Category Archives: Nihilism

click to enlarge

Alycia Lovell photo

The Civic's This Is Our Youth features the not-so-glorious results of a misspent youth.

Though it has the unmistakable ring of a declaration, This Is Our Youth treats its title more like a question than a statement. Its three characters two boys, one girl, all in their late teens and early 20s are aimless and uncertain. They're unsure of who they are, who they want to be and how they fit into a world that seems to have given them everything and nothing.

Materialism and nihilism are almost natural byproducts of that state of affairs. And Kenneth Lonergan's play, first staged in 1996, is actually set in 1982, the start of an era that would later become synonymous with those two mindsets. But, as its plot unfolds in a single apartment over a 24-hour period, This Is Our Youth reveals itself to be about more than just the attitudes or anxiety of a single decade.

Jacob Carruthers plays Warren, "a deadbeat, stoner-type character" in a new production of This Is Our Youth at the Spokane Civic under the direction of Andrew Start.

"Warren has been through a lot of hard times. He's got a very, let's say, stormy relationship with his father stemming from some other family issues, and he finds a lot of solace hanging out with his best friend, Dennis, who sells him pot and hangs out with him. And it all kind of comes to a head when Warren has this really big fight and steals a bunch of money from his father," he says.

The stolen money quickly gets Dennis (Denny Pham) and Warren scheming. The plan they hatch eventually puts Warren in contact with Jessica, played by Elizabeth Martin. Warren ends up dropping a good chunk of the ill-gotten cash in an attempt to impress her.

The odd thing about it, says Martin, is that none of them really needs the money.

"They all live in this very privileged bubble. They're all wealthy. They all live in New York on the Upper West Side. Their parents pay for everything. She's a fashion student, if that tells you anything," she says. And yet, for a "people pleaser" like Jessica, it's actually more important to find good company and to be "accepted."

"Truthfully, at that age and I am that age don't we all just want to be accepted, have friends and to be cool? And I think that's very much still what she wants. But I think she's also beginning to grow up in the sense that she wants more than just a superficial friendship."

Her actions, however, won't always be consistent with that desire for something more substantial, given that Warren's flashy attempt to impress her succeeds. At least in part. And that leaves Jessica, much like Warren and Dennis, trying to reconcile her behavior with the ideals that she's still developing for herself.

It's messy, in other words, and messiness can sometimes test audiences' sympathy.

"These characters are like us," says Martin, "and if that makes them unlikable, that makes them unlikable. I find it hard to think they're unlikable because I've spent so much time dissecting them that I can see their little nuances as people. It doesn't have a nice little bow on it at the end. It's very real, very moment to moment about how we try to solve problems."

Carruthers says the temptation also exists to see the characters as types: spoiled rich kids, idle stoners, empty-headed narcissists, rebels without causes. But pigeonholing them risks overlooking their complexity.

"They are very real and very human people who are being put into a type as a result of the way they were brought up and trying to uphold the image they were given or that they chose for themselves. And they're coming to terms with the fact that it might not be the best-suited persona for them. It's really getting down into the weeds of what is actually making them tick."

Just as its characters can transcend type, This Is Our Youth also has the potential to escape its moorings in the Reagan era to convey "this universality, this idea that it's a cycle" to which culture, politics and coming of age all belong.

"It's a very personal story that a lot of people have gone through at that age," he says. "There's a lot of discovery about how we treat people, how we treat ourselves. What kind of choices are we making as we proceed through this daily grind? What gives our life purpose? What are we going to be leaving behind? At the end of the day, it shows the difficulty of change. It's a little sobering. But in a hopeful way."

This Is Our Youth Nov. 15-Dec. 8; Thu-Sat at 7:30 pm, Sun at 2 pm (no show on Nov. 28) $25 Spokane Civic Theatre 1020 N. Howard St. spokanecivictheatre.com 325-2507

More:

Privileged, aimless and discontented, the three characters of This Is Our Youth might not be all that alien to us - Pacific Northwest Inlander

The plot of The Mandalorians premiere episode is very simple. A bounty hunter catches an escaped criminal and returns him to his boss. Dissatisfied with the middling jobs on offer, he agrees to take a mysterious commission from an enigmatic figure. He dons his armor and mounts his horseor bluurg (blerg? blurgh?), as the case may beand takes off across the desert. After a gunfight, he locates his target. Even the title of the episode is straightforward: Its simply called Chapter One.

Star Wars has always had an elemental quality to its storytelling, drawing as it does from Joseph Campbell and his heros journey. That folkloric quality contrasts with George Lucas (and all subsequent Star Wars creatives) specific and intriguing world-building, which has inspired such monumentally detailed achievements in nerdery as Wookieepedia, The Star Wars Wiki. Part of that can be attributed to the fundamental nature of nerds, but theres also something about the way Star Wars gives you just enough that allows imaginations to go wild.

The Mandalorian is the product of that same imagination, an entire series spun off from a character who only delivers four lines in Star Wars: Episode VThe Empire Strikes Back. That would be Boba Fett, who belongs to a nomadic tribe of mercenaries and bounty hunters from the planet Mandalorthus, The Mandalorian. Boba Fett is deador, technically, in the early stages of the agonizing thousand-year digestive process of the sarlaccwhen this new series opens, in the lawless outer reaches of the galaxy during the reconstruction period after the events of Return Of The Jedi. We dont yet know the name of the mysterious bounty hunter played by Pedro Pascal who stars in the series, nor is it likely that we ever will. We also probably wont see his face, as Mandalorians, as several characters point out in Chapter One, never take off their masks.

And thats appropriate, as the character from film history that the Mandalorian resembles most is Clint Eastwood as the Man With No Name from Sergio Leones Dollars trilogy. (In what cannot be a coincidence, Boba Fett actor Jeremy Bulloch says his portrayal of Fett was also inspired by Eastwood.) Leone was also a key influence on Lucas original Star Wars trilogy, and The Mandalorian showrunner Jon Favreau leans into the Spaghetti Western aesthetic even before we get to the shot of the Mandalorian peering over a rocky cliff under harsh desert sunlight at the dusty outpost crawling with gunslingers below. The sets for the show, on which no expense was reportedly spared, have a wonderfully textured, dusty, lived-in quality to them, calling back to the original Star Wars and the period before Lucas became obsessed with tinkering his creations into incoherence.

The epic sweep and casual nihilism of Spaghetti Westerns are evident from the opening scenes of Chapter One: both the windswept ice plains and the indifferent reactions of the cantina patrons to the Mandalorian chopping a dude in half are straight out of one of an Italian B-Western. But the comparisons really resonate in the hail of blaster fire that leads up to the reveal of Disneys big secret Star Wars revealwhich I honestly didnt mind, especially compared to a similar revelation at the end of Soloat the end of the episode. Its really not much of a leap from that laser cannon to the machine gun Django drags around the desert in Sergio Corbuccis 1966 original.

But while I expected a strong Western influence based on what Favreau had to say about the show at Star Wars Celebration earlier this year, what I wasnt expecting was for the debut episode to be so playful. Much was made of Taika Waititis voice role as bounty droid IG-11 on The Mandalorian, but honestly, aside from the occasional kiwi-accented word, I could barely tell it was him. The Mandalorian was funnier with the Han Solo-esque timing of his quips in the climactic action scenes, andas much as I love TaikaI felt that both Nick Nolte and Saturday Night Lives Horatio Sanz brought more personality to their bit parts in Chapter One. Sanz in particular was very entertaining, as the hapless Mythrol the Mandalorian captures and freezes in carbonite at the beginning of the episode.

But my personal MVP of Chapter One was, unsurprisingly for anyone who knows me, was Werner Herzog, who simply loves playing a villain and will seemingly take any bad-guy role he can get. It is truly surreal to hear the director of Fitzcarraldo pronounce words like blaster, fob, and beskar (thats the metal the Mandalorian takes to the smith played by a masked Gina Carano, if youre not steeped in Star Wars lore) in that iconic German accent. But Herzogs role isnt just a novelty. His character, The Client, seems to be some sort of exiled Imperial officer, or at least an Imperial sympathizer. And given the parallels between the Empire and the Nazis, that lends The Mandalorian an intriguing Boys From Brazil kind of vibe, particularly this chilling line: It is good to restore the natural order of things after a period of such disarray, dont you agree?

For the time being, the Mandalorian is on the side of the Empire-in-exile. Hes working for them, at the very least. But that may change soon, based on the bounty hunters reaction to seeing his target for the first time. There isnt much for us to go on in terms of the characters personality and where hell go from here, except for how bounty hunters and other such scum (Im thinking of a certain handsome smuggler here) have behaved when given the opportunity for heroism in other Star Wars movies. And honestly, with Star Wars, oftentimes thats enough. So while The Mandalorians debut is pretty thin, its also got a lot of wide open spaces to expand into.

Original post:

The Mandalorian brings Western sweep and Werner Herzog to the Star Wars universe - The A.V. Club

If it aint the black Bonnie and Clyde! exclaims Uncle Earl, Bokeem Woodbines character in Queen & Slim, upon seeing its two hapless heroes. I can almost hear a studio executive joyfully uttering the same sentiment upon finishing Lena Waithes screenplay. That line does, indeed, pretty much summarize Melina Matsoukas by turns powerful, overwrought, poetic, earnest, and pretentious debut feature.

If I were to point out one crucial difference, it would be the deliberate, delectable nihilism of Arthur Penns classic, his anti-heroes as easy to root for as they are irredeemable. In that sense, Queen & Slim more closely resembles the other classic outlaws-on-the-run, Ridley Scotts Thelma and Louise. Substitute the feminist motifs with relevant current themes of race, police corruption, and prejudice, and youll have a clear sense of what to expect.

A tense confrontation swiftly establishes Slim as a black man who killed a cop and took his gun

Like the two aforementioned films, at its heart, Queen & Slim is a love story. It begins in Cleveland, Ohio, on an atmospheric, rainy night (kudos to cinematographer Tat Radcliffe for the films old-school, grainy look). Queen (Jodie Turner-Smith) is a lawyer whos had a bad day. She meets Slim (Daniel Kaluuya) on Tinder. You have this sad look, she tells him over a cheap diner meal. I felt sorry for you. On the way home, Slims flirting causes him to swerve a little. A white cop pulls them over. A tense confrontation swiftly establishes Slim as a black man who killed a cop and took his gun. The two become outlaws/national celebrities.

Numerous (mis)adventures follow. Our heroes run out of gas, which leads to a nerve-wracking detour with an off-duty sheriff (Benito Martinez). In New Orleans, Queens pimp uncle Earl (Woodbine, in a memorable extended cameo) hooks them up with money, haircuts, a car and a potential flight over the water, and out of the country. Ill leave it up to you to find out whether the couple makes it across the border.

Go here to read the rest:

Queen and Slim - Film Threat

In February 1909, a strange new manifestoappeared, first in the Bologna-based Italian- language newspaper Gazzetta dell Emiliana, and then inFrench in Le Figaro. Readers ofthe declaration might have struggled to work out whether the manifesto waspolitical or aesthetic in character. In the past, the celebrated manifestos hadbeen political: the Communist Manifesto of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels,for example, published in 1848, or Anselm Bellegarrigues Anarchist Manifestoof 1850. Yet this piece of work seemed to blend political and aestheticsentiments: The essential elements of our poetry, it read, will be courage,audacity and revolt.

The manifesto also explicitly glorified war the only cure for the world militarism, patriotism the beautiful ideaswhich kill. In our own time, there has been much discussion around the ways inwhich incendiary language creates a dangerous political atmosphere. What canwe learn from turning to an earlier period in modern history?

The 1909 declaration was the founding Manifesto of Futurism, and its author was an eccentric, Egyptian-born Italian writer, artist and political radical Filippo Tommasso Marinetti. Marinetti would go on to promote fascism, and the art of the Futurists with its obsession with speed, technology and, increasingly, military power would be close to one of the official styles of the fascist revolution. The attitude of the Futurist Manifesto, a piece of writing that emerged long before the seizure of power by the Fascists in Italy in 1922, is an extreme example of a phenomenon which is very much with us now. What is the connection between rhetorical and actual violence? When do angry words become violent actions, and how should they be resisted?

The manifesto of 1909 was not the only typeof document circulating Europe in this time period that extolled violence, ofcourse, and not all of these types of rhetoric are linked to what we would nowcall the radical right. Yet the manifesto seems unique in the extreme,extravagant and performative nature of its language. It seems intentionally togoad its readers, promoting an aggressive misogyny We want to glorify contempt for women, it states and a joy in destruction for its own sake.

We want, writes Marinetti, to demolishmuseums and libraries, fight morality, feminism and all opportunist andutilitarian cowardice. The manifesto is littered with references to violence,war and destruction. It was a manifesto of ruinous and incendiary violence, whichwanted to heap up the fire to the shelves of the libraries, because art canonly be violence, cruelty, injustice.

If such extremist language cannot beshown to have had a direct impact on thesquadristi violence of fascism in the 1920s and the violence of the NationalFascist Party regime in power at home and abroad, Marinetti certainly cheeredon fascist imperialism and was always a consistently pro-military figure.Indeed, the Futurists had initially agitated for Italy to enter the First WorldWar in 1914. By the time of Marinettis death in 1944, the writer and artistwas creating eulogies to Italian fighting units and remained loyal to the fascistcause, even as represented by the Nazi-backed puppet state of the RepubblicaSociale Italiana.

In 1945, the fascist-supporting American poet Ezra Pound placed the ghost of the recently-deceased Marinetti in his Canto 72, promising retribution for the defeat of the Axis powers at the battle of El Alamein. In this context, the relation of violent language to actual violence is complex and layered. Futurist and fascist agitators glorified war and violence at the same time as the street fighting and, later, imperialist wars of fascism, played out in the real world.

Cause and effect cannot be straightforwardly demonstrated here. Yet language surely creates a context in which violent acts may become increasingly commonplace. In contemporary Britain, the fevered atmosphere around Brexit has similarly given birth to a situation in which angry words and incendiary language are paralleled with a rise in radical-right street action. Prime Minister Boris Johnson dismissed concerns raised in the House of Commons by the Labour MP Paula Sherriff that his rhetoric would or could fuel violence as so much humbug.

In the prime ministers mind, terms like surrender, used to describe the Brexit Withdrawal Bill designed by the opposition and rebel Conservative MPs to prevent a no-deal Brexit, are simply his usual colorful rhetoric. But Johnson is now supported by radical-right actors like the self-styled Tommy Robinson / Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, founder of the English Defence League. We back Boris, Yaxley-Lennon wrote at the beginning of September, referring repeatedly to those who opposed the prime minister as traitors.

Death to traitors, freedom for Britain, was famously what Thomas Mair, the murderer of the Labour MP Jo Cox, had shouted when asked his name during his court trial. The link between the prime ministers rhetoric along other leaders of the pro-Brexit mainstream right and radical-right violence is not a question of a smoking gun or a straightforward case of cause and effect. Rather, the use of violent language causes an atmosphere where sentiments emerging from supposedly responsible politicians are mirrored back to them by the agitators of the radical right.

Florid, excessive language that hints at violence then often incites a more shocking response from its listeners. For example, at an event at the Conservative Party conference, Boris Johnson suggested that Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn be removed and placed in a figurative rocket to send him into orbit. But Johnsons words a cartoonish vision with an attempt at humor were interrupted by voices from the Tory activists on the floor, who suggested Corbyn be put in a noose and sent to traitors gate in a reference to the prisoners entrance to the Tower of London.

In this context, Johnsons jokey rhetoric was reflected back to him in words that seemed to suggest a far more visceral and violent reaction to opposition politicians. In particular, the repeated use of the word traitor in the rhetoric of both radical-right thugs like Yaxley-Lennon, murderers like Mair and the activists of a supposedly mainstream UK political party is disturbing.

If there is not always a direct linkbetween words and violence, there is nonetheless a sense that violent languageincites, creating an effect of heightened tension, enabling its selectaudiences to delight in the prospect of destruction and battle. The philosopherThorsten Botz-Borstein has compared the aesthetics of Italian Futurism to thatof the so-called Islamic State. For Botz-Borstein, the nihilism at the heart ofboth projects exalts in the prospect of violent destruction, particularlythrough the use of technology.

This is by no means to compare the language of Boris Johnson and other politicians with the Islamic State. However, violent language even language that only gestures toward violence creates its own effects, its own momentum, which it cannot always control. In the 1935 The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction, the German critic Walter Benjamin described fascism as a product of a self-alienation that had reached such a degree that it can experience its own destruction as an aesthetic pleasure of the first order.

We must avoid the temptation of thinkingthat language is overstating political desires, that nobody really wants the kind of violence orchaos being gestured to. For this underestimates the power the aestheticpower of language to create or encourage these desires in its listeners.

*[The Centre for Analysis of the Radical Rightis a partner institution ofFair Observer.]

Theviews expressed in this article are the authors own and do not necessarilyreflect Fair Observers editorial policy.

See original here:

When Angry Words Become Violent Actions - Fair Observer

Share

Share

Share

Email

Zombieland 2: Double Tap has the soul of a shooter game.

It first reunites us with the four apocalypse survivors from the original film; now theyre not getting along, even with their fine new HQ at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. The mad-cow-disease-ridden zombies have evolved into subspecies: plodding dumbos nicknamed Homers, and crafty Hawkingsas well as a new breed thats super-fast and hard to kill.

Holing up in the White House, Tallahassee (Woody Harrelson) is happy to be the king of America, digging up such artifacts as the .45 automatic Elvis gave Richard Nixon (this time, its Elvis that Tallahassee is besotted with, not Dale Ernhard). Wichita (Emma Stone) cant handle the nerdiness and neediness of Columbus (Jesse Eisenberg). Even if he is more or less the only man in the world, she cant accept the Hope diamond he presents as an engagement ring. Interestingly, no one in the film seems to know that the gem is supposedly cursed.

Little Rock (Abigail Breslin, her Little Miss Sunshine days behind her forever) is now the bitter former-child-actor type incarnate: stocky, husky-voiced, seething and looking for a boyfriend.

The restless ladies steal the Beast, Tallahaeess antlered death truck, and race off for places unknown. The menfolk pursue. On their respective roads, the separated gangs encounter two new stereotypes: one is Madison (Zoey Deutch), a pink-clad and moronic blonde mallrat. Little Rock meets Berkeley (Avan Jogia) a Namaste-ing hippie who, now that society collapsed, can pretend he wrote Blowing in the Wind. Berkeley knows of a refuge called Babylon where people can be cool, vegetarian and nonviolent. Its a tower-top fortress that once was a 20-story hotel; of course they eventually need rescue by a John Wayne-like figure who is no stranger to violence.

On first sight, Little Rock almost murrays Berkeleywe learn thats the slang for killing a human when you think theyre a zombie. (Murraying references the best scene in the first Zombieland, if you dont count Little Rocks impatient explanation about how Miley can be both herself and Hannah Montana. In that scene, Breslin made the post-apocalyptic drive across a zombie-blighted U.S. the same as any other family car trip, asking Are we there yet?)

Before the gang gets back together, theres a detour to a pseudo-Graceland, a tourist motel run by Nevada (Rosario Dawson). Dawsons million-candlepower smile is a glad sight in a sunless and sour movie. Here also is an expansion of a keen gag in Shaun of the Dead (2004), where the squad of survivors, crossing through the North London backyards, sees their doubles heading in a different direction on their own zombie hunt. Director Ruben Fleischer (who did the original Zombieland) spins this one shock of recognition into 15 minutes of deadzone yack. A macho Luke Wilson (as Alburquerque) bumps his cowboy-shirted chest against Tallahassee, while his sidekick Flagstaff (Thomas Middleditch) hangs with Columbus, comparing and contrasting their fussy rules, which appear in gold letters above them.

Those are the jokes, along with the alleged comedic-relief Zombie Kill of the Week awards, demonstrating creative way of mangling the walking dead. One, set in Italy, almost displays some wit while destroying a 846-year-old monument.

Nihilism and the movies referential mania wear you out. There wasnt enough energy in the first Zombieland to channel into a sequel, and there was little left undone. Moreover, it hasnt been 10 marvelous years of travelling that got us to this weedy Midwestern wasteland, with its ambulatory corpses spilling pixilated glore.

Its natural that Zombieland: Double Tap gives all its characters capital city aliases. The film is the product of a pissed-off and divided nation which can view the mindless, useless eaters as symbols of either the Demon-craps or the Trumptards: zombies, fit for nothing but two in the skull.

Directed by Ruben Fleischer. Starring Jesse Eisenberg, Woody Harrelson, Emma Stone, and Abigail Breslin. (R) 99 minutes.

Read more:

Film Review: 'Zombieland: Double Tap' - Good Times Weekly

Watch out, Jerry!Image: Hanna-Barbera

Cat vs. mouse, the most ancient of conflicts, a microcosm of the dark nihilism of nature. A harbinger of the cruel fate waiting for us all at the end of the line. Or perhapswait, no, its just a cartoon. One of the most well known and moderately beloved: Tom & Jerry, a series of Hanna Barbera shorts that has since turned into a series of bizarre adaptation decisions, bad reboots, and baffling crossovers.

Now, Tom & Jerry is back. Weve heard rumblings of Warner Bros.s upcoming reboot, one of those CGI/live action hybrids that were all the rage a solid decade ago, for a while, but now we know that its coming, and its coming sooner than we think. As the Hollywood Reporter explains, Warner Bros. has moved the release date for the film from its slated 2021 date to December 23, 2020. Which is a pretty surefire guarantee that, yeah, this one is actually getting off the ground.

So lets take a look at whats coming, which hopefully wont traumatize our writers the way the last Tom and Jerry adaptation did. Directed by Tim Story, the film is actually being made with an all-star cast including Chloe Grace Moretz, Michael Pena, Ken Jeong, Rob Delany, Jordan Bolger, and Pallavi Sharda. Itll tell the story of a hotel employee (Moretz) trying to evict Jerry from a hotel room, which he lives inas a mouse? Or as a mouse-person? Im somewhat unclear here on the level of realism. But to get Jerry out of the hotel and secure her job, she turns to Tom, that devious old cat. And thus does the dark cycle continue.

Tom and Jerry comes out December 23, 2020, and may God guide us free of the cruelty of natures bloodlust.

For more, make sure youre following us on our Instagram @io9dotcom.

Here is the original post:

A New Tom and Jerry Live-Action Movie Is Coming Next Winter, So Start Preparing Your Mouse Traps - Gizmodo

Joaquin Phoenix arrives at the Los Angeles premiere of "Joker." (Photo by Jordan ... [+] Strauss/Invision/AP)

Joker was recently crowned the highest grossing R-rated film ever, an unexpected success for the low-budget, non-traditional take on the iconic Batman villain. But theres another comic book antihero who was making headlines last year for massively exceeding expectations.

Octobers domestic and international box office records were first shattered by Venom, and now, Joker, both films wildly surpassing even the most optimistic expectations.

But the two titular characters share a surprising amount in common ...

Both supervillains are a dark reflection of their rival superhero

Venom and the Joker are intimately connected to their archrivals, Spider-Man and Batman, more so than most supervillains.

Venom is the anti-Spider-Man, sharing the webslingers sticky powers, but devoid of Peter Parkers sense of responsibility. Even his costume, a black, monstrous version of Spideys suit, highlights the differences and similarities between the two.

Likewise, the similarity between Batman and the Joker is often commented upon in the films and comics, as both are eccentrics dealing with trauma in their own way, Batman choosing a life of law and discipline, the joker embracing absurdity and nihilism.

In some depictions, the Joker is created by the actions of Batman (The Killing Joke), or vice-versa (Joker, Tim Burtons Batman), each entwined in their rivals origin story.

Same with Spider-Man, who traditionally creates Venom by discarding the symbiote that was embolding his worst qualities, enabling rival reporter Eddie Brock to take up the mantle of Venom.

Both were overanalyzed and judged before release

Most fans were very cynical about the prospect of a Venom-centered movie that didnt feature Spider-Man, viewing the superhero as integral to Venoms existence.

Sonys wobbly track record, combined with an amusingly unenthusiastic Tom Hardy interview, ensured that the film that was widely mocked before it hit theatres. After watching the film, the general consensus was that Venom was indeed a bad movie, but far more entertaining than it had any right to be.

Joker, on the other hand, was picked apart by thousands of think pieces long before the film hit cinemas, with critics proposing that the film was a work of unparalleled genius, dangerous and potentially inspiring to mass-shooters, or a silly, self-serious story about a depressed clown.

The conversation quickly turned hysterical, sparking genuine security concerns, and igniting audience interest, who couldnt ignore a film that had proved so divisive. Im still confused over the pre-panic; the film proved not to be an ode to incel anger, as some claimed, but a clear condemnation of austerity. And frankly, not worth the fuss.

Dont judge a movie by its melodramatic early reviews.

Both are mediocre movies carried by a charismatic star

Neither Joker or Venom are great movies, by themselves; Venom plays like a forgettable superhero flick from the early 2000s, much like Daredevil, while Joker has a confused, half-hearted theme, so vague that critics and audiences all had their own, wildly different interpretations.

Joker wasnt an example of clever, ambiguous storytelling, but a movie that wanted to make a strong political statement and was too timid to say anything of substance. Not to mention, the story of Arthur Fleck isnt nearly as tragic as it tries to be; the sad clown schtick is pushed to the point where it becomes unintentionally amusing.

That being said, both Joker and Venom were extremely entertaining, primarily due to Joaquin Phoenixs fantastic performance, and Tom Hardys caricature of a New Yorker. Both men are dancing to the beat of their own drum, elevating their otherwise-dull movies by their larger-than-life presence.

Without Hardy, Venom would have surely bombed; the eccentric actor didnt let a flat script and silly plot hold back his bizarre interpretation of Eddie Brock. And without Phoenix, the audience would have seen right through Jokers thin veneer, and realized that it was little more than a homage to superior Martin Scorsese films, with a comic book label slapped on the cover.

Both movies prove that charisma can elevate mediocrity, to an almost supernatural degree; just look at how Marvel built an entire universe out of Robert Downey Jr.s personality.

Both tell the story of a societal outcast accepting, and embracing, their differences

Theres something strangely wholesome about both of these movies; Venom is the story of a man who loses his job and his girlfriend, due to his difficult and abrasive personality, but forms a brotherly bond with an otherworldly creature who lives inside him.

Joker tells the story of a powerless man who inspires a citywide riot, finding solace and identity through meaningless violence. Unlike traditional superhero movies, which see a normal person embrace a new strength, Joker and Venom tell stories of outsiders accepting their hideous flaws.

Eddie Brock is now a permanent host to a parasite that like to tear peoples heads off, a relationship which makes him look as though he talks to himself. Arthur Fleck decides that his outbursts of laughter and violence are something to be proud of, and while he might be deranged and delusional, its hard not to root for his twisted triumph toward the end of the film.

If cinema is going to be flooded with superhero movies (much to Martin Scorseses dismay), its nice to see the stories of antiheroes, and outright villains, doing well at the box office.

Despite what certain critics seem to believe, unlikable and immoral protagonists are not harmful; theyre a fun fantasy.

Both characters fall under Rule 34

If it exists, there is porn of it.

The trailer for Venom wasnt just viewed with derision; the glossy, salvia-soaked creature proved oddly appealing.

I dont know if its the orca-esque pattern, the flexible tongue, or the animalistic attitude, but the monstrous Venom somehow managed to ooze sex appeal. At least, for some people.

Amusingly enough, Joker provoked a similar reaction, the films pop culture footprint even extending to Pornhub, with no less than 741,000 searches involving the word "Joker" in the first 4 days following the film's release, proving once and for all that Phoenixs Joker is not an incel.

If anything, hes a chad.

Excerpt from:

The Unexpected Similarities Between Venom And Joker - Forbes

For most Attack On Titan fans, they couldn't imagine the anime being handled by anyone other than Studio Wit. The studio in question has been with Attack On Titan, helping to deliver stunning visuals that have assisted in propelling the franchise to the top of everyone's minds during its current three season run. However, Studio Wit is hardly the only legendary animation house around, and one fan artist asked the question: "What if Attack On Titan was brought to life by Studio Ghibli?"

Reddit User Pluma91 shared this amazing fan art that imagines what Eren Jaeger in his Titan form and Historia would look like if they had been brought to life by the legendary studio responsible for such classics as Spirited Away, Princess Mononoke, and Howl's Moving Castle:

Hilariously enough, this crossover would have zero percent chance of happening, mostly because Attack On Titan simply doesn't fall within Studio Ghibli's normal workload. While most of Ghibli's output has been life affirming, uplifting stories that ultimately share the charm of both the magical and the mundane, Attack On Titan is full blown nihilism. The story of the remnants of humanity within the walls is so bleak and dire that it can be difficult to watch!

While Attack on Titan has wrapped up its third season, a brand new season following the story of Eren Jaeger and the other members of the Survey Corps will be dropping next year. In the manga, the war between Marley and Eldia continues to heat up, with the events and story beats continuing to get darker and darker with each passing installment. We don't foresee the Studio Wit production crossing over with Studio Ghibli any time soon, but we've certainly seen crazier things in our life times!

What do you think of this amazing crossover piece between Attack On Titan and Studio Ghibli? What anime crossovers would you like to see happen in your lifetime? Feel free to let us know in the comments or hit me up directly on Twitter @EVComedy

Attack on Titan was originally created by Hajime Isayama, and the series has since been collected into 23 volumes as of 2017. It's set in a world where the last remnants of humanity live within a walled city in order to escape the danger of the Titans, a race of giants monsters that eats humans. The lead character, Eren Yeager, ends up joining the military with his two childhood friends Mikasa and Armin after the Titans break through the wall and attack his hometown. Now Eren, Mikasa, and Armin must survive in a world where they not only have the Titans to fear, but the very humans they are trying to save. You can currently find the series streaming on Crunchyroll, Funimation, and Saturday nights on Adult Swim's Toonami block.

Link:

Attack On Titan Meets Studio Ghibli With This Impressive Crossover - Comicbook.com

In the world of Guts, Casca, and Griffith, weddings don't tend to happen that often. The world of Berserk is one that is rife with pain, suffering, demons, and more blood and guts than nearly every other anime franchise in existence. The series, which has been running since 1989, is a cult favorite with fans begging to see how the tale of Guts finally comes to an end. Recently, fans managed to incorporate Berserk into their wedding ceremony in an ingenious way!

Twitter User Wooflings shared the hilarious pictures from the wedding where the officiant decided to slip in a copy of the Dark Horse Berserk manga release, with the hardcover release managing to replace a Bible that was otherwise going to be used in its place, and most surprisingly, no one noticing:

As mentioned earlier, Berserk can definitely be a rough franchise to follow. The amount of blood and gore, and nihilism, that permeate the lives of Guts are almost overwhelming with the "Black Swordsman" attempting to get his revenge on Griffith, following the Eclipse wherein the latter sold out his army of mercenaries, the Band of the Hawk, for power.

The relationship between Guts and Casca was originally one of the bright spots of the series, with the pair fighting battles alongside one another and, slowly but surely, discovering their feelings for one another. Of course, this all changed during the Eclipse, where such terrible things happened to Casca that the former member of the Hawks lost her mind. Following Guts on his journey of revenge, it was only recently that Casca regained her faculties and managed to become the character that fans one grew to know. Though her mind is restored, it's clear that the horror of their past is still haunting Casca.

While the anime ended with the second season of the revival, it's unclear when Berserk will be returning with a new animated series, though the manga is continuing to run strong, having finally ending its long hiatus.

What do you think of this hilarious Berserk easter egg in this wedding ceremony? Will we be able to see the final volume of Berserk worked into a future wedding in our lifetimes? Feel free to let us know in the comments or hit me up directly on Twitter @EVComedy to talk all things comics, anime, and Berserk!

Berserk was originally created by Kentaro Miura for Monthly Animal House magazine (now Young Animal) in 1989. The series follows Guts, an immensely strong warrior who is known for his massive sword. Guts lives his days fighting in a demon-infested medieval world where corrupt nobles rule. The hero is plagued by demon assailants thanks to a curse he had branded on him, and Guts continues to fight in order to keep a vow. The man promised to slay a former friend of his who became a demon and ripped away Guts former life.

Read more here:

These Newlyweds Exchanged Vows With Berserk In Mind - Comicbook.com

It has long been a theory of mine that, like film classifications, books could carry a kind of age-appropriate rating. This wouldnt be to classify books as potentially damaging to the sensibilities, but rather to stipulate the age needed to obtain optimum sensibility for appreciating the wisdom of the book.

I have long thought it absurd, for example, to expect teenage schoolboys to appreciate the subtlety of Jane Austen. The nuances of ladies being wooed with nice manners and houses are lost on minds for whom ladies being wooed has only Carry On film connotations. While Alain Fourniers Le Grand Meaulnes played glissandi on my 17-year-old heartstrings during A-level French lessons, had I discovered the book first in my 40s, the idea that ones adolescence was somehow the peak of emotional experience, and a lost domain to be forever rediscovered, would have left me bewildered.

I am increasingly discovering that the same best before or after applies to reading spiritual classics. As a pious youth, I thought I should read The Imitation of Christ and, having then read it, I wondered what all the fuss was about. It seemed full of foreboding and heavy on the All is vanity, death to self stuff, and I simply wasnt ready to hear what it was really saying.

It is not natural nor indeed in one sense healthy for a young person to believe that all the world is vanity and that no one is to be depended upon, for such a view would be a kind of nihilism, a rejection of life. Its the tritest analogy, but had Thomas Kempis said, You know what? Big Macs are delicious. But they also contain things that will make you fat, and, if you think about it, the purpose of eating is to keep you healthy. Yet even knowing this will not affect how delicious they continue to taste, I would have more readily appreciated what vanity is. Its something that will temporise and dilute the very value it seems to enshrine for you.

The life of asceticism is not a rejection of pleasure, but a purifying of the appetite to make it serve something less immediate and more nutritional than pleasure alone: to learn to crave what is life-giving rather than what is pleasurable as the priority for my action.

Similarly, the alarming-sounding death to self of which the Imitation speaks sounds strange to the ears of someone who is still at the age when it is natural to be preoccupied with questions about what that self is. On reaching a certain maturity, the sense of disquiet or incompleteness can no longer be displaced as simply the lack of that elusive maturity.

At such a point the Imitation begins to speak across the centuries. Set before you the image of the Crucified, comes its advice. In the holy life and Passion of the Lord will you find all things useful and necessary. The image of the Crucified disabuses us of illusions about what imitating Him will involve. Any progress comes from a willingness to be like him in humility and suffering; so too any transformation of the world. It is an awareness of a weakness which cannot attain true happiness any other way which cries out to Him: Turn all earthly things to bitterness for me, all adverse things to patience, all created things into contempt. Do you alone be sweet to me from this day for evermore, who alone are my food and drink, my sweetness and all my good.

More:

It's taken me a lifetime to understand Thomas Kempis - Catholic Herald Online