what's poppin, what's the deal?
if we come to the conclusion that the principal problem of hamilton is historical inaccuracy, we have not looked close enough at it. the formalism, the core structural theme and conflict, which is what determines the narrative repetition (reprises) and investment in the ending, already guarantees that veracity and the extent of factual omissions is a negligible issue. this core that I speak of -- the virtual background on which this was produced, which, given its ideological fortitude, was probably…
An extra-cold Tolstoy-like narrative where the unavoidable romantic tragedy is between two figures who don't belong and the male protagonist interprets all such contradiction as a sexual fantasy of competition. One of the best small touches here that cements his non-belonging despite his con is that he strongly insists on paying for things when he is with wealthy friends -- with the stronger he insists the more impotent it seems, since the whole divide is that the enormously wealthy aren't firmly invested in this as a back-and-forth exchange (tennis match) like he is.
Ephron enacts a ventriloquism to comment on genre construction — speaking through the little boy, who enjoins us and the characters to engage in the imaginary naive rom-com structure, she aims to get at how these movies can seem to effortlessly “read our desire.” It’s not that the boy urges along a fantasy and is capable because he’s not confined by the stubbornness of symbolic authority and conformity. It’s that he, in failing to bring together the Imaginary encounter (the two…
Maci, a hired escort: It's kinda weird having cameras around, right?
Nathan Fielder: We could turn them off if you want.
M: laughs Could we?
NF: Do you want to?
M: Does that defeat the purpose?
NF: What's the purpose?
M: You're filming something. It's kinda the purpose, right?
NF: We do have this drone. It'd be cool to get a drone shot, maybe.
Nathan Fielder's just fucking brilliant TV show has always been built around the similitudes between…
There are a few things you will see many crime thrillers have in common. Among them are the ominous aerial shots, night-vision photography, and scenes operating with only a single limited light source. Denis Villeneuve no doubt uses all three of these, but it is the subtle impressionist inflections he adds to them which sets this film far apart. I am going to focus on his aerial shots for two reasons: One, they especially stand out for their exceptional ability…