Category Archives: Zeitgeist Movement

September 29, 2023

As we get ever further from the 90s, the term supermodel only becomes more nostalgic and evocative. Its a throwback to a time when a coterie of young women from different countries and backgrounds, though all incredibly photogenic captured the cultural zeitgeist by turning their glamorous but gruelling profession into the height of aspiration. They were the original influencers, says Larissa Bills, co-director of The Super Models, a riveting new documentary series about four icons of the era: Naomi Campbell, Cindy Crawford, Linda Evangelista and Christy Turlington. They transcended the fashion and became the personalities of the fashion more than the fashion itself. They were the avatars of that culture. Bills co-director Roger Ross Williams notes drily that we will probably never see their like again because in the age of Instagram, everyones a supermodel now.

Campbell, Crawford, Evangelista and Turlington serve as executive producers on the series, which shines a spotlight on their agency and legacy as well as their era-defining photo shoots. We looked powerful, and then we acted powerful, and then we became powerful, Crawford tells us, neatly summarising the meteoric rise of the supers in the late 80s and early 90s. What I really took away from making this series is that beauty and feminism are not mutually exclusive, says Bills. These women were part of a movement, along with Madonna, that said women could be sexy and wear high heels and lipstick, and yet still be powerful. If these women were good at selling beautiful clothes and making beautiful images, whats wrong with that? Bills acknowledges there is a complexity in viewing the supers as right-on role models, but also says, fairly, that theres more than one way to be a feminist.

When the series four subjects posed for the cover of British Vogue in January 1990 joined by a fifth supermodel, Tatjana Patitz, who sadly passed away earlier this year they epitomised the modern concept of squad goals. The Super Models shows us, touchingly, that this sense of solidarity was more than a marketing ploy. In the series, Campbell speaks plainly about the appalling racism she experienced even after she became a household name, and Evangelista recalls telling industry gatekeepers: If you dont book her, you dont get me. Williams says the four women were best friends and [chosen] family who did it all together and knew the power they had as a group.

Though The Super Models is more of a celebration than an expos, it doesnt gloss over the misogyny and abuse that these women faced as they navigated a male-dominated industry long before the #MeToo movement. Turlington recalls being asked to pose topless when she was just 17, while Campbell shares a grim encounter with an art director who complimented her breasts, then felt the need to have to touch them. After a firm rebuke from late designer Azzedine Alaa, whom Campbell refers to as papa, the unnamed art director never came near me again, she says. The series revisionary spirit also comes to the fore when Crawford looks back at her 1986 appearance on The Oprah Winfrey Show, when she was joined by modelling agent John Casablancas. Crawford says she felt like a chattel when Winfrey asked Casablancas: Did she always have this body? This is unbelievable, before turning to her and saying: Stand up just a moment, now this is what I call a body. Its a moment of blatant objectification that, thankfully, would never happen today.

Meanwhile, Evangelista speaks with careful candour about her ex-husband Grard Marie, the former president of Elite Model Managements European division, who has been accused of multiple counts of sexual assault and rape in the 80s and 90s. Marie has always denied these allegations, and an investigation into him was closed earlier this year because the alleged crimes occurred too long ago to be prosecuted under French law. I learned that maybe I was in the wrong relationship, Evangelista says of her six-year marriage to Marie, which ended in 1993. Its easier said than done to leave an abusive relationship. I understand that concept, because I lived it. She then adds, pointedly: He knew not to touch my face, not to touch the money-maker, you know?

Ultimately, The Super Models feels important because it allows its four subjects to tell their stories on their own terms. Because the images they created in the early 90s are so iconic, Bills says the series sometimes feels like hearing the Mona Lisa speak. Williams points out that, despite their individual highs and lows, not all of which are fully covered, these four women are still working and garnering attention more than 30 years later. In an industry that fetishises youth as well as beauty, that is definitely an achievement worth celebrating. Imagine trying to coincide schedules with these four iconic women, he adds with a laugh. Were documentary-makers, so we move slow. But fashion moves fast, so they move fast too. And honestly, we have never experienced glam on this level before. These women are so professional and know exactly what it takes to make a great picture. For this reason, its heartening as well as fascinating to see them get their full dues.

The Super Models is streaming now on Apple TV+.

See the original post:

The Super Models Tells the Story of the Original Fashion Influencers - AnOther Magazine

Rock n roll has always seemed to me like an ambiguous term.

While traditionally characterized as a combination of other genres, rock n roll is unique in the sense that it was born out of a movement, serving as a soundtrack for the counterculture revolution of the 1950s and 1960s. Rocks transcendental quality is part of its appeal it is defined less by sound and more by behavior, rebellion disguised as music.

To me, the rock n roll attitude is exemplified by artists like Neil Young, Joni Mitchell and Nina Simone a diverse range of artists on the fringe of the cultural scene who cared more about making a statement than making a hit.

To Jann Wenner, co-founder of Rolling Stone and creator of the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame, rock is apparently defined by a couple of white guys.

Wenners new book, The Masters, which was released on Sept. 26, is slated as a visit to the Mt. Olympus of rock, according to Kirkus Reviews. This musical journey, however, only features one type of rock n roll god aging, white, male rock stars.

All seven of the masters that Wenner interviewed which does include undoubtable cultural icons like Bob Dylan and Peter Townshend fall into the same zeitgeist of performers. But it seems that these similarities were not just an oversight on Wenners part they were an intentional choice.

In an interview with The New York Times David Marchese, Wenner addressed the introduction of his book which stated that performers of color were not in [his] zeitgeist. When confronted about these comments, Wenner doubled down, stating that women performers were simply not articulate enough on this intellectual level.

Whats most interesting about Wenners comments particularly those concerning Black performers is the way they inherently discredit his reporting as a music journalist. Rock n roll wasnt just influenced by Black musicians it was created by them.

Rock as we know it to be now started not as a byproduct of Mick Jagger or Jerry Garcia but as a combination of genres moshed together by Black performers a messy, head-banging union of blues, rhythm and more.

It was Chuck Berry, Bo Diddley and other Black rock stars who were the first to legitimize what we now know as rock n roll, long before any of their white counterparts rose to fame.

If were going off of the guidelines of the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame whose board Wenner was recently removed from due to his comments what constitutes a rock musician has never been limited solely to the genre they play.

In fact, many of the Black performers who Wenner apparently deemed too inarticulate to be considered masters of the craft such as James Brown and Sam Cooke were among the first class to be inducted in 1986.

As for women performers Wenner explicitly mentions Janis Joplin and Joni Mitchell in the interview it seems that Wenner has overlooked the criteria of the magazine he helped create. In fact, in Rolling Stones The 500 Greatest Albums of All Time, Mitchells Blue is ranked at 30 and Marvin Gayes Whats Going On at sixth another Black artist whom Wenner deemed simply too inarticulate to be included as a master of the craft.

It seems that Wenner has forgotten his place. Its one thing to be a fan of rock n roll its another thing to be an artist who created it.

I understand that there were other qualifications that limited the scope of who Wenner picked and why he admitted that most of the inductees were personal friends of his, or, if not friends, musicians who he frequently profiled.

I suppose one could consider his anthology a collection of his personal rock masters, the industry figures who he considers the most influential on his experience with rock a history which has been unarguably lengthy and impressive.

But it seems that Wenner has lost sight of one of the core principles of rock. Rock n roll as a genre has never been limited in its existence its a rejection of social norms, one that transcends a single type of band or musician.

While artists such as Jagger and Townshend may exemplify the form of rock music Wenner most closely identifies this rebellion with, a true collection of rock n roll masters would span not only generations, but also race and gender. Only then could his book be considered an honest trip to the godly mountain of music.

Ill try to put it in a context Wenner may understand: limiting the masters of rock to seven white guys is parallel to diluting Bob Dylans discography down to Blonde on Blonde. Youre getting a decent chapter, but missing out on the rest of one of historys finest stories.

Read more:

What constitutes a master? Don't ask Jann Wenner The Daily ... - Daily Free Press

Essential Thinking for Thinking Life

Where there are no limits, totalization becomes possible, and where totalization is possible, so also might there be totalitarianism. David Hume realized this as a problem with philosophy: since we can philosophize about anything, there are no limits to philosophy, and that means governments, rulers, etc., could use philosophy to create for themselves a noncontingent and unlimited basis for their power. When government basis its legitimacy on the food it provides for a neighborhood, government is limited in its power by the degree it can provide that food, and furthermore its power doesnt extend beyond those for whom food is provided. But where governments legitimacy is based on justice, freedom, or a philosophical value (possible because of the spread of philosophical consciousness, as Dr. Livingston describes Hume), then there is no necessary limit on power. Yes, we might freely impose upon ourselves a limit (say if we understand the role of Determinations that we freely choose in making possible Necessities, as discussed with Hegel), but this act will easily seem strange and nonrational, making it hard for most people to do. As a result, where philosophical value becomes primary, a people are likely to find themselves unable to impose limitations on the power which is legitimized by that power. Unlimited power then becomes possible.

More can be said on Hume (as hopefully The Absolute Choice accomplishes), but what Hume warns regarding philosophy Ivan Illich warns similarly regarding technology and tools (both of which suggests Alex Eberts thinking on how limitless growth can become cancerous). What philosophy does for power in making it unlimited, so technology does the same for industry. To formulate a theory about a future society both very modern and not dominated by industry, it will be necessary to recognize natural scales and limits. Where there are no limits to technology, Illich suggests we will cease being human individuals and more so managers of technology, which is to say we will be used by technological ends versus use technology to extend human functions. Such a society, in which modern technologies service politically interrelated individuals rather than managers, [Illich] will call convivial.

Convivial for Illich designate[s] a modern society of responsibly limited tools, which for Illich is also needed if people are to stay human and thus communal, friends, and continue exercising the whole gambit of human activities and forms of community (all of which technology threatens). Illich would cultivate in us an apprehension that things or tools could destroy rather than enhance [graceful playfulness] in personal relations, which leaves us with either the choice of entirely abandoning society or learning to limit the technologies of society, neither of which will happen without direct and focused effort. The effort will require a choice, and if the choice is fundamentally a nonrational ascent to a humanity we cannot full rationalize, only live, this choice is Absolute.

I

Ivan Illich incorporated the parable of the Good Samaritan into his work deeply, which suggests Illichs view that the capacity for surprise [] is the essence of faith. Tools can remove surprise, and in fact it is arguably their purpose to do so, meaning that technology can be a threat to faith. Surprise is taken out of the face of the other today, thanks to technology that helps us always know what the other is doing (via say cellphones and social media), and furthermore thanks to initiatives it is possible for one [to] always know[] the other, in advance of any actual encounter (the society makes available services and appropriate profession[s] to which we can immediately refer the other) (all of which arguably makes the I-Thou encounter of Buber impossible). We can say that Illich is extremely concerned about The Preplanned (which I capitalize to suggest as a broad category), and for him the Good Samaritan suggests that the neighbor who we are to love (and who loving is necessary for loving God according to Christ) is the one whom we happen to come upon and find ourselves having to respond to and meet without any preset notions, ideas, or the like. We can only respond with what we have, and tools and the Preplanned threaten to train us to have nothing with which we can respond to the unexpected. Whats expected, sure, we can meet well, but the surprising and unexpected become something we cannot think or help. Illich often discusses how the corruption of the best is the worst, and Illich seems to suggest that where we prove incapable of handling the surprising and unexpected, we will be corrupted, for we are eventually hollowed out of the human capacities which make us capable of stopping corruption. In this way, a world which must be Preplanned is a world which will be corrupted, and a Preplanned best of all possible worlds is thus the worst.

David Carley notes how for Illich its critical to note that Jesus tells the story of the Samaritan in order to frustrate the request of that certain lawyer for a permanent airtight definition of the neighbor which can hence save us from the nakedness of being vulnerable to the unexpected (the Preplanned is clothing, like what Adam sought after The Fall). Carley notes that opponents often try to entangle Jesus in his own words or entrap him in some blunt formula, only to have him parry and dance out of their grasp with a story, a joke, or an answering question, all of which suggests that Jesus supports the Unplanned, suggesting the Anti-Christ is the Preplanned (please note I say Preplan versus Plan, for Jesus is not against a plan, only a plan which ignores or steamrolls otherness). Ultimately, we can say that conviviality is for Illich being like Jesus, and that means it is about avoiding the Preplanned in favor of readiness for the Unplanned, for it is only in this that humanity and humanness can be cultivated and earned. Tools of Conviviality are hence Tools for Being Christlike. Grace is Unplanned.

Illich suggests that what becomes Preplanned almost naturally slips into corruption. Schooling is said to generate social equality, for example, but Illich soon recognized that it actually produced the opposite effect (and yet had [nevertheless] become [] a worldwide religion). The movement from the Unplanned to the Preplanned regarding the Christian Church is described by Illich as a movement from Church as she [to] Church as it, and all initiatives whether in education, medicine, socializing, etc., are at risk of a similar devolution. The Church for Illich exists to discern and celebrate [a] mystery, which is essentially Unplanned, and any institution or system that lacks a sense of mystery will eventually become an it and Preplanned. Why does all this matter to Illich? Well, its because humans perish without mystery, and since progress today is defined technologically in terms of a movement from the Unplanned to the Preplanned, Illich saw that humanitys understanding of progress was self-effacing.

On this point, we might make a distinction in Illich between secrets and mystery, for he notes in Deschooling Society:

Schools are designed on the assumption that there is a secret to everything in life; that the quality of life depends on knowing that secret; that secrets can be known only in orderly successions; and that only teachers can properly reveal these secrets. An individual with a schooled mind conceives of the world as a pyramid of classified packages accessible only to those who carry the proper tags.

Honoring mystery for Illich is not to treat the world full of ideas and secrets which someone knows and the goal of people is to find those someones and gain from them the secrets. If the world is full of secrets versus essentially prove a mystery, then it is not the case that the world cannot ultimately be entirely Preplanned, for once we know all the secrets, it can be. No, for Illich, the world must ultimately entail a fundamental mystery that we must honor, not only because Illich believes this is simply true and the case, but also because for Illich this fundamental mystery provides a basis and justification for emphasizing the Unplanned.

Secrets are a counterfeit of mystery which try to fill the need for mystery, but ultimately they are in service of the Preplanned and technological vision of modernity, for if the world is full of (Gnostic) secrets, we need technology and plans to learn those secrets (and/or to maintain them in service of power). At the same time, technology can be used precisely to enhance education (as for Hegel knowledge is the Fall but also the Falls cure which also makes possible a greater Eden in New Jerusalem), if only it were used in service of the Unplanned. Regarding education, Illich discusses a need for new networks, readily available to the public and designed to spread equal opportunity for learning and teaching, before describing the TV and the possibility of something like it for helping create such networks. Personally, I find it hard to read these sections (found in the chapter Learning Webs) and not think of the laptop, and furthermore it should be noted that here Illich shows he is not anti-technology, only anti-dehumanizing technology, which is to say technology that removes the Unplanned and mysterious. Learning [today] is defined as the consumption of subject matter, which is the result of researched, planned, and promoted programs it is all Preplanned and thus prone to fall into corruption and dehumanization. For this to change not just in education but also politics, work, etc., our relation to tools and technology must shift but what is meant by this requires further elaboration.

II

Illichs hope was to make the expansion of freedom, rather than the growth of services [and technology] the criteria of social progress but to this some may counter and claim technology indeed increases freedom. To this, Illich might nod and say tools might expand freedom, but not in the way that humanity was mostly using them in his day, for technology was being used to move the world from a she to an it. There is no freedom where there is no humanity, and so tools only expand freedom to the degree they extend our humanity versus save us the trouble. Furthermore, [t]he concept of ownership cannot be applied to a tool that cannot be controlled, which is to say that once tools relate to us as an I(t)-It (to play off Martin Buber), we cannot say tools are even really tools (for that term suggests ownership), for they have rather become something else (our owners, perhaps).

Illich understood that shifting societys relationship to technology and bias for the Preplanned required undertak[ing] an archaeology of modern certainties, those ideas and feelings that seem too obvious and too natural ever to be put into question (an effort that perhaps suggests Foucault), for if we are to relate differently to technology in a manner that favors the Unplanned, that would require us to think through the zeitgeist and certainty that freedom is found in using tools to replace human functions and enable Preplanning for solving secrets versus extend human functions for the Unplanned to honor Mysteries. Living in the 2000s, it is admittedly hard to read Illich and not think he seems old-fashioned and misguided, and yet Illich himself is aware of this problem and knows he must make a case for why we feel this way (thus his attention to zeitgeist and ideology).

As an example of Illichs efforts, The Alphabetization of the Popular Mind argues how the movement from speech to writing contributes to us biasing and emotionally favoring the Preplanned over the Unplanned, suggesting that our bias favoring Preplanning and technology which replaces our human capacities (which moving forward I might call Replacement Technology or RT for short) is profoundly deep. It arises from all the way down, at the bottom level from where our notion of literacy even arises (to be literate is to be able to read versus speak, which for Neil Postman, considering The Death of Childhood, means an adult is someone who reads and thus is primed for systemization and Preplanning). William Ong makes the case that the scientific treatise was not possible before writing, for writing shifted our very thinking to think more scientifically, structured, and treatise-like, and perhaps then it is not by chance that a Preplanned world seems notably vulnerable to Scientism, both of which are motivated by literacy as reading and writing. If Ong is right, then writing changed human thinking to be more Preplanned versus Unplanned, which means, considering Illich, we are more susceptible to being less human, suffering Deleuzian capture, and corrupting institutions. But if writing has indeed changed how we think, then how can we think with Illich? Well, Illich must make a case that human thinking was not always this way, and so he engages in studies of history to help us think against the very way our thinking is now structured. Without this effort, why should we ever think we arent thinking well to Preplan? After all, its how thinking works.

In The Alphabetization of the Popular Mind, Illich writes:

It was not until the Middle Ages that letters ushered in a new type of society [] On one level, new ways of doing business, nourishing prayer life, and administering justice all became feasible through the written preservation of words [] The second way letters changed a society [] has been much less studied and is much more difficult to talk about. The reason for this research lacuna is probably that all the categories by which we talk about past societies have been acquired by reading. By their very nature they serve to describe. They are directly suited to saying things about a society in which social relations are governed by a reliance on written language.

Once writing changes how we think, the categories we use to understand the world are categories suited for ways of thinking which are writing-influenced, and this makes it remarkably difficult for us to discuss humanity before writing. It is perhaps like an Atheist trying to discuss Theism: he or she wont get everything wrong, but there might be natural limits on how much Atheist can think about Theism given that the Atheist believes there is nothing there to think about; likewise, when all thinking is shaped by writing, there seems to be no such thing as thought which isnt shaped by writing to consider. Similarly, like Heidegger, Illich suggests that once thinking is shaped by technology in favor of Preplanning, it seems like there is no such thing as a rationality which isnt instrumental rationality. No, this doesnt mean an Atheist cant think about God as well as a Theist (and arguably many Atheists are more educated about religion than many Theists), but rather the point is that it will require an odd way of thinking: the Atheist must think like a Theist while believing there is no God to think. Likewise, to think prewriting, we must engage in odd thinking relative to our post-writing mindset. Its doable, but we need reason to think we need to do it, which is what Illich hopes to provide with his historic studies.

As literacy became more general and, by the end of the medieval period, embraced by large sections of society, changes began to seep into everyones everyday life. Yes, obviously work will be done differently thanks to writing, but again if Ong is correct, then how people engaged in everyday thinking also changed, which is to say writing changed how people thought about themselves, their lives, and what mattered (a point which again suggests Heidegger). For one, writing contributed to people thinking of themselves more as individuals versus collectives, for it now became possible to learn the laws, the customs, etc. of a society without social interaction via verbal exchange. Oral culture obligat[ed] social relation[], and words were alive not through ink but in the living body of the person concerned, radically impacting our experience of language as particular, personal, and emotive. Now though, we dont consider a promise or contract valid unless its in writing, which means we associate truth and reality with the written word. By extension of this logic, likewise, we associate real thought with the Preplanned and structured, while false thought is Unplanned and improvised. Under this paradigm, Ivan Illich sees little hope of us losing our humanity, which is fundamentally improvisational, mysterious, and Unplanned.

The Invention of News by Andrew Pettegree aligns with Illich, and Pettegree notes how [o]ur medieval ancestors had a profound suspicion of information that came to them in written form [] a news report delivered verbally by a trusted friend or messenger was far more likely to be believed than an anonymous written report (seemingly the exact opposite of us today). Pettegrees book is fascinating in that it provides a historic case for how news evolved between oral and written traditions (to spread and grow as an industry, like government, news needed the written word), which suggests that Pettegree can be seen as doing work which Ivan Illich believed was necessary to erode modern certainty in the virtue of Preplanned Thinking. Pettegree notes that the movement from oral news to written news required the creation of trust in the written word, and Pettegree locates the advent of this trust in commerce (for which we actually have historical records, since it was written, which suggests that we might privilege the printed word because it has provided the vast bulk of surviving evidence of past events, suggesting another reason we might be biased against the oral). Pettegree writes on how international traders had to develop systems of sharing news, in an atmosphere of trust, and with a reasonable expectation that their correspondents would act on the information. It was a critical development in the history of news gathering. For written news to prove possible, this culture which developed in trade had to spread to the general public, which it gradually did alongside economic success (suggesting a point aligned with Ong that the written word changed how people thought and related to impersonal abstractions, eventually making possible justification based on abstraction and hence Humes philosophical consciousness).

As the years passed though, Pettegree observes how [n]o sooner was one issue on sale than news men were gathering copy for the next. There was little mental space for reflection and explanation, even if the style adopted in the newspapers (inherited from the manuscript newsletters) had allowed for this, which it did not. Also, [t]he more the newspapers extended their readership and their political influence, the less they were trusted. It was a difficult and complex legacy to carry into the age of Enlightenment. In this way, the success of news has always been one of the biggest threats to news, and when people feel the news is interested in popularity, they cease to trust it. But note how a distrust of the news seems to replace a distrust of the written word: the trust-ability of the written word over personal exchange is now assumed. Yes, words can be wrong, but words are still fundamentally and formally superior to oral exchange. Distrust of the news hides our trust in writing, which is now assumed, in a way similar to how our distrust of Facebook can hide our trust in technology, RT, and/or technological thinking as a whole. The distrust of the news provides evidence to us that we are still critically thinking, but this feeling only conceals from us our acceptance of the superiority of writing (even while we say we prefer speech, as Derrida noted in Of Grammatology).

In Illich arguing how writing changed the very orientations of everyday people, a simple question arises: Why couldnt this happen again? Further, are we so sure it hasnt already happened again? Illich is suggesting technology is indeed further shifting us, and we have been shifted to favor Preplanning over the Unplanned, making it impossible for us to be like Christ (given Illichs reading of the Good Samaritan). But since we can be like Christ, that means our failure is perhaps a failure of the best of things, which means we might now be the worst of things. The stakes are high. Also, looking ahead, if wed like to return to something like speech over writing, which is mainly to say the ways of thinking engendered by speech, we must go through Lacan and psychoanalysis. To move into writing is to move away from the subject and all the challenges of personhood, and those challenges require us to consider Freud, Lacan, talk therapy, and other psychoanalytical thinkers (who we may not have had to confront so urgently until now). Freud understood that psychoanalysis was needed more in First World Nations then poor, more manual civilizations, because First World Nations had more free time and thus more relations which were not externally meditated by tasks like plowing a field, loading a truck, or even raising a family. In this environment, without the right training, Freud understood pathologies would increase and mental health collapse, exactly as they have. If returning to speaking, per se, is what we must do to use technologies to extend humanity versus replace humanity, then we are incapable of using technology humanly without doing the work of the subject (a theme of Cadell Lasts work). Are we ready for that challenge? Can we face lack and The Real? Who would have thought that using technology would force us to return to facing ourselvesPerhaps a reason we like writing is precisely because it can help us escape this work, all while making us seem more objective and enlightened.

.

.

.

Notes

Illich, Ivan. Tools for Conviviality. New York, NY: Harper & Row Publishers, Inc., 1973: xxiv.

Illich, Ivan. Tools for Conviviality. New York, NY: Harper & Row Publishers, Inc., 1973: xxiv.

Illich, Ivan. Tools for Conviviality. New York, NY: Harper & Row Publishers, Inc., 1973: xxiv.

Illich, Ivan. Tools for Conviviality. New York, NY: Harper & Row Publishers, Inc., 1973: xxv.

Cayley, David and Ivan Illich. The Rivers North of the Future. Toronto, Canada: House of Anansi Press Inc., 2005: 37.

This might suggest wisdom in Malcolm Muggeridge rejecting the use of television for evangelism.

Illich also discusses institutionalization and systemization as threats to surprise and thus genuine care, suggests that Illichs views of limiting technology apply just as well to systems in general. Today we suffer the enormity of the loss that occurs when care is mass-produced. Sin, for example, is hidden, because all failures become systemic rather than personal.(A)

(A) Cayley, David and Ivan Illich. The Rivers North of the Future. Toronto, Canada: House of Anansi Press Inc., 2005: 37.

Cayley, David and Ivan Illich. The Rivers North of the Future. Toronto, Canada: House of Anansi Press Inc., 2005: 37.

All of this suggests how technology contributes to us failing The Unarmored Test, a notion inspired by Raymond K Hessels excellent Notes from a Pod.

Cayley, David and Ivan Illich. The Rivers North of the Future. Toronto, Canada: House of Anansi Press Inc., 2005: 35.

Illich particularly highlights how Christianity becomes the worst of things when corrupted precisely because it is the best of things, a notion I think which aligns with The Fall of Lucifer.

If there is truth to a progressive narrative which suggests the future is better than the past, then that would mean the more Preplanned the future is the more the future will prove a suffering and mutation of Christianity. (A)

(A) Cayley, David and Ivan Illich. The Rivers North of the Future. Toronto, Canada: House of Anansi Press Inc., 2005: 1.

Cayley, David and Ivan Illich. The Rivers North of the Future. Toronto, Canada: House of Anansi Press Inc., 2005: 36.

Cayley, David and Ivan Illich. The Rivers North of the Future. Toronto, Canada: House of Anansi Press Inc., 2005: 36.

Im not sure, by Ivan Illich almost suggests that the written word contributed to our movement away from the Unplanned to the Planned, for contracts, signed documents, book, and the like all become possible, all of which made possible a making life more rigid and structured ([t]he reader was no longer physically incorporated into the order of the book but could impose his order on it).(A) In this way, we can see writing as a tool which risks conviviality just as much as Facebook. Similar in risk might also be labels and categorization, as Illich seems to suggest in H20 and the Waters of Forgetfulness: once water becomes H20, it looses it poetic character, which water needs to surprise us and avoid Preplanning (industrial treatment, beyond a certain intensity, deprives water of the metaphorical resonance it has always possessed).(B) In this way, reductionism can work against conviviality.

(A) Cayley, David and Ivan Illich. The Rivers North of the Future. Toronto, Canada: House of Anansi Press Inc., 2005: 27.

(B) Cayley, David and Ivan Illich. The Rivers North of the Future. Toronto, Canada: House of Anansi Press Inc., 2005: 25.

Cayley, David and Ivan Illich. The Rivers North of the Future. Toronto, Canada: House of Anansi Press Inc., 2005: 3.

Cayley, David and Ivan Illich. The Rivers North of the Future. Toronto, Canada: House of Anansi Press Inc., 2005: 12.

Cayley, David and Ivan Illich. The Rivers North of the Future. Toronto, Canada: House of Anansi Press Inc., 2005: 4.

Cayley, David and Ivan Illich. The Rivers North of the Future. Toronto, Canada: House of Anansi Press Inc., 2005: 7.

Illich, Ivan. Deschooling Society. New York, NY: First Harrow Edition, 1972: 109.

Additionally, a world of mystery has nothing to intentionally hide, for what is hidden simply is hidden, allowing for greater equality and solidarity (all learners could have access without credentials or pedigree, for artificial systems of authority would not need to be created, but instead a natural system of guides to help people relate to the Unplanned mystery). (A)

(A) Illich, Ivan. Deschooling Society. New York, NY: First Harrow Edition, 1972: 109.

Illich, Ivan. Deschooling Society. New York, NY: First Harrow Edition, 1972: 110.

Illich, Ivan. Deschooling Society. New York, NY: First Harrow Edition, 1972: 155.

Cayley, David and Ivan Illich. The Rivers North of the Future. Toronto, Canada: House of Anansi Press Inc., 2005: 14.

Illich, Ivan. Tools for Conviviality. New York, NY: Harper & Row Publishers, Inc., 1973: 25.

Cayley, David and Ivan Illich. The Rivers North of the Future. Toronto, Canada: House of Anansi Press Inc., 2005: 19.

As a note, Illich makes a fascinating point that it was easier to understand how language was gendered when it was spoken, for wed heard differences in words when spoken between men and women ([t]his gender contrast in speech is lost when it congeals as language on the page).(A)

(A) Illich, Ivan and Barry Sanders. The Alphabetization of the Popular Mind. San Francisco, CA: North Point Press, 1988:

Illich, Ivan and Barry Sanders. The Alphabetization of the Popular Mind. San Francisco, CA: North Point Press, 1988: 31.

Illich, Ivan and Barry Sanders. The Alphabetization of the Popular Mind. San Francisco, CA: North Point Press, 1988: 32.

Illich, Ivan and Barry Sanders. The Alphabetization of the Popular Mind. San Francisco, CA: North Point Press, 1988: 32.

Illich, Ivan and Barry Sanders. The Alphabetization of the Popular Mind. San Francisco, CA: North Point Press, 1988: 34.

Pettegree, Andrew. The Invention of News. New Haven, CT. Yale University Press, 2014: 2.

Pettegree, Andrew. The Invention of News. New Haven, CT. Yale University Press, 2014: 347

Pettegree, Andrew. The Invention of News. New Haven, CT. Yale University Press, 2014: 39.

Do all major social and conceptual renaissances start in business and economics? It often seems that way.

Pettegree, Andrew. The Invention of News. New Haven, CT. Yale University Press, 2014: 260.

Pettegree, Andrew. The Invention of News. New Haven, CT. Yale University Press, 2014: 268.

Another point that Pettegree brought up is that when news was regarded less as a key to Gods purpose and more as a catalyst for action, then timeliness became critical. (A) In this way, religion might have helped news from becoming obsessed with speed, which has helped lead us into all the trouble involving speed that Paul Virilio discusses. And if news and information technology shapes thinking, if speed becomes critical, then fast thought might be real thought, destroying focus and possible more.

(A) Pettegree, Andrew. The Invention of News. New Haven, CT. Yale University Press, 2014: 369.

.

.

.

For more, please visit O.G. Rose.com. Also, please subscribe to our YouTube channel and follow us on Instagram, Anchor, Facebook, and Twitter.

See original here:

The Conviviality of Ivan Illich (Part I) | by O.G. Rose | Oct, 2023 ... - Medium

Who: SickKids Foundation, with Cossette for strategy and creative; Spy Films for production (directed by Henry Scholfield); visuals by Studio Feather and Wicked Pixels, using AI and new VFX technology; Norman Wong for photography; Wave Studios NY for sound design and mix, in collaboration with Torontos Vapor Music; tenthree for editing; OMD for media; and Citizen Relations for PR.

What: Heal the Future, a new SickKids VS campaign shifting its fundraising focus to a new approach to care called Precision Child Health (PCH). Its the first major campaign after the long-running fundraising effort to rebuild the aging hospital that inspired the VS positioning seven years ago.

When & Where: The campaign is live now on online video and social channels, as well as high-impact out-of-home, including dominations at Yonge-Dundas Square, Union Station, a TTC subway train, and Billy Bishop Airport. There is alsoa larger-than-life crystal ball symbolizing SickKids promise to heal the future. It was originally in front of the hospital, but has been moved to Front Street Plaza at Union Station until Oct. 15.

Why: After completing the largest fundraising campaign in Canadian healthcare history, raising $1.7 billion to build a new hospital, SickKids VS has shifted its approach to reflect its new fundraising focus: a movement in paediatric care called Precision Child Health (PCH).

As a key pillar of SickKids 2025, the 20202025 SickKids strategic plan, this care model leaves behind a one-size-fits-all approach to paediatric medicine. Rather, it aims to collect and integrate all the information a patient provides, from their genetic code to their postal code, to provide individualized care that addresses their unique characteristics. Utilizing PCH, SickKids will be able to diagnose faster, and even predict the risks of genetic conditions before illness strikes.

PCH is a game-changer for SickKids, said Kate Torrance, vice-president, head of brand at SickKids Foundation. Its not just one program or initiativeits a seismic cultural shift in how SickKids cares for its patients.

How is the new VS different?The original tone of the VS brand was very focused on what SickKids was fighting against, says Torrance. It had this kind of real gritty, almost a dark, edgy feel to it, which did exactly what we needed to do at the time in terms of breaking category norms.

As we were fundraising for a new building, we wanted to [highlight] the gaps, deficiencies and problems as a way of bringing in donors. But now were shifting to a place where were actually talking about the possibilities instead of the problems. And as a result, we felt the brand tone needed to shift. Because the VS platform is so versatile, it has the ability for us to tell different stories and hit different emotional notes, she added.

How (the strategy): In strategizing the VS rebrand, SickKids had two key considerations: how do they reignite the interest of the general public? And how do they stand out from competitors? Because we transformed what not-for-profit advertising could be, we were noticing a lot of other charities in the healthcare sector sort of mimicking a lot of our look, feel and tone, said Torrance. And we needed to differentiate ourselves again.

From the brand standpoint, we looked at what was going on in the zeitgeist and we saw that after the pandemic, people were craving things that were focused on optimism and hope, things that felt brighter, more modern, more youthful. These were things we could tap into, because theyre naturally part of our brand.

How (the creative):The campaign is anchored by a short film inspired by a SickKids patient named Nathan, who died at 10 from a heart condition called hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. Though SickKids was aware of Nathans genetic condition, at the time, it not have the tools or technology to understand that he was at high risk for sudden cardiac death. The technology available today changes that, which is why the film imagines an alternative reality in which PCH saves Nathans life.

Soundtracked by the Billie Eilish song Everything I Wanted, it opens on a teenage boy collapsing in the schoolyard, before the viewer is whisked back through time, witnessing key moments in his life where hes affected by his condition. The rewind stops at a doctor consultation, in which a doctor informs the boys parents that a small implanted device can restart his heart if it ever stops.

The spot then transports viewers forward in time to see the boy living his full life right up to the moment of his collapse, when the device restarts his heart in the schoolyard. SickKids and Cossette describe it as a dramatization of PCHs ability to search the past, analyze the present, and heal the future for a child.

Since the film sets itself apart from recent Sickkids campaigns,it focused on a single patient story with a positive outcome.

And we quote: Its the first time weve told the story of a child and what it means to live a fulfilling life when an early diagnosis is possible. Theres a quote at SickKids that inspired much of this work: Dont just heal the child, heal the adult they will become. This had us fighting for childrens futures when traditionally, weve been focusing on our fight in the present. Anthony Atkinson, executive creative director, Cossette

Here is the original post:

SickKids unveils more future-focused VS campaign to match new ... - The Message

The 1960s, a pivotal decade marked by social, cultural, and political upheaval, witnessed a scintillating sonic revolution in the form of what we now know as classic rock. It was a golden era when future iconic bands emerged, blending diverse musical genres and introducing innovative soundscapes that captured the rebellious and freedom-seeking mood of the times.

From its unadulterated rock sounds to the infusion of psychedelic and blues elements, the 60s bred a rich musical tapestry that continues to captivate listeners and influence aspiring artists. The impact of these iconic rock bands is not limited to their groundbreaking sounds and chart-topping hitsit extends to their ability to embody and influence the zeitgeist of their time.

Whether its the poetic rebellion of The Doors, the anthemic power of The Who, or the blues-based cheekiness of The Rolling Stones, each of the following bands from the pulsating 60s carved its indelible mark on the genre known as classic rock.

Before becoming the chart-topping, all-influencing cultural behemoth theyre known as now, The Beatles honed their skills in Hamburg, playing extended sets that encompassed myriad genres. This experience was foundational in developing their musical style and stamina. Known for their innovative songwriting and harmony-filled melodies, The Beatles pushed the boundaries of music, experimenting with unconventional recording techniques and exploring diverse musical genres. When it comes to classic rock, it doesnt get any more fab than John, Paul, George, and Ringo.

Inspired by American blues, The Rolling Stones brought a raw and rebellious edge to the rock scene. Mick Jaggers electrifying stage presence and Keith Richards distinctive guitar riffs became the bands signature. Their name is derived from a Muddy Waters song, highlighting their deep reverence for blues music. The bands impromptu concert in 1969 at Altamont Speedway, intended to be the Woodstock of the West, instead became a cultural watershed in a negative way due to its chaotic atmosphere and deadly events.

Named after Aldous Huxleys book The Doors of Perception, The Doors were known for their fusion of rock, jazz, and blues. Jim Morrisons poetic lyrics and charismatic yet unpredictable stage presence defined the bands mystical and provocative persona. Morrisons infamous antics from the stage were intended to provoke the audience and cause a general ruckusit was a mission he accomplished regularly, resulting in controversy, arrests, and a well-deserved reputation as rocks enfant terrible.

[RELATED Behind the Band Name: The Doors]

Pioneers of hard rock and heavy metal, Led Zeppelin melded blues, folk, and rock to create a powerful and eclectic sound. John Bonhams ferocious drumming, Robert Plants wailing vocals, and Jimmy Pages standard-bearing riffs became the bands trademarks. After The Whos Keith Moon and John Entwistle considered forming a supergroup with Jimmy Page pre-Zeppelin, Moon remarked that particular band would go down like a lead balloon, leading to the adoption of Led Zeppelin as Pages new bands moniker.

The Who, with their anthemic sound and mean-mugging mod image, were renowned for their explosive, near-violent live performances and, eventually, groundbreaking rock operas like Tommy and Quadrophenia. Pete Townshends windmill guitar strumming and Roger Daltreys powerful vocals were iconic aspects of their shows. The origin of their first-of-its-kind guitar-smashing and drum-tumbling act at the end of their shows was an accident. During a gig in 1964, Townshend broke his guitar against the ceiling, leading to an unexpected yet captivating performance element that became synonymous with The Whos live acts.

Hailing from the San Francisco Bay Area, Jefferson Airplane was synonymous with the psychedelic rock scene of the 60s. Grace Slicks compelling vocals and the bands experimental sound made them icons of the counterculture movement. The bands seminal hit White Rabbit is one of the first songs to sneak drug references past censors, with its lyrics subtly weaving tales of Alice in Wonderland with the burgeoning psychedelic culture of the time.

Photo by Estate of Edmund Teske/Michael Ochs Archives/Getty Images

Read the original here:

Top 6 Iconic Classic Rock Bands of the '60s - American Songwriter

The following is the opinion and analysis of the writer:

Recent Gallup polls show approval ratings among all Americans hovering around 70%, the highest since the 1960s. (There would seem to be a lot of purple overlap in this otherwise so sharply divided country.) We are seeing stories of union beachheads at Amazon, Starbucks and Trader Joes, the burgeoning strike of the traditional union stronghold of automakers, and the recent success of Hollywood writers.

Although only 10% of workers are in a union, down from 35% at the zenith, its good to hear of this renaissance of unions. And of the logic of unions.

In 1940s and 50s that logic had become as unassailable as democracy itself. I assume it was part of my public schools curriculum that the passage in mid-Depression of the Wagner Act legalizing unions, that unions represented self-evident progress. It seemed a feature of the zeitgeist, even in the Republican country I grew up on. I dont know where else a kid would have learned it.

The progressive logic of unions was taught in relation to the anti-union, owner-oriented logic that had prevailed until then: its my property and when youre on it working for me, for which you are paid, and should be grateful, youll do what I want you to. I set the rules.

That way of thinking had been linked with what had been seen by many as the great progress wrought by capitalism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, such as railroads spanning the continent. Most Americans guessing here identified with these acts of fulfilling our so-called Manifest Destiny, important progress for our country, even if we called their capitalist-perpetrators Robber Barons. If workers were abused, many killed, in the process, so be it. (Omelettes require breaking eggs.)

That logic was slowly supplanted by the idea that owners will never on their own see things from their workers point of view. You may own the building and other means of production, but we workers are the indispensable means of production we actually make the stuff you sell at a profit so in that sense its our business, too. Which you will find out when we withhold our labor in a strike.

As for the owner-serving notion of the owner as a benevolent parent to workers, it was not seen as in the owners interests to keep workers safe, a common sense illustrated by the terrible Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire of 1911, in which 146 workers died. Owners could not be counted on to keep workers safe or care about children working 16 hours a day.

Along with anti-trust laws, unions were a sort of checks- and -balances for our voracious economic system.

The logic of unions was a big conceptual change, and one not, of course, embraced by a lot of the owner class. But there were more workers than owners and managers.

It was a story we were taught, not as a political victory of the left but of genuine progress for humans, as self-evidently logical and humane as that slavery was bad or that women are fully human and should have all the rights of full humanity.

The logic of unions seemed as natural/unassailable as that of two plus two equals four.

But the triumph of that logic was short-lived and began to decline almost as soon as it became installed as law. Reasons often cited for the decline: union corruption such as that depicted in the 1954 movie On the Waterfront, Reagans union-busting, as well as OSHA and genuine improvements in workplace safety built into law as a result of the labor movement.

It seems that workers themselves also lost a grip on the hard-won logic from struggles earlier in the century, of worker empowerment, of democracy of the workplace. This despite what many economists have seen as the clear connection between the decline of that logic and the rise, over the past five decades, in economic inequality as reflected in the dramatic rise of the ratio of CEO income to that of the average worker.

With the rise of Amazon, Starbucks, Trader Joes, the idea of the benevolent owner has been a likely factor in the erosion of union logic, the idea of worker happiness going hand-in-hand with company profits. This idea has of course been cited in owners pitches to workers who believe they have reasons to unionize.

So even as we wait to see if the logic of democratic institutions in general survives, it is heartening to see the re-emergence of the logic of unions and democracy in the workplace.

It feels like welcoming back as an old friend the logic of two plus two equaling four after a long period of it equaling five.

Follow these steps to easily submit a letter to the editor or guest opinion to the Arizona Daily Star.

Brent Harold, a former English professor and writer., is an Arizona Daily Star contributing writer. He lives in Tucson. You can reach him at kinnacum@gmail.com.

Get opinion pieces, letters and editorials sent directly to your inbox weekly!

The rest is here:

Brent Harold: The renaissance of union logic - Arizona Daily Star

CNA Newsroom, Sep 29, 2023 / 10:45 am (CNA).

As German bishops wrapped up their plenary meeting on Thursday with a final press conference amid tensions over same-sex blessings and a whole host of underlying issues, the focus was clear: All eyes were turned toward the fraught relationship with Rome and the forthcoming Synod on Synodality.

Bishop George Btzing of Limburg, president of the German Bishops Conference, took public issue with the apostolic nuncio in Germany, Archbishop Nikola Eterovi, for reminding the German bishops of statements by Pope Francis on anthropology, including gender ideology.

Citing Pope Francis, the papal ambassador had addressed the German prelates at their plenary assembly with a reminder it was necessary to reject ideological colonization, including gender ideology while emphasizing that every person, regardless of sexual orientation, should be respected in their dignity and welcomed with respect.

When asked by CNA Deutsch about this reminder, Btzing on Sept. 28 accused the popes envoy to Germany of engaging in a culture war with terms such as gender ideology or ideological colonization.

And when the Church engages in a culture war, it will always lose, he said.

Btzing used the German term for culture war Kulturkampf. Given its bitter historical context, this is a loaded concept, amid the current concerns over the German Synodal Way, including its demand for blessing homosexual unions.

The alternative to a culture war, Btzing added, was not adaptation, not simply agreeing to everything and going along with everything, but the ecclesial principle of discernment of spirits.

This is precisely what we have tried to do in the Synodal Way, the bishop claimed.

The spirit of the times Zeitgeist is the spirit of the world. Signs of the times are signs that God gives to people through culture, through a current development [movement], so that we can better understand what the Gospel wants.

The president of the German bishops conference added: We have to differentiate.

Asked by EWTN Germany program director Martin Rothweiler about irritation caused by individual bishops moving forward on issues such as the blessing of homosexual unions openly defying the Vatican, Btzing said: Many more believers are irritated that the Church is not moving on this issue.

While Btzing used the opportunity to double down on his approach, it is clear that not everyone in the Church in Germany shares his vision. For instance, Bishop Rudolf Voderholzer of Regensburg has frequently sounded alarms over doctrinal drift. His concerns mirror those of a minority of other bishops.

Augsburg Bishop Bertram Meier, who will attend the synod in Rome, offered a nuanced view on Thursday, stressing the need for the wealth of different positions, opinions, and creative ideas.

Yet, the prudent prelate warned that diversity should not become division. I also wish that from the diversity of opinions no threats stand, but that we discover the richness of what catholicity means, Meier remarked.

Amid this diverse cacophony, Btzing doubled down on his stance, declaring: We are in a phase in the Church where perhaps it is not security that is the unifying and stabilizing element but rather a dynamic in certain directions.

Conscious of mounting tensions and open defiance around issues like the blessing of same-sex unions, the assembly in Wiesbaden served as a charged prelude to more significant debates on Church governance and hot-button issues.

With the Synod on Synodality on the immediate horizon, the Catholic world will watch how Germanys controversial Synodal Way integrates or collides with the global Catholic event. Btzings assertion that a dynamic in certain directions holds the Church together now casts its shadow onto the upcoming synod.

If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!

Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.

See the rest here:

German bishops conclude tense gathering with all eyes on Synod ... - Catholic World Report

Two mid-aughts Slasher Saturdays in a row?! Whod have thunk it? Suppose youve been following my articles or the Slasher Saturdays column. In that case, youll be fully aware of my love for chasing the nostalgia dragon of the feeling of watching AMCs FearFest or SciFis 31 Days of Halloween from when I was younger. Fret not, I will not spend a whole opening paragraph talking about it, as I am one to do. In recent weeks/months I have been going back through some of these mid-aughts films I grew up on and made a surprising and possibly controversial discovery. CouldThe Hills Have Eyes (2006) be an example of a perfect remake (and is it better than the original)? I wager to say yes.

Wes CravensThe Hills Have Eyes was released in July of 1977 and would make around two million dollars by October of that year. By the end of its run, it would make 25 million, on a budget of between 350k and 700k. As well as being critically received fairly well, The Hills Have Eyes was not just a successful feature film, but it would go on to have a deep cult following. Cut to the early 2000s. Wes Craven noticed how successful the remakes ofThe Texas Chainsaw Massacre andThe Amityville Horror were. This led him to consider a remake of his second feature filmThe Hills Have Eyes. Cravens producing partner Marianne Madalena would then introduce him to the New French Extremity filmHigh Tension. Luck is when preparation meets opportunity and Alexandre Aja was incredibly well prepared. With a budget of 15 million, six times bigger than that of High Tension, Aja and cowriter/collaborator Grgory Levasseur would venture deep into a Moroccan desert to start production.

KNB EFX spearheaded the six-month-long process of creating the mutant designs. Starting with elaborate 3D renderings, then onto sculptures, before ending with the incredible practical designs we see in the film. The first big change we should talk about is the antagonists and by proxy the harbinger. In the original Fred (John Steadman) acts as a harbinger and is actively trying to save the family from the group of cannibal savages. The remake brings us Jeb (Tom Bower) who, like Fred, is trying to escape the group of mutated cannibals, but still ultimately sends the protagonists to their doom. Fred does find himself to be more of a tragic character, hes thrust unwillingly into the grips of the cannibal killers and has finally had enough. Jebs character actively helps the mutated cannibals to secure food and in return, they provide Jeb with their riches. When it comes to deaths, Freds is fairly tame, while Jebs shotgun to the head is way more impactful and tragic.

Cannibal savages versus mutated cannibals. Who wins? CravensHills takes an American look at the class divide system. On one hand, we have the 2nd Amendment more wealth than needed suburbanites who are thrust into a world they dont know, while the savages represent the lower class. Its a harsh look at economic inequality, and while sometimes it feels a bit offensive in portrayal I think Craven does a decent job at telling that specific story. AjasHills is a much more unique approach to the story. Rather than an American looking at class structure in America, we have a French filmmaker who is providing a commentary on how he sees the American cultural divide as an outsider. Ajas depiction provides a lot more to the commentary of the idea of rich vs. poor than Cravens does. Beyond that, its incredibly interesting to see how American political issues are viewed by someone who doesnt live here.

There is unique violence in both of the films, and the majority of the kills are either one-to-one or nearly similar to each other. That is up until the stories completely diverge from each other. Both films have Doug (Martin Speer in 77 and Aaron Stanford in 06) portrayed as a bit of a, what a chud would refer to as, beta, but Aja goes a bit harder on that. The turn from beta to savior is one of the most intriguing in horror history, but how the respective films handle it is wildly different. Wes Craven handles the character of Doug pretty haphazardly and I dont think it works. Shortly after the RV crash, Doug journeys off in the opposite direction of Big Bob (Russ Grieve) in hopes of finding a military base thats on the map. From that point, Doug disappears from the film for a fairly decent amount of time before coming back to save the family. Ajas Doug is a bit different.

If you knowHigh Tension then you know what Aja can do. Its an unflinching look at repressed sexuality and mental health. As someone who helped New French Extremity make a name for itself, it would make sense whatever project he took on next would fall into a political horror realm. In Hills 06 we see a different Doug that also gives him top billing since hes really the main character. After the crash, Big Bob (Ted Levine) and Doug decide they will both go separate ways to find help. When its brought up about whether Doug should take a gun, Big Bob makes a quip about how Doug is a Democrat and doesnt like guns, making it clear that Bob is a Republican and Doug is a Democrat. Funnily enough Big Bob goes to the left, the familiar direction where there is a known outcome, while Dough goes to the right, placing Doug into unknown territories. Once Doug is back, his baby is kidnapped, he flips his switchand thats where the commentary really comes in. But we need to back up real quick.

In Cravens script, there are two German Shepards: Beauty and The Beast. Aja and Levasseurs script thankfully removes the from Beasts name, because The Beast was a bit too on the nose. In both films, Beauty dies. Also in both scripts, Beast is there for the bloody denouement, but in each capacity, its handled differently. In Cravens version, The Beast helps defeat Pluto (Michael Berryman). In Ajas Beast does help a bit, but hes more there for the symbolism. By the end of the film, we have seen the death of Beauty, literally and figuratively. These blue-blooded Americans have their eyes opened up to one of the unfortunate truths of life: there are evil people out there who only want to do you harm. Doug marches into the valley to save his daughter, led on a leash by Beast. Then after the action, we see a blood-soaked Doug walking out of the valley with his baby in one arm, and led by Beast with the other. The innocence of left-wing Doug has been ripped away from him and push has now come to shove. I think this really brings the whole ideology of New French Extremity to the forefront and really encapsulates the idea of the movement. When faced with powerful people enacting fascistic regimes, you fight back with what you can. For Aja, its with a camera, and for Doug, it was with the sharp end of a lawn stake with an American flag on it.

While CravensHillsis a fairly decent film with a good story, its AjasHills that really takes the story and runs. The story, violence, practicals, and mood are all amped up by a thousand percent. So what makes this a perfect remake? Saying its because of practicals, mixed with digital enhancement would be cheating, so dont worry about that. But its what Aja did with the source material and how he, and Levasseur, elevated it. Its that Aja and Levasseur added a whole new element of commentary into what some might consider a throwaway mid-aughts slasher flick. The story isnt very complex in either, but what Aja and Levasseur add in commentary makes the film feel fuller and rounded out in a way Craven wasnt able to. It probably helps that Ajas style fits perfectly in that zeitgeist of film. This was Cravens second feature film, and he still hadnt really formed a visual style so his films feel a bit all over the place. (Also I love Wes Craven, dont get me wrong.) Coincidentally this was Ajas second feature film and he had already crafted and understood what his style was, and it really works well in a story like The Hills Have Eyes.

So the question is what makes a remake good? Most of the time when a film is remade its because theres some sort of intrinsic factor to it that audiences connect with. Its fairly clear The Hills Have Eyes was not only financially successful, 25 million in 77 money would be about 126 million in todays money, but it gained a deep cult following. But to be a good remake you have to bring something new to the table, while also appeasing the fans of the original.The Hills Have Eyes06 not only kept incredibly close to the original while still being able to find its footing to stand on its own. The small change with Beast, the over-the-top nature of the violence, and the many minute additions and changes help take the remake from being a good movie to a great movie.

The rest is here:

Slasher Saturdays: The Hills Have Eyes (1977) Vs. The Hills Have ... - Horror Obsessive

If you've read the hundreds of entries in his Drive-In Dust Offs column on Daily Dead or listened to him over the past several years as one of the co-hosts of Corpse Club, then you know that Scott Drebit has an infectious passion for horror movies that graced the silver screen during the golden (and sometimes gory) days of the drive-in, and he's continuing to shine a spotlight on some of his favorite films from that beloved era of cinema in his new book A Cut Below: A Celebration of B Horror Movies, 1950s1980s!

On this episode of Daily Dead's official podcast, Scott joins fellow co-hosts Bryan Christopher and Derek Anderson to discuss what readers can look forward to in A Cut Below (which will be published by McFarland Books), including insightful discussions on five of the 60 films celebrated within its pages: Burial Ground, My Bloody Valentine, Creepshow, Popcorn, and John Carpenter's Prince of Darkness. So, grab your favorite movie snack, find a good parking spot in front of the silver screen (whether it's at your local drive-in or in your own living room), and settle in for an enthralling, informative, and always entertaining ride into horror cinema from the 1950s1980s (and slightly beyond)!

To order A Cut Below for yourself or the horror lover in your life, visit:

A Cut Below: Horror films have been around for more than 100 years, and they continue to make a large impact on popular culture as they reflect their contemporary zeitgeist. Between the mid1950s and mid1980s, drive-in theaters were at their peak of popularity, and each decade brought forward new challenges and themes.

This book explores 60 B horror films, divided into 12 fun and uniquely-themed categories. Chapters discuss how the Atomic Age, the Vietnam War, the womens liberation movement and other current events and social issues affected these films. Films covered include Willard, The Fly, Santa Sangre and many more.

Looking for more scary good Corpse Club content? Be sure to check out our Corpse Club website and memberships. Not only can you view past episodes, but you can also sign up to be an official Corpse Club member to enjoy a wide range of rewards, including a shirt and pin that are to die for, access to bonus content, and the ability to suggest an episode topic!

Missed out on our previous episodes? Don't despair, our entire backlog is waiting for you on our website!

See the article here:

Listen to Scott Drebit Discuss His New Book A CUT BELOW: A ... - Daily Dead

In the annals of music history, Whitney Houston is an ethereal presence, her voice an unparalleled force that resonates through time. Yet, beyond the stages and recording studios, Houston's impeccable sense of style and her ever-evolving hairstyles have become as iconic as her legendary vocals. She is also known as a style queen for a reason. Each style, a carefully curated masterpiece, reflected not just her evolving image but a mirror to the zeitgeist of their respective eras. From the cascading curls that framed her face in the '80s to the sleek, chic sophistication of the '90s, Whitney Houston's hairstyles remain an integral part of her enduring legacy. Join us on a mesmerizing journey through the strands of Whitney's life, each Whitney's hairstyle an ode to her influence on the world of beauty and fashion and a testament to the timelessness of true elegance.

Whitney Houston was an American music legend born on August 9, 1963, in Newark, New Jersey, who tragically passed away on February 11, 2012. She was a renowned singer and actress, celebrated for her exceptional vocal prowess and immense contributions to the music industry. Houston's career spanned several decades and left an indelible mark on the entertainment world.

Houston's debut album, Whitney Houston, released in 1985, catapulted her to stardom. It became one of the best-selling debut albums by a female artist, featuring iconic hits like Saving All My Love for You and Greatest Love of All. Throughout her career, she continued to release chart-topping albums, including Whitney and the immensely successful The Bodyguard: Original Soundtrack Album, which featured her rendition of I Will Always Love You.

What set Whitney Houston apart was her extraordinary vocal range and the ability to convey deep emotions through her singing. Her voice was characterized by its clarity, power, and versatility, making her one of the greatest vocalists in the history of popular music. Whitney Houston's impact on the music industry and her enduring legacy as an artist continue to be celebrated and remembered by fans worldwide.

To achieve Whitney Houston's curly hair from the 1980s, follow these steps. Achieving this look involves using a curling iron or hot rollers to create those iconic light brown curly hairs. Begin to create this fantastic Whitney Houston hairstyle by applying a heat protectant to your hair, then use a medium-sized curling iron or hot rollers to curl small sections of your hair. Once done, gently fluff and separate the curls with your fingers for added volume. Finish the 80s hair with a flexible hold hairspray to keep the curls in place.

To achieve Whitney Houston's short haircut from the early 1990s, follow these steps. Start by visiting a skilled hairstylist who can expertly cut your hair into a pixie style tailored to your face shape. To maintain the sleek and short look, use a small amount of styling pomade or wax to create definition and hold, ensuring your hair looks polished and elegant, just like Whitney's iconic short hairstyle.

Throughout her Bodyguard era in the early '90s, Whitney favored a straight and sleek look. Achieving this look starts with washing and conditioning your hair, then using a straightening iron to create a smooth and glossy finish. Apply a heat protectant before straightening, and finish with a shine serum to achieve the desired sleekness.

To emulate Whitney Houston's occasional preference for long, flowing locks, modern hair products, and techniques can be your best allies. Incorporating high-quality hair extensions is a strategic choice, especially if your natural hair length falls short of the desired look. Alongside this, maintaining a keen eye for fashion sense is paramount. Complementing this regimen, the judicious application of nourishing hair masks fortified with contemporary formulations can elevate your hair's vitality, bringing it closer to the lustrous elegance that defined Whitney Houston's legendary mane.

To achieve a softer and more romantic look inspired by Whitney Houston's natural hair, begin by sectioning off the top half of your hair and securing it with a hair tie or pins. For a relaxed appearance, leave some loose strands around your face. To add charm to this hairstyle, use a curling iron to curl the loose hair or create soft waves with a flat iron. This will help you capture the same elegance and grace Whitney often showcased with her natural hair.

To sport a bob cut like Whitney, consult a hairstylist who can customize the style to suit your face shape. If desired, incorporate bangs into the look for a youthful touch. Maintenance involves regular trims to keep the bob's shape intact.

Achieving sophisticated updos or top knots often requires the expertise of a hairstylist for special occasions. They can skillfully create intricate styles based on your preferences. To maintain elegance, use hairpins and a strong-hold hairspray.

Side-swept bangs can be achieved by asking your hairstylist to cut longer bangs that can be swept to the side. To style them, use a flat iron or blow dryer and a round brush to guide the bangs to one side gently. Finish with a light-hold hairspray for added hold.

To add depth and movement to your hair, like Whitney, ask your hairstylist for layered cuts that complement your face shape. Use a volumizing mousse to create texture and a natural appearance. Regular trims help maintain the layered effect.

To achieve natural wavy hair or curls like Whitney Houston's, especially in her later years, follow these steps. Start with a curl-enhancing shampoo and conditioner to maintain moisture in your hair. After washing, scrunch your hair with a curl-enhancing product while it's still damp. You can let it air dry or use a diffuser for a natural, relaxed curl look reminiscent of Whitney Houston's hair.

Whitney Houston's life was a stylish symphony, where her ever-changing hairstyles seamlessly intertwined with her remarkable journey, each note resonating in perfect harmony. From the bountiful curls of the '80s to the elegant bob cuts of the '90s and the various captivating chapters in between, Whitney's hairstyles were not just about aesthetics; they were about self-expression, evolution, and the embrace of the moment. Her blonde hair, at times, added another layer of charm and sophistication to her iconic image, reflecting her versatility as an artist and a fashion icon. Just as her music transcended genres, Whitney Houston's hairstyles transcended hair trends, leaving an indelible mark on the world of beauty and fashion. With each hairstyle, she revealed a new facet of her identity, inspiring generations to embrace their uniqueness. Whitney Houston's hairstyles, like her music, remind us that true beauty lies not in conformity but in the courage to be ourselves, unapologetically and authentically.

ALSO READ: American Idol 2023: Fans disapprove of We Ani's elimination, call the show 'rigged'

Top 50 Hairstyles for Women over 70 to Seize the Day

11 Must-try Sharon Osbourne Hairstyles for a Bold And Classy Look

Read the rest here:

Whitney Houston Hairstyles: Tribute to Her Unparalleled Elegance - PINKVILLA