Why Dune is hopefully (not) going to be The New Star Wars?
Dune has become a mega hit grossing a lot of money and gathering critical acclaim making it the perfect blockbuster. Under the steady hand of one of the best directors working today, Denis Villeneuve has made what people are already calling a modern classic. Since Dune consists of many more books it is only natural […]
Why Dune is hopefully (not) going to be The New Star Wars? Read More »
Dune has become a mega hit grossing a lot of money and gathering critical acclaim making it the perfect blockbuster. Under the steady hand of one of the best directors working today, Denis Villeneuve has made what people are already calling a modern classic.
Since Dune consists of many more books it is only natural to assume more films will follow.
Is this a good idea? Can the franchise sustain itself through multiple films spanning centuries?
I am not well enough versed in the books to comment on this convincingly, but what I can gather is that the books are decreasing in quality overall. At one point Frank Herbert’s son continued writing the books after his father’s passing. For people who like the books, the consensus is that the first book is best followed by Dune Meesai (the second one) and so on.
We all remember the disaster that was the final season of Game of Thrones. That show ran out of source material and was left to their writers to finish it, a task they were not able to do satisfactorily. In the case of Dune, You have a lot of books before running out, but at some point, you are going to run out since they don’t get published anymore.
Denis Villeneuve is probably not going to direct all of them. He seems like a guy who wants to pursue his creative callings. With Villeneuve leaving combined with a decline in the quality of the source material I can only see troubles ahead for the Dune franchise.
All franchises, no matter how powerful and popular, will inevitably run out of steam. If we examine the biggest movie franchises in the world like Marvel and Star Wars it’s clear that their popularity is rapidly falling. No king rules forever and it’s the same here. At some point, people are simply going to get tired of it. At one time Westerns were the big films everybody made. They were the superhero movies of the past, yet at some point, the hype dwindled and they stopped making them. Today westerns are a rare breed.
Dune is a relatively new cinematic player in all this and the demand for big expansive sci-fi universes might not be as big as first thought. As I understand it the books become more and more strange and trippy. I am not convinced today’s audience is ready for the strange classic sci-fi feel.
Dune is a cool universe with awesome ideas and concepts, yet some of them are sidelined or missing in the two films by Villeneuve. Dune Part 2 also concludes very differently from the book. I am all for making changes to make stronger adaptations since you can’t adapt a book 100% faithfully and I do feel Villeneuve made the right changes.
On a personal level, I am not convinced Timothée Chalamet is of the caliber of actor who can carry this kind of film. When he has to yell and have a big presence on screen he fails miserably in my opinion of course.
The last problem is not so much a problem with Dune moreso a problem with the way Hollywood turns everything into franchises. This constant franchissation stems from Marvel where everything had to lead up to the next film. There was no closure and no satisfying end to the story. Dune suffers from the same problem having part 2 end with so much plot not resolved.
The constant need for more and more movies makes it so we don’t get things ending in a good way. Consider The Empire Strikes Back. The film ends with so many things not being concluded. Yet we feel satisfied when we see Lea and Luke along with the droids looking out into space knowing the adventure is not over. However, the film and the emotional progression of the film have led it to end at that moment making for a satisfying ending.
In Dune Part 2 the 5 noble houses have just landed and Paul is on his way to talk to them. Part 3 is properly going to open with him walking straight to them. Having movies being liked together this way is a mistake due to a lack of closure. If nothing is being rapped up at all and everything just keeps going then what is actually the point of watching if I have to see the next one anyway?
We also see Chadi out afterward, we know she is out on her own now, and showing her now serves as another reminder of unresolved plot threats. Imagine if we in The Empire Strikes Back cut to Han Solo being captured before cutting the film. In that case, we would feel less satisfied with the ending.
I assume the reason Dune did this was to build a cliffhanger for the next film. However, cliffhangers only really work on TV when you know the next episode is coming in a week or so. In film, most people have forgotten the cliffhanger by the time the new film rolls out.
I do not hope Dune becomes the next Star Wars. I have seen Star Wars crumpled into something monstrous and vile. Something that was none of the original magic that made a whole generation fall in love with movies. The characters are pale imitations of their former self, a mere shadow of time long past. No one aside from delusional fans is getting excited for Star Wars anymore. After all, it’s hard to give a shit when you know they will just pump out another one in no time. I don’t want to see Dune get to this point. If they are smart they will simply make another one to finish the trilogy, but I have a feeling they would not do so. They will milk it till no one cares anymore like so many times before.
Why Productivity is starting to be a problem
Feeling down? Lazy? Unproductive? Are you tired of wasting day after day scrolling through your phone or playing video games all day? Do you feel you need to do MORE or at least do something instead of being a piece of furniture in your own home? FEAR NOT! YouTube is filled to the breaking point
Feeling down?
Lazy?
Unproductive?
Are you tired of wasting day after day scrolling through your phone or playing video games all day?
Do you feel you need to do MORE or at least do something instead of being a piece of furniture in your own home?
FEAR NOT!
YouTube is filled to the breaking point with “productivity tubers” YouTubers who teaches people how to be more productive and stuff.
Why is there such a big focus on productivity and why is it all bullshit?
I’m glad you asked, Let’s find out!
Productivity stems from the corporate world where the term means something like:
The measure of output per worker, per hour, or some crap like that.
You all know what the term means, it’s about how much shit you get done in a certain amount of time.
The workplace is designed to be unproductive
First of all, it is widely accepted that humans can only focus for about 4 hours a day, some can focus a little more, some a little less. The idea of having the workday be 8 hours is terrible and a remnant from a time long gone. The truth is that most people go to work and work for 4 hours. The rest of the time they try to look like they work.
More and more jobs are boring office jobs, if you are a carpenter or someone who works with their hands producing something then you do the Lord’s work at this point. The rest of us go to our 9-5 where it is impossible to do proper work because the workplace has built-in distractions.
Newton did not work out the theory of relativity in a cubicle or an open office place. If you have a lot of people around you the chances of getting distracted are that much higher. The goal is to enter the flow state of work which is impossible for Karen keeps talking about her stupid kids.
Maybe you have your own quiet office where you can get some work done. Good for you, you are one of the lucky ones, yet your flow is also under attack from the constant bombardment of E-mails.
You start your day getting some work done, then an Email pops up, and another one, and another one, or maybe you start your day answering all your Emails which is not work, the work you have to do is the work you get paid to do, and that is not answering Emails.
Another booby trap of the workplace is meetings where people who do not do real work talk about what everybody else ought to do. Going to meetings is such a waste of time, they are rarely scheduled properly with way too much time being wasted on crap.
The perfect work day is where you meet and you work focused on your actual job in chunks without distractions. After 4-5 hours meetings and mails can be worked on.
The British Philosopher Bertrand Russel talked about the 2 types of jobs
The workers who move stuff around (the producers)
The workers who tell others to move stuff around (the middle managers)
The first one is not paid very well, the second gets paid the big bucks.
Why is it like this? You might ask, because capitalism is predicated on keeping the working class down that is why a work day is 8 hours even though there is no need for it. The 8-hour workday is particularly cynical since you are tired enough so you don’t do anything when you get home other than watching Netflix, but it is also short enough so you can do it the next day and the next. It robs you of your freedom and your only life.
We all know this to be the truth yet no one can talk about it for fear of being called a communist or lazy. Capitalism has done some good things for us, but it is time to seriously rethink it instead of doing the same old shit.
The workday used to be much longer and in other countries, a workweek can reach up to 60 hours. Change is possible.
The Burnout Society and Hustle Culture
German/Korean philosopher Byung-Chul Han wrote the book The Burnout Society where he outlined a lot of problems with the modern-day workplace. According to Han, the problem arises from an excess of productivity.
Han outlines a society obsessed with achievement where nothing is enough. To Han, the problem is an abundance of positivity.
“Of course, I can stay for an hour more”
“I will be glad to work weekends”
“Of course, I can be more productive”
We have little in-between time to figure out who we are and what we want.
Another aspect of the burnout society that Han does not talk about, but is yet still prevalent is the concept of grinding or hustle culture in which you are incentivized to work ALL THE TIME!
Just keep working, don’t worry about the fact you only have a limited amount of focus a day, just keep working and don’t you dare stop for if you do you might find the existential angst creeping up on you again. And we can’t have that.
The question is
What am I exactly supposed to be working on? Every single hustle culture guru is oddly vague about this part.
What if I already have a job?
Start a side hustle or build your own business.
As Han said we are pressured to all be entrepreneurs and a lot of the YouTupe productivity channels feel like they are targeting the wannabe entrepreneurs. Don’t think too much, just grind! The fact that 90% of startups fail is irrelevant, it is only because they did not grind enough.
Luck plays a major role in being successful, much more then fucking grinding dose, that is not to say you should not work hard and that you should not make sacrifices IF you want to be an entrepreneur, but again most people are pressured to be an entrepreneur without really wanting to. Ebtrupernourship is seen as the only worthwhile pursuit.
Also, the idea of a side hustle is stupid as hell.
You can no longer just have a hobby that makes you happy, everything has to be monetized.
Do you like cooking? Make a YouTube channel or God forbid a TikTok account.
No one is finding what makes them happy because everything is about that DOLLAR YALL. CASH RULES EVERYTHING AROUND ME! C-R-E-A-M.
It is easy to have a side hustle if you already have a giant following. If you are just some random dude you won’t grow a following that fast.
Just look at me I am writing on this blog with no readers why? Because I like doing it, it’s my hobby, it’s an outlet.
No one in society is talking about happiness and fulfillment. That is why we have hundreds of models to measure output in the workplace and none to measure fulfillment or happiness.
Productivity is not only prevalent in the work environment, but more so than ever the need for productivity on the home front is increasing.
What exactly am I going to be productive about? What should I do when I get home from work? The answer should of course be “exactly what you want to do”. After a long day at work, there is not exactly something you should do.
The perfect routine doesn’t exist
If you want to be more productive you can watch productivity tips on YouTube or even worse productive vlogs made in a “Day in a Life” style. The problem with productive vlogs is that they are mostly people who are already content creators, so they wake up and have to do some filming and editing, yet the majority of the video is filled with shit like workouts and skincare routines… Is this productivity? These blogs are spending very little time on the thing they are producing.
It seems like nobody knows what the word productivity means anymore. Is it really a productive day if I wake up, make breakfast, work out, and do a skin routine? Are these not normal ass things to do? Productivity online means to “live with purpose” or something like that. Whereas in the corporate world, it means how much you produce.
All these tips and vlogs are plenty, but the point of productivity is so simple it almost hurts me how much time people spend producing productivity content when it can be boiled down.
Here is the rundown:
During the day there are things you NEED to do and things you WANT to do. If you have to do your job and provide for yourself or your family. That would be a thing you NEED to do. Work takes up the majority of the time for most people. After your work you can do what you want, here lies the tricky part. Most people have something they WANT to do, it can be anything from learning to play an instrument to writing a book. However, most people get distracted during the day and end up not doing what they want. The average adult is on social media 3-4 hours a day, which is plenty of time to build a good habit. The problem is that most people do not live an authentic life so they have no idea what they want.
MY productivity tips
TIP: put your phone away and do what you are passionate about
Identify what we NEED to do during the day, it could be to do work or clean the house, pick up kids, or whatever. Afterward, identify what you WANT to do in your heart. It could be writing a book. You set a block of time to do those things, preferably as early as you can. If you can wake up an hour earlier and work on your book before you go to work you will make a tremendous change in your life. If you do not have time in the morning carve out some time
When you have done what must be done and what you want to do, you are then free to do whatever and with no guilt. Do not feel guilty and think you should do more, focus on what’s at hand, and try to do it again the next day.
The big mistake people make when they plan their day is they plan for the best-case scenario instead of a realistic one. Some days the energy level is just low and you do not feel like doing much.
Again focus on doing what NEEDS to be done and what you WANT to do that no matter how little gets done consistency is king. If you find yourself never being able to do all the things on your to-do list, do less and get it done. Don’t rely on motivation but on a consistent schedule.
It is completely fine if you just want to sit down and watch Netflix or scroll on your phone as long as it is something you truly want and not something you do as a reflex to boredom.
If you take your passion and try to make money from it, it will slowly become like a second job and you will grow to dislike it. The real reason everybody wants to turn their passion into a career is because (as stated before) most people hate their jobs and with good reason. Capitalism is not a system concerned with the individual, but with profit, profit to the people who already have enough money.
Therefore you are kind of damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
What am I going to spend my time on?
Isn’t it telling that we feel a need to be productive even after we have already been to work?
The reason I think you should not try and make money from your hobby is that leisure time is more important than a couple of extra bucks. Without proper relaxation, you will not be able to perform as needed.
Leisure time is almost vilified in modern society. Instead of feeling accomplished from a long day’s work, people either feel the need to do more which leads to burnout or they feel they are not able to do anything other than just sit and be like a potato (solitary tiredness).
The existential angst
The whole issue (as I see it) is a fear of death. The fear that when we are on our deathbed we look back at our life with regret of not doing more. To combat this we fill our calendar up with tasks and events, for if the noise ever stops we are left with our thoughts and that is terrifying. This is also why so many people had trouble doing the COVID lockdowns. Because most people do not take the time to listen to their own thoughts in fear of an existential crisis they keep the noise up, always with headphones in and whatnot. Most workaholics are coping with their existential dread and they know if they stop they will have to deal with their thoughts.
The truth is that the vast majority of people feel regret for working too much and not spending enough time with their loved ones. The fix is therefore not to do more, but to do less. Schedule time with family and friends is more valuable than mindless “productivity”.
5 things Tekken teaches us about life
Tekken is not an easy game. No matter how hard you try and practice, at some point some guy will pick Eddy and you will lose to bullshit, it’s the name of the game. There are so many characters all with hundreds of moves. It is impossible to deal with all of it, especially as
Tekken is not an easy game. No matter how hard you try and practice, at some point some guy will pick Eddy and you will lose to bullshit, it’s the name of the game. There are so many characters all with hundreds of moves. It is impossible to deal with all of it, especially as a new player.
This post is about Tekken as a game, how to improve in it, and what life skills it teaches us.
I am by no means an expert when it comes to Tekken, but I have played and watched a lot of Tekken 7.
With the release of Tekken 8 I thoguht it would be a good idea to explore 5 things Tekken teaches us about life and the game.
1 practice makes perfect
When it comes to Tekken and fighting games in general, there is no way around practice mode. You simply have to practice to get better at the game. It is not enough to simply play the game. You have to learn to punish your opponent’s moves. You have to learn combos so you can do damage.
This process is not fun at all. It’s never fun to suck at something. It’s not fun to be a total beginner when it comes to playing an instrument, it’s fun to be a master who can show off their skills. To get to the point of mastery you need to put in the time.
It truly sucks to spend hours in practice mode falling at a set-up or a combo, but it is necessary for success.
2 You will lose a lot
No matter your talent, you still have to work hard to become good at anything. The very best Tekken players have played the game for years and years and have also gotten their asses beat multiple times in the process.
As mentioned in the beginning there are so many characters with so many moves. It is impossible to know everything, especially as a new player.
Just like life, you split it up into smaller parts.
Instead of learning ALL characters you start by learning your own character. What can they do? What is punishable? Next, you start to learn the most used moves by the most used characters. That way you will know how to handle specific situations.
You have to celebrate the small victories. Celebrate if you finally manage to punish a particular move correctly. Even if you lose the match it’s still worth focusing on what you did well, what works, and what you improved on. Even if it feels like a slow process.
3 don’t use bullshit
Some players only think about winning, not improving. It can be tempting to pick a bullshit character with a lot of moves that are hard to punish for beginners. However, this is not a good way to improve at the game.
If you play like that it will feel good to win in the beginning, but at some point you will rise in the ranks and meet someone who knows what to do against your moves.
Because you have spent no time improving at the game you are not able to adapt in a fight when someone knows your gameplan. Thus you will lose a couple of ranks only to be put back where you started and the whole thing continues again.
Believe me, it is endlessly satisfying to finally figure out how to deal with certain playstyles and moves that you struggled with before.
4 Learn from players better than yourself
There are a lot of streams you can watch to get inspiration. However, Watching the very best of the game can be daunting since they play on a completely different level than anyone else.
Instead, if you find yourself losing to the same opponent (who is not using bullshit, but is simply better) ask them for tips and even a practice session.
5 Don’t give up
It can be frustrating and annoying to play the game. At times it feels almost impossible to carry on, but only those who persist through the hard times will improve. It takes time and effort more than anything. It is impossible to get good at the game right away, even for other fighting game specialists.
Bonus Tip Play on PC
In my own experience, people who play on PC are more friendly, less toxic and they rematch more. I personally also found the overall level to be higher.
What is the deal with Guy Ritchie?
Guy Ritchie operates within a strange space in the movie world. He doesn’t seem to be within the same popularity as Spielberg or Tarantino, in fact, I don’t know if mainstream audiences know who he is. On the other hand, his films seem to be making money so he is not a totally unknown identity.
Guy Ritchie operates within a strange space in the movie world. He doesn’t seem to be within the same popularity as Spielberg or Tarantino, in fact, I don’t know if mainstream audiences know who he is. On the other hand, his films seem to be making money so he is not a totally unknown identity. He is definitely a director with a style that utilizes some fast cuts and quippy dialog.
I made a post on Wrath of Man back when it came out in 2021. I was not exactly positive about the film and the truth is I am not exactly positive about Guy Ritchie’s filmography as a whole. I enjoyed his earlier works (especially Snatch) but found myself bored with the way he makes movies. However, sometimes he makes a decent film and I thought it would be fun to explore when his films work and when they don’t.
In 2023 he released 2 movies The Covenant and Operation Fortune. One of them is bad and one is not, let’s talk about the bad first
Operation Fortune
Operation Fortune is an action movie starring long-time collaborator of Guy, Jason Statham.
Statham is not exactly what you would call “a good actor” At best he is a funny and charismatic person to watch on the screen, but no conveyer of great emotion. He is serviceable in certain roles.
This movie has nothing good going for it aside from Hugh Grand hammering up his role to a upsered degree, which I thought was pretty funny at times.
A group of special agents recruits a movie star to steal a secret weapon or something like that. The plot is not important because the only thing that matters is for the main team to be as badass as possible. They might from time to time get outplayed by a rival team, but throughout the movie, all fight scenes are practically the same. The main characters use no effort to dismantle their opponents. Statham is never worried that he may lose a fight, almost like his character has read the script and knows what is up.
The Invincible Hero troupe is something I hate with a passion. It takes all the fun out of action scenes. You are not sitting wondering WHO is going to win, but HOW is the main guy going to beat the bad guy? The idea that Stahom in the film might struggle for just a moment is laughable, and thus there is no tension at all.
Guy Richie also writes dialog in the most annoying and tedious way. The fast quips that dominate his earlier work are particularly bad. It feels like a less polished British version of Tarantino dialogue. He has turned it down over the years, but Operation Fortune is filled with rubbish jokes and characters who are so overdone they hardly feel like real people at all.
Guy Ritchie’s narrative philosophy
On Guy’s appearance on the Joe Rogan Experience, Guy Ritchie outlined his narrative and story philosophy.
The point of all stories according to Guy is the conflict between a character’s authentic self and the pressure from the outside world to conform.
In simple turns a character wants to do something their own way, but is pressured by others to not do that thing.
While I don’t personally subscribe to this theory it does seem to capture a large amount of stories.
Here also lies one more problem with Operation Fortune. It simply is not convincing enough. It is true that Orson is “pressured” to work by the book, but he is always the coolest man in the room. The pressure doesn’t even exist to him. In the end, he even tells his boss to fuck off as he takes a longer vacation than they want him to have…. The struggle is (not) real.
The Covenant
Released in the same year as Operation Fortune, The Covenant is a story about the Afghanistan war following the soldier John Kirby (Jake Gyllenhaal) as he enlists the help of an interpreter named Ahmed (Dar Salim).
The movie is more serious dealing with themes of duty and loyalty. This also means the characters speak in a normal manner and not with the usual Richie dialog.
If we look at the film through Guy Ritchie’s own philosophy we can clearly see what he is trying to achieve. Ahmed is very unorthodox and doesn’t follow John’s orders most of the time. However, Ahmed is always right and he even saves John and his team at one point. We see the established way of doing things challenged by Ahmed.
After Ahmed saves John and drags him to safety he vanishes and decides to stay in Afghanistan. John feels an immense debt to Ahmed that he has to pay back. He tries to arrange for Ahmed to get US citizenship. A task that is much more difficult to achieve than first expected. Now the established forces are fighting against John and he must go a different route in order to secure the citizenship for Ahmed.
The movie thus becomes more focused with a better troughline. The annoying dialog is not a factor and the main characters don’t feel invincible. In fact, there is constant tension throughout the film.
While there are things that don’t really work in the film it does not detract from it being a well-thought-out and well-made film. It’s not the greatest war movie ever made, but for Guy Ritchie, it’s perfectly fine.
So where does Guy Ritchie belong in the mainstream?
He has been married to Madonna and has been on The JRE Podcast, so I guess he is kind of famous, yet I doubt the majority would recognize him on his name alone. His first 2 films are generally looked upon favorably (as do I) and his Sherlock Holmes films were very popular upon release. Though I have not seen them recently and there is a chance they might not hold up as much anymore.
Otherwise, Guy Ritchie is very hit-and-miss. His King Arthur film was not only bad but extremely forgettable.
Guy Ritchie seems to be the kind of director who showed some character and personality early on but failed to continue his momentum into his career.
Most directors generally fall off in terms of quality over the years, Guy fell off really quickly.
I think he has a lot of ideas and an interesting way of approaching movies. However, The overall quality of his filmography is lacking. That being said he is still capable of turning out good films on a rare occasion.
Why It’s important to be authentic
Have you ever felt out of place in the world? Finding once familiar things suddenly felt alien and strange. Have you ever looked at yourself in the mirror only to see a stranger? I think there is a problem with the word and with society. Not a “big” problem like hunger or plagues, but a
Have you ever felt out of place in the world?
Finding once familiar things suddenly felt alien and strange.
Have you ever looked at yourself in the mirror only to see a stranger?
I think there is a problem with the word and with society. Not a “big” problem like hunger or plagues, but a smaller yet still important problem. I think there is a problem of authenticity. People as individuals don’t see themselves in the world as they are anymore, but why is this?
In this post, I will explore the concept of Authenticity and why I feel it’s very important. In my opinion, the concept is overlooked when it comes to modern discourse about living in the modern world. Throughout this post, I will explore the concept from a psychological and philosophical view, as well as adding some thoughts of my own. By the end, I will write some tips on how to be more authentic in the world.
What is Authenticity?
There is nothing that kills momentum more than defining terms, so I will try to be brief here.
For the sake of argument let’s say there is a core self. I know it’s a big discussion in philosophy. This post would be way too long if I were to devote time to that discussion. Even if one does not believe in a core self I think the argument in this post still stands.
When we act according to what we want, our beliefs, and values we become authentic.
The problem is that most people don’t live their life that way. Why is this?
Why are people not Authentic?
Martin Heidegger talked about being in the world. He talks about feeling out of place in the world. He explains this with the concept of “nothingness”. You might find a word or place once familiar to you suddenly appears strange. You might stop and think “Why am I here?”. According to Heidegger, those feelings are examples of nothingness. It jolts us out of our perception of the world.
Let’s say you have to go to a meeting. You could go, but you could also not go. The world is not going to end either way. You are in control of your own life. No one can live your life for you or die your death, death individualizes us. Once you realize the world is this strange place where you are in control you might feel anxious.
Most people slave away doing unfulfilling jobs that over time drain them of any life force. They are left hating themselves for doing boring work in their only life. They are left after a long day’s work too tired to do anything, thus they do not have any outlet for their authentic self.
Søren Kierkegaard says that society is making people inauthentic. This is true not only when it comes to jobs, but in many fascist society.
Popular culture and the internet
Yes, yes social media is bad for you, we have heard it many times before it turns your brain to gravy and destroys your attention span. I would argue it also keeps us from being authentic.
Today everybody is comparing themselves to people online. One thing we know is that social media is a lie. It does not reflect the real world or what people look like. Instagram models use a multitude of filters. Fitness influencers use gear to achieve an unachievable physique. You can’t be authentic if you look to others, you have to look inward, especially when what you compare yourself to is a lie.
When you see “relatable” celebrities on talk shows being “authentic” this is also a lie. It is all a product of a massive marketing and PR machine. They design the interviews to make the celebrities appear as relatable as possible so you buy their products. Idolizing celebrities who are more a brand than a real person thus creates a loop of inauthentic.
On the internet, everything is hyperbolic, angry, and filled with irony. You can’t compliment someone without being called a simp. Thus discuring an expression of otherwise valid appreciation.
I have a friend who is convinced he hates the band Metallica despite never having heard a single song from them. He hates them on a conceptual level. The internet is full of people hating things and people on a conceptual level.
People and their opinions are a product of their feed and not their thoughts. Everything is curated for you. If the songs you listen to are the most streamed songs, if the films you watch are the biggest box office hits are you then authentic? or are you merely following others? If you live in a home designed by a catalog are you living authentically or merely following what other people have decided? The same can be said for cloth.
People watch the same thing, listen to the same music, wear the same clothes, and even live in the same designed home. Where is the room for authenticity?
It is not a problem if you like mainstream stuff, but you have to consider if you really do like it or if you just dislike other stuff on a conceptual level.
Internet intellectuals and outsourcing thinking
The great paradox of the world we live in is that everybody has an opinion about everything, yet people are uninformed about all of those opinions. People hold a lot of opinions and values while being frighteningly under-informed. This is also ironic since everybody has access to so much information via the internet.
The vast growing information network has not made the world a more clear and stable place, far from it. Everybody has their own truth no matter what you believe in or think is right you can find people arguing the opposite point no matter how banal, like the earth being flat.
If you want to be authentic then you simply can’t outsource your intellectual pursuits to a guy with wifi. Most people will watch a video on the topic and be convinced straight away. However, YouTubers rarely have any knowledge of the topic themselves. If you want to live an authentic life you should “do your own research”. I do not mean watching YouTube videos or reading articles from a place you know you are going to agree with. You have to pursue knowledge for the sake of finding the truth.
It takes time to read books and academic articles. Therefore you should only really care about a select few topics. Pick a topic that fascinates you. It can be anything and devote time to study that field.
It is okay to not hold so many opinions. It is healthy to say “I don’t have an opinion on that”. If you do that you will be free to concentrate on what you care about. Otherwise, you are just being pulled around by the masses.
There is no value, only interpretation of values. Don’t take your own opinions and values too seriously. – Nietzsche
Why is it important?
It’s all well and good, but does it actually matter if I live an authentic life or not?
Why is it even important?
More and more people are unhappy, sad, and lonely. People grow more cynical by the minute and the overall capacity for optimism is declining at an alarming rate. The reasons for all these problems are complex and vast. Some problems are on a global level others on a societal level, but authenticity is something you yourself can fix.
Think of it this way all humans have a desire to do something, to achieve goals and pursuits. These goals and pursuits are what make them happy. However, most people have no idea what those pursuits even are, they live their lives on autopilot not knowing anything about themselves and what they find meaningful, the lack of meaning is also a big problem in society. What will happen is you will look in the mirror and think “Who is that?”, “Who am I?”.
There is a you who wants to be expressed in the world. By conforming to society and others’ opinions the individual is left with a silent sadness that will eat away at them for life.
There is little room to be authentic in society, if you deviate from the norm in any substantial way you will be looked at as an “other” who doesn’t belong. Society gives the illusion of freedom, but in reality, it contains the individual and forces it to fit into predetermined categories. The Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard also expressed the notion that society makes us less authentic.
People get shamed in society – you can only be authentic within a box society chooses. – me (Ralle)
Carl Jung said that we all have a true self we come into this world with (soulimprent) and that the individual is to find their authentic self and express it in the real world.
Who can you be what you truly are if you don’t even know yourself
You can either be good or whole, but not both – C. G. Jung
Critique
There are several criticisms directed at the notion of authenticity as I have outlined it. The first one is obvious.
What if my authentic self is to do a lot of bad actions like killing?
To live authentically is to be true to who you are and what you want. However, you must not keep others from reaching their true authenticity. Everybody knows murder is wrong and the vast majority of people do not want to commit murder. So I have to say that you can’t break the law.
Would a society focused on authenticity not become entitled and or narcissistic?
As opposed to today where no one is self-centered at all.
I believe the idea of an authentic life is more about realizing who you are and what you want to do. Today society is too consumer-heavy with too much focus on appealing to the masses, thus the counter is to reflect on a micro level, what do I want to watch, listen to, and read? What are MY goals and aspirations? People living with more purpose would bring more happiness and society would be better for it.
Sartre said that if we are self-constructing beings who make ourselves then authenticity is nothing more than a reference to what feels right at that moment you decide to make an authentic choice.
I do believe he is right in some sense and as already stated the point is merely to live in accordance with what the individual wants and values and not what the masses value.
What to do
With all that being said, what can you do as an individual?
Don´t hold so many opinions. You don’t have to have an opinion of every small thing in the world. Let 90% of what people talk. Go and focus on what you feel the most passionate about. It is more Authentic to have a deep knowledge of areas you feel passionate about than to have an abundance of shallow opinions.
Do not outsource your intellectual pursuits.
Simple tips:
Take a walk for 30-60 min a day with no headphones in. Preferably in nature if possible.
Being with your own thoughts can be terrifying at first, but over time will create the clarity needed to reflect on yourself as an individual.
Reflect on what you like/dislike about what you consume.
Do not be passive consumers. If you watch a show or film, reflect on what you liked and disliked about it. It is okay to like things about something you dislike and vice versa.
You can write down what you thought on a document or a piece of paper, or talk with a friend about it. When you talk about something or write it down you make it more concrete instead of a conceptual thing.
Get out of your comfort zone. To be authentic you need to have tried enough things so you can say what you do not like. Try taking a class, or watching a film in a genre you wouldn’t normally do, the same can be said about music, and listening to something new.
There is nothing wrong with liking mainstream stuff designed by committee, but you have to know what is out there, you need to have heard Metalica to form an opinion on them.
Go to a restaurant or movie by yourself. To form authenticity you have to be alone otherwise to just bounce off others’ energy. Going to the movies alone is not so scary, it’s dark and no one is going to remember you afterward.
You can combine all the tips by going to the movies alone, seeing something you normally would not, and reflecting upon it on a walk afterward.
Master Keaton
You know, Anime is kind of great. As a medium anime has a lot of genres and art styles. The plethora of opportunities also makes it that much harder to find something interesting that is not the popular Shonen battles series. Every season of anime brings with it a lot of shows to watch. With
You know, Anime is kind of great. As a medium anime has a lot of genres and art styles. The plethora of opportunities also makes it that much harder to find something interesting that is not the popular Shonen battles series.
Every season of anime brings with it a lot of shows to watch. With so much shit coming out every year it can be hard to go back to the endless backlog of anime. How can I know what anime is worth watching? What makes it good? And what should I prioritize?
It can indeed be hard to find new stuff, so what I am going to do is use my anime knowledge to highlight shows or Movies I feel have gone under the radar. Since anime have so many different elements and styles to them I am convinced I can recommend something to someone and they will end up liking it.
Todays anime is called Master Keaton
Master Keaton is an anime made by Madhouse. The show is about Taichi Keaton, an insurance agent who solves a variety of different cases. While the initial premise might sound boring I can assure you that it’s not.
Master Keaton is an episodic series with a new story being told in every episode. There is no overarching plot and only a few characters return throughout.
The manga was written by kkkkk the same guy who did 21st century boys and Monster. The style is the same with a focus on more “human” features rather than the classic big eyes and spiky hair anime usually use. This makes for a more serious show. There are no grant power-ups and while there sometimes are exciting action sequences and fights they tend to be more realistic and not so flashy.
The anime is not as serious as Monster with a lot of jokes. Some episodes are more serious than others, but some are just a fun time. One of the strengths of an episodic narrative is that it makes for different feels and moods.
The stories in the show vary greatly. One time Keaton is making his way through a snowstorm with an old man claiming to be immortal. The old man tells strange stories that seem fictional but just might have something more to them. In another episode Keaton is helping someone find a terrorist and in another, he negotiates a hostage situation. All the episodes have great variety and something new and interesting is bound to happen. I watched every episode with a sense of “I wonder what Keaton is up to now”.
Anime has a problem where the protagonist is often the weakest link. Countless subreddits and forum posts have been used to recommend anime with a strong protagonist.
Master Keaton’s biggest strength is the main guy himself. Taichi Keaton is a wonderful protagonist and one of the best in anime history. A common problem with protagonists today is that they are way too stoic, overpowered, and humorless. Well, Keaton is none of those things.
Taichi Keaton is extremely competent when it comes to his job. He has a wide-spanning knowledge, but it comes off as endearing and nerdy (in a good way). He is also very lighthearted and sees the good in everything and everyone. Other characters call him naive and make fun of him, but eventually, they fall for his charming personality. In today’s world that seems so bleak and hopeless it would be great if more people were like Taichi. A little less cynicism and more optimism.
Taichi Keaton also has the right amount of mystery to him. His background is extensive, he is both a former archaeologist and also former SAS special forces. His backstory is only shown in pieces leaving out a clear picture. This further enhances the intrigue and makes you want to see more episodes.
When he fights he doesn’t just beat people with sheer power, he outsmarts them and sometimes even loses. The invincible protagonist is a tedious trope IMO and Keaton avoids this trap by relying on his intuition and wid.
Conclusion
If you are interested in a more serious and adult-led anime with a great variety of stories and an amazing protagonist then look no further. While not all episodes end on a happy note the whole of the show is inspiring and a lot of fun.
I highly recommend if you like:
Adult lead anime
Monster
Mystery
What makes a good slasher
I have a fascination with the horror genre however, I would not call myself a fan of the genre. I have seen plenty of horror films at this point. My favorite subgenre of horror is the slasher flick. Slashers started in the 50s and are centered around killers who murder a group of people. Most
I have a fascination with the horror genre however, I would not call myself a fan of the genre. I have seen plenty of horror films at this point. My favorite subgenre of horror is the slasher flick. Slashers started in the 50s and are centered around killers who murder a group of people. Most often the killer is male and wearing a mask but there are exceptions like the first Friday the 13 movies.
I saw Halloween 2018 and while it is not the worst sequel to a beloved horror franchise it would be a mistake to call it good. At best it was a passible movie that did not fuck too much up, yet still had some interesting new things to bring.
For me, the best slasher films are the original Halloween, Friday 13th, and A Nightmare on Elm Street with Jason, Michaell, and Freddy being the best killers in horror cinema. The Texas Chainsaw Massacre is also a favorite and might be the best of the bunch.
What connects all these movies is also a continuous need to remake them. They all have modern remakes that are all bad or at least way worse than the original.
Why is this?
What makes a slasher film work?
The classic mistake Hollywood makes when making sequels is they make more or less the same movie but bigger. Take Diehard as an example, the first one was great so the second one should be even bigger. Instead of a building, it’s a whole airport with a lot more bad guys and less charismatic villains. It’s bigger, but not better since the elements of what makes the original film were downplayed.
The killings are not the main reason they are scary
In a good slasher, you think “How are they going to survive?”
In a bad one, you think “Someone has to die”
If you are sitting watching the slasher thinking “When is the killing starting” I think the movie is doing something wrong. I do not believe killings are the main reason why slashers are scary. This might sound totally insane but let me explain.
A good slasher film introduces you to the characters and the environment before unleashing the killer. In the original Halloween Michael can be seen in the background stalking his prey biding his time. The characters feel something is watching them, but they do not know. We as an audience know. The scary part of slashers is the possibility of the murder. The killer might be right behind you, in the closet, or nowhere near. The scary part is that at any time one of the characters might meet a brutal end.
I found Halloween 2018 had a lot more deaths than the originals. However, more is not better in slasher movies. The reason Friday 13th works is because you know the characters so you know who they are. The same goes for Halloween. Having characters you know die is more impactful than if some random guy gets killed off screen like in Halloween 2018.
In Halloween 2018 we see a lot of killings of random people done offscreen. We see their dead bodies mangled in horrific ways. This is a terrible way of doing it. We don’t get the dread since we do not know these characters and we don’t get to see the killings, and while it is not the only reason a slasher movie works, killings are still important.
In Halloween 2018 you follow Michael a lot, which I also think is to the film’s detriment. Again the important thing is the potential of murder, if you know where the killer is you know when the murder will happen.
In Halloween 2018 we see Michael walk from the street to the back of a house. The camera goes in through the window where a worried mother is looking outside. Michael walks up behind her and straps her through the neck. This scene is awful, the kill is too fast and you see it coming from a mile away. The ideal way to start such a scene is to be already inside the house. If we know where Michael is we know when the kill happens. It also doesn’t work since we do not know the character and thus it becomes a scene to further the kill count more so than the film.
Don’t kill the killer
In slashers like Scream where the whole point is that anybody could be the killer and where the killer is a normal person it is more acceptable to kill the killer. However, if the killer is an evil force of nature like Freddy, Michael, or Jason then I would recommend not killing the killer at the end.
The first reason is that if you are going to make sequels and reboots the villain becomes less scary if you know you can kill him. Personally, I think it works better if you escape the killer instead of killing him off. You can also do it like A Nightmare on Elm Street where you think Freddy is dead, but in the last scene of the film, it becomes clear he is very much alive.
Conclusion
I think most modern slashers are bad because they do not take into consideration what makes good horror work. Good horror is the anticipation, the dread of waiting for something to happen.
There is also a lot to be said about the theme of adolescence, sexual frustration, and liberation when it comes to slasher since the killer often kills young horny teenagers. However, I don’t think I can contribute to the discussion.
Slasher movies might be considered a basic subgenre and not worth too much brain power, but I think it is worth exploring facets and digging a bit deeper into why some are better than others.
My dinner with Leo Grande
Movies today are getting more and more bombastic. Everything is out of proportion. Movies have gotten bigger and bigger. There is more money, more CGI, more hype, more of everything. The pace of movies is lightning fast to make sure the ADHD TikTok rotten audience isn’t bored for a millisecond. Frances like Marvel and Star Wars have gotten
Movies today are getting more and more bombastic. Everything is out of proportion. Movies have gotten bigger and bigger. There is more money, more CGI, more hype, more of everything. The pace of movies is lightning fast to make sure the ADHD TikTok rotten audience isn’t bored for a millisecond. Frances like Marvel and Star Wars have gotten too big, to the point where they feel inflated and boring despite the large amount of money in play.
When movies are like this, it becomes impossible to think clearly. To just sit down and let the experience of the film take you over.
Today I want to highlight 2 films that are completely opposite to most blockbusters today. 2 films where dialog is at the center, where the location is only one place (at least for 99% of the film).
The 2 films in question are My Dinner with Andre and Good Luck to You, Leo Grande.
They both focus on 2 people who are meeting in one setting with conversation carrying the film.
The first film is Good Luck to You, Leo Grande from 2022.
The film is about Nancy, a retired teacher who hires a sex worker named Leo for some.. Wel, Sex, following the passing of her husband. The two characters meet in a hotel room over a period of time. Throughout the film, the two talk and open up to each other, and the two of them grow following their relationship.
It’s a simple idea for a movie, but that is the beauty of it, simplicity.
The majority of the film takes place in the hotel room that Nancy has booked. They meet 4 times in this room. Nancy is not at all into the idea at first and tries many times to stop it, saying she will pay for the horse anyway. She has not been with anybody since her husband died and she fears what other people might think of her if they found out about her little adventure.
While sex is a big part of the film the majority of the film is spent in that one room talking. Sex serves more as a metaphor for self-liberation and discovery. Nancy has never had an orgasm, not even by herself, and in the end, she is able to get one. This is a basic story beat, but it follows the theme of not caring what other people think. She is only able to orgasm after she has told one of her former students what is going on and what she is doing.
The film also explores a bit about Leo, but I did not find that as interesting as Nancy´s story. I also found it a little forced, but I see how it is necessary since otherwise, the run time would be too short.
After a good time with a hunky Irishman, you might work up an appetite and go to dinner.
A dinner with an old friend named Andre
My dinner with Andre is exactly that. It is two friends meeting up and talking about everything and nothing.
The film centers on two former friends who have worked in the theater industry for many years meeting up again for dinner. All of the film takes place in the restaurant except for a couple of minutes at the beginning of the film.
The movie feels like a play with the two characters taking center stage with the restaurant staff taking on the role as background characters who occasionally occasionally disrupt the flow of the film.
The two friends talk about a lot of different subjects, but a nice thematic clash happens toward the end of the film with Anre saying the comfort of society is slowly killing us. The other part Wallace is just trying to survive and the comfort in his everyday life is what keeps him going.
The movie is definitely worth watching since it is so simple yet very thought-provoking with its many ideas.
If you find modern movies to be too big, loud, and overly long with way too many threats to keep track of. Try a double feature with these two films, where the focus is the small connection between humans.
Why I don’t like Marvel (MCU)
This post is slightly ferocious, the point is not to make people mad or be an annoying contrarian. I find myself not really connecting to the MCU the same way others do. I thought it would be fun to highlight my reasons for disliking the MCU. Don’t take it too seriously since it’s only my
This post is slightly ferocious, the point is not to make people mad or be an annoying contrarian. I find myself not really connecting to the MCU the same way others do. I thought it would be fun to highlight my reasons for disliking the MCU. Don’t take it too seriously since it’s only my opinion.
Caveats
This post is only about The cinematic universe. I have no opinion on the comics at all.
Second of all, I feel like I have to state my biases.
I read DC comics in my childhood and teen life. I am/was a huge fan of DC comics, their heroes and villains, I have never really gravitated towards Marvel in any way. I have never actively disliked Marvel, but I still can’t stand their movies.
I could make this post about why I don’t like the DCEU too, but I dislike Marvel films for different reasons than I do DC comics movies.
Lastly, I have not seen all of the Marvel movies. However, those I haven’t seen are from phase 4. I was caught up until recently.
The Good
Before raging too much about what I hate, I might as well talk a bit about the things I like about the MCU.
I admired their ambition, planning, and foresight. Having multiple different heroes introduced in their own movies and then come together in the first Avengers movies was actually fun to watch. I still remember seeing the first Avengers in theaters and having a good time and to this day that movie is something I look back on fondly.
Other Marvel movies I enjoy are
Winter Soldier, for being a solid spy movie with twists and turns, along with some kickass fighting scenes. The relationship between Steve and Bucky is an example of earned pathos.
The bromance between Steve and Falcon is also good
Iron Man 3
Yes, I like this one. First of all, I like it because Shane Black wrote it and he is very good indeed.
Second of all, I like it because it dared do something different, which it of course was punished for by the fans (typical). The fact that Tony Stark had PTSD from prior events is actually a really good and interesting thing to write into a superhero movie.
I also liked the twist with Ben Kingsley’s character and thought it was subverted well. But once again an example of clever writing being redcorned because of fan outrage.
The Bad
Let’s start with an overview of the characters I do not like
Captain America
The name itself is painful, maybe because I am not American and throughout my life, I have grown tired of the endless American patriotism. The Name feels like something from Team America.
He also fights with a shield which is inherently uncool if you ask me.
His powers are human yet superhuman. Not really cool.
Black Widow
WHAT?!?! An alien invasion! Fear not! We have a Russian Spy in thigh latex.
Thor
It’s not really good to steal a whole pantheon. You do not get points for creativity by straight-up stealing from Norse mythology.
The Villains
Marvel villains are also extremely underwhelming. I can’t think of a single good one besides Tinky Winky in the endgame. None of the villains stuck with me at all. They are all bland and forgettable because the focus is on the hero. The hero has to be the best and the funniest.
Do you know who Darren Cross is? No, I didn’t either, I had to look up what his name was. He is the villain from The First Ant-Man. He is an evil version of the hero just like Killmonger, abomination, Red Skull, and I could go on and on. Some would argue that the villains are not supposed to be good since it’s all about the heroes and their struggles and stories. You need a proper villain to push the hero to overcome something, if the challenge is not from a villain then where is it from?
Overall
Here are some pointers for what I overall do not like about these films.
First of all, I hate the dialogue. Every single character talks the same bloody way at this point. It’s all jokes and quips, and none of it is that funny.
Thor started out as this mythical hero character which he is (even though he is a ripoff), but later when Taika took over the Thor franchise he started talking like everybody else. He never takes anything seriously and all he does is joke. The Thor we meet in the first film is not the same as in Ragnarok. The digression of his character is also not “character development” since we don’t see him build to being a jokester in any of the other films.
Marvel movies have lost touch with themselves. When Thor throws the ball onto the wall and then hits himself, that scene is like a bad slapstick movie and not a superhero movie. When Zeus flickers his clothes off and one of the female characters literally faints, you sit back with a feeling of seeing a movie you are too old for.
The big one
By far my biggest problem with Marvel movies is that they feel like a chain, where every link in the frances is becoming less and less good/interesting/watchable. All the movies feel like it’s simply building toward the next one. It is a franchise where the whole is so much better than the sum of its parts. Every movie is weak and not worth watching on its own.
The movies take advantage of the idea that people love to see something/someone they like interact with something else they like. That is also why people geek out over easter eggs. It feels like they force references and characters into the movie to make fans happy.
I also don’t like how unwieldy the whole thing has become. A new person to the franchise would have to watch 20+ movies and God knows how many series. How many of those could be skipped? Well, none since they all contain references and information about the broader universe, but on a quality level, most of them are simply not worth watching.
My big problem is more with the idea of a shared universe. It is not Marvel themselves, but they are the ones who have perfected it for better and for worse.
I don’t like how movies have become like television. The MCU feels like a continuous series that you have to watch in order to see the next one. I personally am a big movie guy and don’t like watching TV series.
This is also why good artists can never work on a Marvel film. Because the important thing is to make something from a checklist.
You need to give this and that character this much screen time
You need these references
All characters need to have at least one dubious joke that is not funny upon reflection.
Conclusion
The characters are not to my liking, both in terms of aesthetics and overall coolness factor. I find none of them appealing and have no wish seeing them do anything.
My biggest problem is more with the idea of a shared universe and how everything has become a franchise.
When you make movies by committee instead of with visionary directors the art suffers. It becomes more important to feed the giant Hollywood machine than to make good movies.
The truth is I don’t really have anything against Marvel as a collection of superheroes. My problem is that they created a trend where everybody is making shared universes, and I truly believe that when creating such a universe the important part becomes how to set up the next film instead of making a good film here and now.
I realize that I come off as a bit of an elitist with this post and that is not my initiation. I have liked Marvel films in the past and I am generally not opposed to fun. The problem is also the fact that I don’t feel there is anything good being made and that the quality of films is worse than ever before. I would not have a problem with Marvel if I could watch something else, but I can’t, everything is bad.
If you like Marvel movies then that is okay, but don’t expect me to.
Some quick non-spoiler thoughts about Oppenheimer
Christopher Nolan is properly the best-regarded director in the last 20 years along with Tarantino. He has a way of blending incredible blockbusters with thought-provoking ideas. He has made a bridge between the arthouse fans and the modern moviegoer. He has breached the gap between deep thought-provoking themes and great action set pieces with a minimum use
Some quick non-spoiler thoughts about Oppenheimer Read More »
Christopher Nolan is properly the best-regarded director in the last 20 years along with Tarantino. He has a way of blending incredible blockbusters with thought-provoking ideas. He has made a bridge between the arthouse fans and the modern moviegoer. He has breached the gap between deep thought-provoking themes and great action set pieces with a minimum use of CGI. He also brought Batman back from the dead and paved the way for superhero movies.
Everybody has their own favorite Nolan film. His films seem to resonate differently with different people, which is funny since they feel similar in many ways. He has a way of jumping in time and space. The music in his films is also similar.
Which brings us neatly to his new film Oppenheimer.
A biopic about the physicist J Robert Oppenheimer. On the surface, it feels like a strange project for Nolan to take on. He is not the straightforward narrative kind of guy, so a simple biopic seems off for him. This is of course not a simple biopic, the narrative goes back and forth in time, creating a nonlinear sequence of events, I would not expect anything else from Nolan at this point, but is it necessary?
In Memento the main character suffers from amnesia, he can’t create new memories and thus the nonlinear structure of the film serves to confuse the audience as much as the main character. Putting us neatly in his head.
You could easily tell the story of Oppenheimer without jumping around time and space. However, it does add a bit of tension to some scenes since some information is kept from the viewer and used cleverly later on. Like the scene with Einstein. Some sections are in black and white like in Memento, which also adds to the time period in a way.
Nolan also uses sound perfectly in the film, especially during the first test exposition of the bomb.
The film also has some scenes straight out of an arthouse film where Oppenheimer is attending a hearing and his wife is in the background.
Performances across the board are good, but you don’t really go to a Nolan film for performances since Nolan has always been more interested in big ideas and how to express them rather than characters.
The important point to note regarding Oppenheimer is that at its core it’s a political thriller. Different investigations are being conducted and the audience never knows who to trust. There is a political game underlining the film and that game is most present during the last hour of the 3 hour film.
The movie has been criticized for not being historically accurate. The problem is that all movies are a work of fiction, even biopics and historical fiction. Unless you make a documentary you are always guaranteed historical inaccuracies. The question is how many of them can you stomach before it gets annoying?
The film is a work of fiction depicting a man’s struggle with his own creation and the political game unfolding after the project is done.
Overall Oppenheimer is an interesting movie with a lot of different elements that work well together, but as a whole, I am left just a bit unsatisfied.
The sum of its parts is better than the film as a whole.
It is worth watching at least once.
However, as time pases I suspect this film to be less and less impressive in my mind and don’t see it being a classic for years to come