Messages

https://thenewscaravan.com/woman-exposes-her-penis-in-public-how-is-this-possible-understand/

Love the title.

[The Italian Job (1969)]

The Italian Job (1969)

I catch this once in a while and always glue my eyes to the telly. I just bloody love this film, unlike washed up American remake. Funny, cool cars, stunts (Minis driving up the building is never less than amusing), Benny Hill as pervert professor (too bad he ain't got much space and time) and utmost British feel. Take that, Mark Wahlberg.

Since this incident, I argued more or less in Baldwin's favour. The armorer, AD did a really shitty job, that's a fact. But I argued with some folks who were telling me "no, Alec should personally check the gun","Alec shouldn't point the gun in camera's direction" (even though they were rehearsing a scene), I blew a fuse. I mean, I like guns - in movies. Irl, I detest them and hope I'll never get a shot to fire a shot. Probably it's why personal checking a gun won't be an operation I'll perform. Nor I am legally required.
The armorer? She reportedly got her job through her Daddy who is some big name in the industry. But she already proven she's not up to her task, scaring Nic Cage off the set when she nonchalantly flaunted around with the guns she was holding. I expect this case of negligence to be persecuted and hopefully, that Hollywood will learn something out of it.

A very seldom song that got me interested in the lyrics, which I have no idea what they mean.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8sGmSEehi4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8rwHmpa2-8

Superior to the Oingo Boingo tune.

Doesn't she have a really good coat in the snow bit?

touche.

I vaguely remember watching this in the cinema, and there was a bit where time is reversed and rerun, which at the time I thought was an interesting way of showing the try-die-retry dynamic of the game.

Maybe that was the first film, though.

Yeah, that was the first. I realized that Daniel Craig plays gender-reversal role (so he wasn't totally useless), opposite of "damsel in distress". But how do you call a guy in distress? Dane in distress?

[and]

Lots to unpack, urko. First off, let me apologize for any offence caused. I've been touchy about specific use of language on the board in the past, so it would be hypocritical of me not to accept that my use of language may have offended someone.

As regards whether something is offensive dependent on the audience, I think that's a false flag. One of my students, many moons ago, made reference to the concept of women belonging in the kitchen and, when I pointed out that his reference was sexist he responded with "but there aren't any women here". You don't need women to be in the room for sexism to be sexism, of course.

You said you couldn't see the irony - but I made a joke about trans genitalia on a thread about being woke, in response to a man making jokes about trans people and being defended by a trans person. Surely this has some irony?

Stewart Lee adopts a persona on stage, but still calls himself Stewart Lee. In interviews, he often refers to the fact that the stage persona is not entirely him, but rather an exaggerated version of him - a version that has adopted a superior intellect and looks down on his audience. He often splits the room into sections that "get it" and sections that don't, which allows his stage persona to get frustrated when sections of the audience don't understand his carefully crafted humorous scenarios (despite the fact that he's created the illusionary division).

I mention this because Funt Solo will sail far closer to the wind and be more outspoken and risque than if I were to meet you all in a pub or at a con. Funt's a cheeky bastard. I'm more introverted in person, very careful about exposing my political views in the workplace (because I have a duty of care, and a professional interest in allowing students to manage their own narrative directions*) and only really open up with people I know very well.

As to the context of my joke, it all started with milstar posting an article in which Caitlyn Jenner defends Dave Chappelle's right to free speech. Dave Chappelle had done a routine in which he was apparently openly transphobic (although I haven't seen the routine, so I'm not sure what he said), and complaints were made. Caitlyn (in the article) says he has every right to say what he said. Whatever you think of the article, or Chappelle, or Jenner - one thing is clear - there's no point in engaging in a debate with milstar**. So, that option is out.

Next, Jim responds to milstar's post with "complete bollocks", but milstar wants to know if he means he doesn't believe the article is real or if he means that Jenner's opinion is shite. Jim (I assume) realizes there's no point in engaging in a debate with milstar, so doesn't respond. I don't try to elicit more information from Jim, because sometimes he gets touchy when I do that (sorry, Jim).

So, my motive at that point is to try and derail milstar's prodding by making a joke that both Chappelle and Jenner would approve of, about Jenner's genitalia, but which I personally find mildly offensive. The joke, not Jenner's genitalia, which (frankly) is none of my business, and I know nothing about - my ignorance of actual fact also being part of the humor. Aware that this is all skating close to the edge of polite frisson, I add the *Too soon?* as a signal that I'm aware of where I'm skating.

The other part that's worth mentioning here is that society is, of course, obsessed with genitals. Our own, other peoples - what could happen if we get hold of them and so on. You could say it's built into us. When people transition, then I'm sure they have some thought about their physicality and of course other people have a natural curiosity. Now, if a trans person is being interviewed about their new, say, movie - it's not really acceptable that the interviewer would focus on their genitals (unless it was a movie about their genitals), because when actors are being interviewed about their new movie, it's a bit pervy to start going on about their personal business. There are great videos online of Tom Hardy and Scarlet Johansson ripping interviewers a new one (more undercarriages!) for getting too personal.

Of course, in a personal relationship, whether you like bearded or non-bearded people, or bald or non-bald people, or particular kinds of junk, is entirely a matter of personal preference, and perhaps part of your lifelong family planning, but it's not otherwise anyone's business what you're carrying around in your undergarments - which is why it's such a stupid thing to focus on, but one that people nevertheless get obsessed by. Ripe location for a joke.

You did ask if I would tell the joke in front of a trans person. I don't know, is the only answer I've got. I think it would depend how well I knew them. It was a very contextual joke, and it was Funt that told it. I'm finding it difficult to extrapolate that out to a different scenario. I was driving two folk along one day, and one of them said "that building is so black" (in reference to a particularly black building near Edinburgh) and the other one said "racist!" Three white people in a car. Food for thought.

And, again, sorry for any offence. And the accidental fish pun.



*Unless they're being openly racist, sexist, homophobic or transphobic (or otherwise bullying someone) - because I run an inclusionary classroom.
**Due to a historic tendency to eschew evidence contrary to his original position.

milstar is completely neutral here, because it's rabbit's hole. milstar posts all sorts of links here, related to sundry and all topics, which all have in common the fact they deal with "wokeness", "cancel culture" and "censorship". That does not mean I agree with what it's said there. But yeah, some topics are useless to discuss with milstar.
Apropo Caitlyn  Jenner, we live in era of fake news. I thought that perhaps Jim knows something more than me...

Was that criticised at the time for its extreme violence? Rod Taylor was the lead, I believe and I think it was called 'Dark Of The Sun' at one point.

I am clueless about that title. I know it as The Mercenaries. I also do not know about violence, but I think I read somewhere that same fate awaited Dirty Dozen. Having watched both films, I can say it is a bit risque, but nowhere bad as today's cinema.

A gripe I had with Bioshock was the bit near the start where your character finds a syringe of unknown origin and just jams it in his arm without a second thought.

Ah, but have you forgotten about "would you kindly?"

I always found Bioshock to be a bit of a slog.  Too many fetch quests.  Was the best of the three though.

Infinite for me. Just blew me away.

I hated it quite a lot.  Apart from Grace.  She was good.  Everything else though was either rubbish or boring.

T3 was a perfectly good Terminator movie.  Although none of them come close to the greatness of the first one.

I hated it too. T3 wasn't good as T2 but I liked how well it round up the whole arc. Before they killed off John Connor. I hated Genesys as well.

[Bioshock]

Bioshock

The epitome of 2000s gaming. A bit dated now, and at places unpolished (like a rather rushed final boss fight), but still entertaining. Doesn't carry the huge emotional baggage of its predecessors, but I am amused how it brilliantly ties up with Burial at Sea ep2.

But one thing grinds my gears. Why the bloody heck I harvested only three Little Sisters, and still got the worst ending. What trickery is this?

[Risky Business]

Risky Business

I've not watched that one in a long time but I'll add it to my list.  Tom's obviously weird but he's generally solid in whatever he's in.

It's a fair point but I don't think it has aged particularly well.

Definitely is a huge time capsule.

Lara Croft: Tomb Raider Cradle of Life

I disliked this the first time I watched it, and I don't like it now either. Nearly everything is wrong with this movie. Plot holes are apparent throughout. Nobody really bothered writing any decent scene – just embarrassing cliché after embarrassing cliché – there are no surprises and almost no suspense. Flawed it may be, the first Tomb Raider is definitely much more engaging and superior in any way film. The plot arc about the quest for Pandora's box for the vast portion of screentime feels more like a James Bond flick. And witless and convoluted one at that, plus lacking humour and exotic locations, characteristic for TR. Only the last quarter (in Africa) has the feel of the proper Tomb Raider film. Angelina delivers another fine Lara (manners and charisma), but the material she got is just subpar. Plus, her accent is still hit or miss.
Ciaran Hinds delivers your typical cliched mad scientist, bent on destroying the world, and his dialogue is senseless, all-around "humans are filth, so let's create a new world."
On the other hand, Gerard Butler proves to be a more handy sidekick than bit part player Craig; but this is Lara's show, having a sidekick proves to be a mere distraction from otherwise shallow plot.

Author Wlibur Smith aged 88

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/entertainment/celebrity/bestselling-author-wilbur-smith-dies-aged-88/ar-AAQG8qJ?ocid=msedgdhp

I loved the film The Mercenaries, based on his novel. A sort of grittier Dirty Dozen. I may revisit it soon.

CCA lost its appeal I think in the 80s, when comics grew more darker and serious. If the initial concern was all "juicy" material, then it became a cosmetic decor, nothing else. Which is paradoxal, because one issue of Elvira House of Mystery (don't know which one) had no CCA seal and allegedly sold poorly. But since then, it became practically useless. In its beginnings, the seal was quite restrictive, at its end, a joke and some comics I read, for example, in 2000s, that had CCA, would never receive CCA in the Silver or Bronze age (i think there was a bare bum in Batman RIP). Then again, Death in the Family had started with Dynamic duo beating child pornographers, and it was in the late 80s.

I don't know if CCA had anything to do with it, but famously Frank Miller, Howard Chaykin and Alan Moore had fallout with DC (in Alan's case, plus Watchmen controversy) who left the company over censorship issues. Howard returned though in the 1990, with Twilight, that carried "suggested for mature audiences".

Massive Attack covering  Bela Lugosi's Dead

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGCk-_cz00U&feature=share&fbclid=IwAR0OO5ukOO3tHv-VMwAwMb8vCVGMjey7BBIPLw3T0l_PtJxG8VnoXP20ljY

Blimey, this is great! Though not better than Bauhaus, The Hunger version (which is quite rare to find).