I hate it when people respond to articles about murdered trans women with shit like “So sad, everyone should have a right to be who they are/express themselves/etc”
A woman was just killed, why the fuck do they immediately think of like, a tragic loss of self expression.
Is it cuz they think trans women are so weird that “be yourself” is the first thing they think of? Not, like, we’re human with precious lives and we experience violence that needs to stop?
If women covering up their bodies worked, Afghanistan would have a lower rate of sexual assault than Polynesia. It doesn’t.
If not drinking alcohol worked, children would not be raped. They are.
If your advice to a woman to avoid rape is to be the most modestly dressed, soberest and first to go home, you may as well add “so the rapist will choose someone else”.
If your response to hearing a woman has been raped is “she didn’t have to go to that bar/nightclub/party” you are saying that you want bars, nightclubs and parties to have no women in them. Unless you want the women to show up, but wear kaftans and drink orange juice. Good luck selling either of those options to your friends.
Or you could just be honest and say that you don’t want less rape, you want (even) less prosecution of rapists."
this is one of always reblog kind
The Castle of the Living Dead (1964) had me wondering if I was watching an art movie riffing on the Seventh Seal or an incredibly clumsy rip off of several things including that and some horror movies. Was Donald Sutherland deliberately bad or intentionally over acting Sgt. Paul? He does manage eery in his role as the Old Lady, but is that intentional given how bad he is as Paul? Was the make up meant to be that terrible on Christopher Lee’s character in particular for some symbolic reason or did the person doing make up know less about horror makeup than I did at ten? Making up Sutherland as the old lady had to have been harder, and while it looked artificial, the effect there was eerie rather than irritating. This has been by far the most interesting of the Hammer Films so far.
The Mummy (1959), I remembered better, but decades of historical study had me yelling at the screen. So much was wrong, so much, even if you leave out the obvious things involving othering of and painful misrepresentation of modern Egyptians, the effect of bog water on desert mummies (bog mummies and dry mummies are very different), the whole historical and supernatural stuff that one has to suspend disbelief on, etc.. Examples: Me, shaking fist at TV, “What sort of Archeologists use dynamite to ‘close the tomb!’” “That’s a city, not a God! Why are you praying to a city? What sort of shit cultist are you that you can’t even get the name of one of your gods right!” Squirrel eventually came out of his cave to see what the fuss was about. Clearly, I am too old for this film. I’m pretty sure I thought it was amusing when my age was in single digits. I ended up left with all these questions about the motivations of the Scotland yard man. Was this poor script and character design or incredibly clever acting, or the opposite of those things? Is this intentionally enigmatic or accidentally so?
The Curse of Frankenstein (1957) is kind of rapey. I have no idea how the original audience saw the film. To my modern eyes, they seem to be depicting mental illness on one side and a whole bunch of enabling with a side order of vaguely inappropriate on the other. Strangling is generally considered somewhat sexual in nature. I’m guessing the tutor is meant to be the romantic lead, but imagine yourself in bed and an acquaintance bursts into your room and starts babbling about how you shouldn’t marry his best friend. Now imagine you are a regency period woman and he has just ruined all your prospects on top of the creepy bursting into your room in the middle of the night don’t marry my friend thing. Terrifying, right? Only she chats cheerfully away at him. Victor Frankenstein is a mysogynist who lies to women to get them in bed and is very likely in the midst of a protracted manic episode. There is a man wandering around strangling people. Yes, I get that the tutor is the least dangerous of these options, but he enabled all this and he’s a pretty dubious choice. My question is, is this an intentional indictment ofthe choices women are faced with in a toxic patriarchy, or did the folks who made this think the tutor was a genuine romantic lead?
I’m still catching up with things I taped as far back as October. (I caught up the weekly shows first. Now I’m trying to pick up movies, comedy specials, and reruns). Turner ran a ton of old Hammers Halloween week and I caught what I could when I wasn’t taping other things. I know, I know, it’s silly to complain about historical inaccuracy in Hammer films. They are camp, childhood cheese, something I shared with my father throughout my childhood, the movie equivalent of comfort food. I ended up catching a whole bunch of less popular ones. (I can get the Lee/Cushing Vampires at the library, but less famous offerings not so much) Sure, I’ve seen them, but we are talking back in the ‘70’s and ‘80’s when they would turn up on Creature Double Feature or Doctor Shock. The result is a weird mix of the remembered, half remembered, and adult wtf response. I’m slowly making my way through.