- Atlanta, GA
- Last Active
The theme of self-destruction was very powerful for me, especially since I haven't been writing much lately. Especially since less than 1 month ago I had one of those magical writing days you only have once in every like 2 years. (They are the best thing in the world, let me tell you. Sex, food, drugs, nothing is better than the magical writing day that happens once in every like 2 years.)
But still, writing is a net positive for me in almost every respect. The first 10 minutes are hell, but then it's just great, and it's almost never not great, and so fucking why don't I do it? Why am I ruining this good thing?
But about the movie...
The movie blatantly states it's about self-destruction and then annihilation.
Self-destruction is the point of showing Lena's affair. She had a happy marriage, but she still blew it up. Somehow her husband knew about it; I think because he saw it from the Shimmer. And that's why he didn't want to leave the Shimmer. Jim and Aron are both incredibly smart, so I'm surprised that they didn't pick up on the affair's importance to the theme — regardless of how Lena's husband saw the affair or even if he saw. There was a line of dialogue directly referencing it, right? But this is an anomaly, them both missing something like that. So maybe I'm overestimating this as obvious.
Self-destruction is in our cells, but the movie posits that it's in our minds too, in our psychology. We are capable of psychological cancer.
And the Shimmer was picking up on all of that, because the psychologist character kept feeding it people who had nothing to lose. Therefore, the Shimmer was mimicking that hopelessness, that death of self.
One could argue, "Oh, so literally everyone who walked into the Shimmer was someone who, in that moment, happened to want to self-destruct? That's convenient." And I would say, "No, I think it's more that we all have the capacity for self-destruction, latent and subconscious. The convenient thing is that Lena was the first person to show the Shimmer that we also have the capacity to be a phoenix, reborn from our own ashes."
So Lena is the Shimmer reborn, in that final image of the film. She's definitely herself reborn too — I don't buy into the mirror Lena ending theories, which subvert the whole movie. I think the film was too finely written to be in service of a twist. I think we're supposed to know Lena has got the Shimmer in her. Whatever that means. Thematically, though, she faced her own tendency towards self-destruction (vis-a-vis the faceless clone). She stopped fighting it; she saw herself in it; and then she could overcome it. And now she is something new. New, but also herself. Changed.
Her husband, however, did die in the Shimmer. And a clone husband at the end doesn't fit thematically if you think about it in terms of him. In terms of Lena, he represents the mentality of her affair: a shadow of himself, a warm body, an aspect no longer worth regarding. And he represents all the work she is going to have to do to rebuild this marriage, to rebuild the true vision/version of her husband.
Hunkulese said:telephoneofmadness said:And yeah, the poor craftsmanship of that tooth flooring was the most shocking thing about the dollhouse reveal.
I will say having a random tooth in there for Camille to pick up was a little silly.
That was from her fresh kill.
I haven't watched the video, but I'm not uneducated about it. It's like driving a car to me. I'm just gonna do it. I've looked at the diet options available to me to avoid obesity, and low carb is vastly the easiest of the options, and there's no way I'm doing that without meat.
People should really shut up about GMOs though. That direction is the future of food, and the sooner we get there the better. I welcome synthetic meat.
So my favorite character of all time is Q from Star Trek. I've always said that I could never meet John de Lancie, the actor who portrays Q, because I would dissolve into a puddle. Basically, I felt that it would psychologically overwhelm me to the point where I wouldn't want to do it, would disassociate or something.
So, in the spirit of doing hard things, I got my picture with him at Dragon Con on Sunday. The two days leading up to it, I was depressed. Yeah, my anxiety hit so hard I got really down on everything, and it took a while to figure out this was why. Dramatic right? And now I'm just unable to think about it, unwilling to even look at the photo beyond the initial confirmation that I look okay. But I took it because I know it's something I would like to look at 20 years from now. And also because I'm in my 30s, goddammit, the celebrity hysterics aren't charming anymore.
Was this positive enough for this thread? I can't tell, but I do feel positive about it overall.
Edit: Oh yeah, I should probably describe how it went. I had literally 5 seconds with him. I said hi, he said hi, we took the photo, I said thank you and left. When I shared the photo with my sister and cousin afterwards, they were like "DID YOU ASK HIM IF HE WOULD BE IN THE PICARD SHOW." Hahaha. Both of them, same question. Nope, fucking fastest non-interaction ever. It's really absurd. I had another photo op with Shohreh Aghdashloo, and she like fucking grabbed both of my hands and hugged me. She is queen of my fucking heart now. But Star Trek alums... they are so over it. They don't even want to touch you because of con germs.
Someone in line said of John de Lancie, "He's taking advantage of this while it lasts, in a few more years there won't be anyone in this line." I replied, "I don't know, he's doing pretty good so far." All Good Things was 25 years ago. There was another chick in the line, by herself, younger than me. Yes, we exchanged phone numbers.
CretanBull said:JaimieT said:
I don't think it's poorly argued at all. I think it's well argued. I think some of the punishments would be difficult to implement, but maybe that's what you mean, that there should be arguments about how to implement the punishments... (Ah, I just read your last paragraph. It sounds like you think the argument is superfluous, not that it's poorly done.)
"...a lot of the problems that she points to aren't really about 'men' generally..." - She's talking about how men are the only cause of unwanted pregnancies, and how it would be more rational for the pro-life movement to push for legislation on sperm. I think it's a great idea to push for punishment for the irresponsible treatment of women's bodies and lives, and in some cases, abortions. It might be the thing necessary to get pro-life men to take a look in the mirror.Her position doesn't address the underlying problems, it just shifts blame in hopes that re-contextualizing the problem will make men look at the issue differently. The argument that she's presenting isn't her end goal, it's a stepping-stone argument meant to lead us to where she ultimately wants us to go.My issue with that is that she's accepting at face value that power and decision making are the domain of men. Broken down, her argument is "things are the way they are because men have made decisions that burden us with responsibility for the repercussions of sex. If we want things to change, we need shift the burden back to them so that men can make new decisions that don't burden us."My point is twofold, don't make it about men broadly - you'll lose allies - make it about the puritanical people (mostly men) who think that it's ok for them to impose their religious views on women (that's the ultimate root of the problem). Also, reject the construct that these people have the right to make decisions about your body...don't look for fairness by shifting the responsibility back on those men in hopes that they'll make empathetic choices - demand the right to make your own decisions.
Well we've tried that for a long time and it isn't changing any minds.
"You'll lose allies"? That's rich. Again, as if we should be concerned about all of this being palatable to men...
Pro-lifers are driven by one thing: ending murder. Giving them a more effective way to do that is a great idea.
letrbuck2006 said:I almost always stay out of political discussions/arguments because I hate the way they always turn out, getting blown up by one or both sides. I've seen and had conversations in the forums with most if not all of the people in this discussion and what this conversation has turned into is so much worse than who we all are. I recommend an admin close the discussion or make it a point to get it back on track.
With that being said today's world is growing in population and the conditions of animals raised for meat is declining further and further the more we eat. I'll be the first person to admit I don't help the situation because I eat a pretty good amount of all meats. I have for a few years now gone in on part of a cow and know that the conditions of those cows are favorable. I get most my eggs from my sister who has chickens and I know they live in good conditions. I try to get as much info as possible but when you throw a party for a bunch of people and have tacos you have no idea where that ground beef you bought from the local grocery store came from.
I don't know what the solution to this is but populations are only going to continue to grow and I hope that somebody ends up having a ethical solution to this but until that times comes we will just have to do the best we can.
Michael, who is the fucking salt of the earth, got the thread back on track. The thread gets back on track when we stop talking about it. Michael needs to stand next to some politician, help him out with his aura of honesty and hard work. Michael 2020.
russkelly said:Day one of Keto is complete. Logged every calorie and every macro into a spreadsheet. If nothing else, it is a real eye opener as to what exactly goes into my body when I eat. I consumed a surprisingly large amount of vegetables. Felt pretty full all day.
Good for you! Chicken broth is your friend this week. You'll be shedding sodium so get plenty.