizing those (for example the president of the Academy Awards) who continue to penalize Smith for the incident.  I've seen multiple writers at both the AV and TheRoot who have used the same phrase, "talk shit, get hit".  How fucking woke is that?  The literal definition of fascism is the prerogative of those with might to use violence to silence their opposition.  This is mafioso talk.  Do they not understand that "the streets" are inherently fascistic?  The underlying hostility to free speech is familiar to fascists.  ("Hey, John Lewis, why you talking shit about your rights?")  Nope, you shitheads need to turn in your woke cards immediately.  You're stooges, not warriors for the cause.

There's a long history of some of the more rabid left-wing people - Jerry Rubin, David Mamet, Andrew Breitbart - who at some point flip over to the dark side.  Why is that?  Because they were always dark.  Dark-side people are obsessed with the pretense of righteousness.  They don't care about the principles, they care about the confrontation.  It's time we start recognizing that, regardless where they stand on the political spectrum, those who are most vocal about throwing bombs around have zero civil credibility.  "Get hit", indeed.  Maybe I can call an intimacy coordinator to help these new woke-wolves how to discover a safe way to go fuck themselves.  I think Armie Hammer is available.
 

Rampop II wrote:

I do get frustrated with the kids who think they're at some vanguard when they're just re–inventing the wheel, for example those whose idea of a new musical genre involves the introduction of a new drum machine or sound effect into their electronic dancepop presets. I wanna shrug and say "you do you," and usually I can… until it comes to more serious stuff like social and political movements, when we start seeing the emergence of "new" ideas that were already proven disastrous over a century ago (like civil war).

There's a thriving industry in the overlap between culture and philosophy that is quite keen on applying new names to old ideas.  A lot of this is obviously for branding purposes, because you can't trademark the old terms, but also because this kind of rebranding is usually tied to expensive hipster merch in one way or another (consumerism is the true overriding philosphy involved here).

One such appropriation-played-as-innovation has been this concept of "vibes".  You may wonder, "Oh, is this a different, newer kind of vibes?"  Nope, it's the same old hippie type of vibes that these children presume to have discovered themselves.  There's been an awful (*key word*) lot of empty self-congratulating among certain vibe prophets and "vibe managers" (an actual job title in the tech world!).  And, as evidenced in all of that, it's mostly about perpetuating more hipster bullshit product.  Less New Age and more New Haze (tm ).

Rock wrote:

lol that damn vibes article

As our resident designated sartorial ambassador, I was curious how you'd feel about the tendency in those articles to reduce everything 'culture' down to the brand names that you happen to be wearing.

I think the commodification of brands is more prominent in streetwear, which I’m not really plugged into. My tastes run more conservative for the most part. To the extent that brands are emphasized in more “traditional” (using this term loosely) menswear, it’s in terms of people admiring the quality and/or value proposition offered by their products, the design sensibility, or genuine cultural importance (Polo Ralph Lauren, Brooks Brothers, Levi’s for a few obvious examples).

I think changes in trends are only really noticeable if you’re really plugged into this stuff. I.e. in menswear, there’s been a move away from the slim fit silhouettes popular in the 2000s to looser, more relaxed silhouettes. But at the same time, a lot of “business casual” menswear is stuff like polos, button up shirts, jeans and chinos, which have been “in style” for a long time and are likely to remain as such, and it’s unlikely you’ll get major variations in how these things look at a glance.

If you’re interested in good reading/listening on the subject, the Die Workwear! blog is great at putting menswear into their cultural context. It’s pretty dorky (the guy has a tendency to discuss things that are way the hell out of most people’s pay grades), but at the same time it’s consistently well written and researched. I also started listening to the Articles of Interest podcast, which does deep dives into the history of different garments and trends.

I think the reality is that most people are simply lacking in culture, or thoughts, or anything particularly unique about themselves. And I don't think that has changed so much as people are simply more willing to let trends guide them towards their interests

Most of my clothes obsessed friends have literally zero idea why they like one brand over another. For one, it's because he had a cut out of Marky Mark going pale and limp in his wallet for twenty years that he gravitated towards Calvin Klein. And he'd be the first to admit it.

Because of this, for many years, I dismissed the idea of clothing as an artistic or cultural statement as bullshit. But a few years of watching Project Runway (yes, reality television can be instructional when done right) allowed me to see that the creative impulses fashion designers put into their work is almost identical to the work other artists put into their medium. It's about ideas and shapes and colors and, yes, also looking good for other people (which was always my hang up, not being able to see past the superficiality of being seen....but again, it's not like this doesn't exist in other art forms...I want my knowledge and opinions on movies to be seen as well...sort of)

Now while I think fashion falls prey to this kind of superficiality easiest (I think for sort of obvious reasons), so is all expression. they are all frequently about self obsession and getting attention and proving one is more clever or soulful or what not than the next. Bullshitters and poseurs have always been there and they always will because the vast majority of people truly cannot see art past either it's cultural currency or, at best, whatever fleeting feeling it gives them. I think art over the last 150 years has modernized itself so much and with such frequency that it's left much of civilization in its dust (leaving us to deal with the super Luddites like Yarn bemoaning past standards of beauty, as if this evolving in anyway is some kind of betrayal to him personally). This is evident in how any conversation beyond the most basic of artistic achievements completely baffles or anger people. Sometimes even those who seem desperate to understand the secret to 'what makes something good'. And frankly, most of them are never going to get there. Most of them just want a fucking roadmap.

I keep going back to look at my Terrible Art in Charity shops website and it still amazes me how  there still seems to be a debate among some that any modern artwork could be done by a child. And I'm not talking Twombly or Pollock or even Picasso, which still have the capacity to baffle those who haven't actually thought about art in any real way. But we're talking about absolutely any artist who doesn't pain with perfect photo realism. And when anyone dare mentions the kind of ability that is clearly on display in these pieces, the vitriol is just as venous as it probably was 100 years ago. They scream about their opinion, that they dont like it, and if they say a child could do that, thats it, its a fucking fingerpainting. And this isnt a rare occurence. It's 95 percent of the posts there.

I mention this because I just think it is impossible for others to see anything more in art than what they assume they are supposed to see. That is the default setting for their brain. Forever. And there is probably nothing they can do about it. Maybe they are smart otherwise but, Jesus fucking Christ are they lost in these matters.

So when you then introduce abstract ideas of appreciation like 'there is no right or wrong way', their brain can only process this as 'well, then I dont need to learn anymore than my gut reaction'. And I guess, why do they need to. They probably don't.

But motherfucker I hate talking or even acknowledging these sorts of people. Because I feel somewhere in this, we can find the traces of everything that is wrong with how  the human brain works. Why we don't understand eachother. Why we maybe can never understand eachother.

I see people are getting mad about Mark Wahlberg’s hate crimes again. I don’t wanna sound like I’m defending hate crimes, and I don’t even particularly like Wahlberg, but I feel like those complaining deliberately mislead about the fact that he A) was a minor when he committed these crimes, B) did time (even if it was less than the full sentence and probably less than others have gotten for less serious offenses) and C) was forgiven by his victim. I don’t understand what redemption is supposed to look like here, and what else he’s supposed to do that he hasn’t already done.

I think my favorite of these stories is the one against David O. Russell.  No, not for his mistreatment of extras on Three Kings (which got him knocked out by George Clooney).  No, not his filmed temper tantrums on I Heart Huckabees (which Clooney most likely leaked).  Instead it's the story about that time when Russell allegedly "groped" his transsexual niece's fake breasts.

Peloquin and Russell were working out together, she said, when he offered to help her with ab exercises and placed his hand on her abdomen to point out the muscle groups various exercises engaged. He placed his hand “right above” her genitals, she said.  Peloquin, who is trans, told police that Russell eventually asked about her transition and, after she described the hormones she used, slipped his hand under her shirt and felt both breasts.

When reached by police, Russell did not dispute that the incident occurred. But he did claim that Peloquin had been “acting very provocative towards him”—and that, in fact, it had been Peloquin who asked for his help with the ab exercises. The director told police he’d asked multiple times if Peloquin was uncomfortable, and that she’d never stated that she was. (Peloquin told police that she had felt uncomfortable, but that she hadn’t asked Russell to stop.)

Russell also told police that since her transition, Peloquin was “always causing drama… and has become very provocative and seductive.”

The reason why I like this story is it sounds like a scene that may have gotten cut from Flirting With Disaster.  Anyway, I don't know why people are still acting like Russell should not be allowed to continue making movies because of this incident.