Ugh I Accidentally Looked Into The Mirror And Now I’m Aware Of How Fem I Look. Why Must I Look This

One thing that amazes me about Dark is how it managed to portray Jonas and Martha as the darkest of villains (both committing mass murder by causing the Apocalypse, ordering several murders, kidnappings, lying and manipulating people) while at the same time portraying them as such selfless heroes.

Because when you think about it, Jonas and Martha are actually incredibly selfless and heroic. When they are told that they need to go to the origin world to save it and end the knot, and that by doing so, not only would they cease to exist but their entire worlds and the people they loved would also cease to exist, they both agree to sacrifice themselves immediately (Jonas agrees on the spot, and Martha only needs five seconds to compose herself and agree). And this moment is a very selfless moment for both of them.

I've seen so many people argue that Martha/Eva is selfish, that she only does the things she does so that her son and the people she loves would exist, and yet this moment at the end pretty much disproves this. She is faced with the choice of either continuing the loop of suffering to let her loved ones exist, or saving the original world, and she chooses to save the original world and end the time loop, knowing full well she and everyone she loved would cease to exist. This just goes to show that Eva's goal was never truly just about her family and loved ones, but about preserving life, and when she learns that there's a way to end the knot and preserve life in the origin world, she readily sacrifices herself.

This moment is also an incredibly selfless moment for Jonas as well. One could try to argue that Jonas ending his own existence was something he always wanted, so his sacrifice in the end isn't really all that selfless. But I don't think that's true for the Jonas at this point in time. This Jonas isn't suicidal yet. This is the Jonas that a year ago cried before Elisabeth hung him, because he didn't want to die. This is the Jonas who gave Martha a goodbye kiss when he thought he would cease to exist and was devastated as he walked away from her. Sure, Jonas at this point in time was already seeking a way to erase his own existence, but it wasn't because he wanted to die: it was because he believed that by erasing his own existence, he would save the people he loved (Michael, Martha and everyone else). And sacrificing himself to save the origin world doesn't give him anything he wanted: not only he didn't want to die, but he definitely didn't want to erase the existence of Martha, Mikkel and everyone else. But he still chooses to make this sacrifice, because he believes that it's the right thing to do. At the end, he is not relieved to fade out of existence: he and Martha are both clearly terribly sad and devastated about the sacrifice they've made.

Which is why I believe that both Adam and Eva were never truly selfish: Eva truly believed that she needed to keep the loop to preserve everyone's lives, and Adam truly believed that the only salvation for humanity would be to not exist. We can question their beliefs, of course, but I truly do think they were both selfless and idealistic about what they were doing. And they both moved mountains to do what they believed was right.

I also think it's incredibly fascinating to think about how such selfless heroes could go down such villainous paths all due to the time loop. They are both good people at their core, so really, if it weren't for the time loop, none of them would have ever been capable of committing the atrocities they committed. Jonas only starts to become Adam after trying to change things and realizing that things would always happen no matter what he tries, and after believing that he needed to ensure his own past in order to finally end things. Martha only agrees to follow Eva and gives up on fixing things (like she promised Jonas she would do) because she learns what will happen to the version of her who does try to change things (she will get murdered by Adam) and because she believes she needs to keep the loop to ensure everyone's lives. Jonas and Martha would never do all the things they do (murders, kidnappings, causing the apocalypse, lies and manipulations, traumatizing their younger selves) if it weren't for the time loop that pretty much forces them to do these things.

Which is why their stories are such amazing tragedies and why they're such complex characters. It's a story that shows how two selfless heroes who would willingly sacrifice themselves to save the world can still be forced by circumstances outside of their control to do such terrible things.

i love Razumikhin so much

"You and I are perfect for each other. Never believe anything else."

Dark in Dusk In Winter Color Palette Meme Request for @demadogs

Nanami deserved to be happy...🩵🪽

An Cailín Ciúin // The Quiet Girl (2022)

Baby Reindeer is a masterpiece. Anyone who can handle the content should watch it. These stories need to be told.

LITTLE FOREST (2018), dir Yim Soon-rye

BABY REINDEER (2024) Episode 6.

Whiplash (2014) is a good film. I like what is has to say about Jazz and how it's a conversation within the band members themselves, about what it means to them and how they take the pieces they play and meld it to their hands. I like that Whiplash wants to deconstruct the harshness and the perfectionism of most high-class directors and coaches. I like that it shits on and then spreads on how seriously harmful it is to the musician's psyche.

Whiplash is named whiplash because of the turns taken both by the director and the drummer. On how sudden and fast their dynamic turns sour and then blooms. It's the whiplash of learning. It's the whiplash of a piece being too fast. It's the whiplash of a piece being turned slow. It's the vertigo of motion and the motions of riffs. And the motions of emotions of riffs.

I like Whiplash because it introduces the intimacy between two people being so passionate about their craft, one too stuck and intimidating and the other too loose and full of novelty. How they change because of one another. The emotional duress and investment into each other. Is it erotic? In a way that could only be brought about by the erotism of vulnerability. The camera work does most of that conversation, conversing with it's audience without blinking. With cuts from scene to beautiful scene, showing us vulnerability.

The whiplash of the assault of their senses of each other. It's wonderful. It's deviating. It is introspective. It fucks with its vulnerability. It makes the audience feel the characters audacity for tearing and building these vails.

The failed dating, the awkward family dinner, the throwing away of neilman's passions, the peaking at a man who's career shouldn't have gone so long in predigest settings, the envelopment of class and the negging of peers.

The movie is bad. The movie is good. The movie is simply driven by it's showing rather than telling. Yet, it feels stiff at time whenever there's a lull in music. It's on purpose, it isn't.

Whiplash (2014) is a nice movie. I love how it sounds.

Queerness, Gentrification and Cultural Genocide in the film La Mission

This is an essay I wrote as part of my pursuit of an Ethnic Studies degree at Cal State East Bay during the Fall Quarter 2017. This will be part of a series of essay posts from my classes at the end of my school quarters. This and all of my essays were written under my legal name, Dennis Camargo.

In the film La Mission, the audience is introduced to Che, a former prisoner and alcoholic, and his son Jes, a student just about to graduate high school. The plot of the film focuses on the tumultuous relationship between Che and Jes after Jes was inadvertently outed as a gay man by his father stumbling across photos of Jes in a gay club. In the film there is an underlying tone of Che interpreting male homosexuality as a force of consumerism and gentrification in La Mission, the area of San Francisco where the film takes place. Che is unable to reconcile his son’s queerness, therefore branding his son as a race trader and being complicit in the cultural genocide of a historically Mexican district of San Francisco.

Very early in the film, the audience is met with Che’s fears of La Mission falling victim to gentrification like many other parts of San Francisco. Che confronts his neighbor Lena, who has filed a complaint against Che with their landlord for blocking the sidewalk with his lowrider. The audience sees Che’s defensiveness against this complaint as encroachment of seemingly God-given right as a Mexican man to exert his dominance and symbols of masculinity in his Azatlan, the mythical homeland of Aztecs and by extension Mexican culture. He states “…after all you hipster types are tired of slummin’ it, I’m still going to be here,” to Lena, a black woman who personifies a typical hipster/gentrifier complete with fixed gear bicycle and an interest in New Age beliefs (00:10:15). Despite her race, her hipster interests are typified as white behavior and therefore is an extension of the cultural genocide of La Mission district. While her lifestyle is not necessarily queer, it is accepting of queerness which opens the door for more white culture to smother the hypermasculine, hyper heterosexual Chicano culture of La Mission.

Che has a very complex interpretation of his son’s queerness because of his history as a convict, his addiction to alcohol and the association of gay culture with alcohol, whiteness and consumerism. Che’s few associations with gayness are exemplified with the line “Is that why he’s manhandling you like you’re some Mexican bitch?,” (00:27:05) when he confronts Jes with the photographic evidence of is encounter with his white boyfriend. Another instance is an ad for here!, a gay-oriented on demand television channel being advertised on the busses he drives (00:40:26). These two instances can be interpreted as colonial, capitalist gentrifiers of his Azatlan, making Jes la Malinche, a historical figure vilified by Mexican people for selling out the Native Mexicans to the Spanish (Garsd). On a very tangential note, his association with queerness and clubbing, therefore alcohol use, can be seen as a white drug adulterating a perfect Aztec life, as there tremendous pride in Aztec identity among those who pride themselves as Chicano. This adulteration can be tied to the trope of Native Americans struggling with alcohol abuse.  

Conclusively, while Che’s interpretation of queerness and white hipsterdom gentrifying traditional black and brown neighborhoods is not necessarily incorrect, he fails to see the nuances of being queer. Queers of color can be equally weary of gentrification and cultural genocide of historically black and brown areas and are willing to protect la raza from falling victim to capitalism. Understanding of the intersectionality of being brown and queer will help in the effort against gentrification. 

Citations

La Mission, www.amazon.com/Mission-Benjamin-Bratt/dp/B003ZZ4H6K/ ref=sr_1_1? ie=UTF8&qid=1509596248&sr=8-1&keywords=la%2Bmission&dpID=513tWYMpb7L&preST=_SY300_QL70_&dpSrc=srch.

Garsd, Jasmine. “Despite Similarities, Pocahontas Gets Love, Malinche Gets Hate. Why?” NPR, NPR, 25 Nov. 2015, www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2015/11/25/457256340/despite-similarities-pocahontas-gets-love-malinche-gets-hate-why.