I just watched The Exorcist for the first time, and thought it was very well-done. I looked up the Wikipedia page for it, and this part interested me:

"Second-wave feminism has figured in discussions of The Exorcist. At the time, the US women's liberation movement had enjoyed some early gains in legislatures and courts. Commentators[who?] have seen the film's depiction of a single working mother and her uncontrollable daughter who are rescued by patriarchal authority as a reaction against feminism.[233][11][235] Former studio executive Peter Biskind, in Easy Riders and Raging Bulls, describes the film as "a male nightmare of female puberty. Emergent female sexuality is equated with demonic possession." For the male authority figures in The Exorcist, whether priests or physicians, Regan must be restored to her innocence through abusive and violent means if necessary.[178] Many feminist critics, like Biskind, note the film's focus on the female body as the site of horror. "When her body changes, Regan becomes someone else; someone sexual, whose desire is a dark visitor" writes Jude Ellison Doyle in Dead Blondes and Bad Mothers: Monstrosity, Patriarchy and the Fear of Female Power. "To become a woman is to become the ... enemy of all that is pure or holy."[236] But Australian film studies professor Barbara Creed, in The Monstrous-Feminine, which inaugurated psychoanalytic feminist film theory, counters the prevailing feminist take on The Exorcist by insisting that Pazuzu is female[237] and thus the possession of Regan is itself a feminist act, exposing "the inability of the male order to control the woman whose perversity is expressed through her rebellious body",[238] as she navigates an incestuous desire for her mother.[239] University of Toronto professor S. Trimble writes that the film tapped into "white American fears of nightmare futures" that could result from the women's liberation, gay liberation and Black Power movements' challenge to the established 1970s social order. Trimble writes that, as a film about "a revolting girl revolting against the little-girl box in which she was stuck" and army of men trying to put her back, The Exorcist follows older horror movies that use gender-bending to create a monster.[240]"

And also, she had a desire for the mother? I must have missed that.

Edit: I have found this article: https://fightbacknews.org/articles/exorcist-and-right-wing-politics-possession.

"Extremely retrograde views on women and gender roles abound in The Exorcist, most clearly seen through the character of Chris. For one, she's a single mother who left Reagan's estranged father to pursue her acting career. Chris screams profanity at him over the phone for everyone to hear, Reagan included. She's casually dating producer Burke Dennings, much to the dislike of her daughter. Even the film's central plot point – the demon possession – happens during Reagan's long afternoons home alone while Chris works. The Exorcist falls into the tired sexist troupe of blaming single working mothers for the problems that befall their children. The movie not-so-subtly suggests that women like Chris put their families through literal hell if they pursue their careers or show too much independence."

I thought that was interesting because my impression throughout the movie was that Chris was actually very present and loving, she came home from work and spent time with her daughter, etc. But maybe I am seeing this through a 2026 lens.

Since Interstellar, Nolan has made two films based on historical events (Dunkirk and Oppenheimer), one adaptation (The Odyssey), and one original film (Tenet, arguably his worst film), and I've been ambivalent about them all.

Hitchcock could do fun adventures like North By Northwest but also thrillers in a single setting like Dial M For Murder and Rear Window that were no less engrossing. Kubrick made epics like 2001: A Space Odyssey and Barry Lyndon but also transgressive works like A Clockwork Orange and Full Metal Jacket. You can see trademarks of each director across these films, but you can't say FMJ felt like Lyndon or North By Northwest like Psycho. I get the sense that Nolan has been taking stories and making them fit his brand rather than adapting as a filmmaker to new things.

It doesn't help that the people who contributed to his earlier films have left. I've been confident that Interstellar was the peak and things have gone downhill since then and knowing that Jonathan Nolan hasn't contributed since that film really puts things into perspective. It's also worth noting that Inception was the only Nolan film from 2005-2014 that Jonathan wasn't involved, and Inception exemplifies things that became even worse in later films like the convoluted plot, the tormented male lead (with some guilt-washing in the cases of Oppenheimer and Odysseus), and characters who come second to the spectacle and said-convoluted plots.

Other absences include editor (Lee Smith to Jennifer Lame) and cinematographer (Wally Pfister to Hoyte van Hoytema). The quick-editing of Tenet through The Odyssey has resulted in films that simultaneously feel bloated yet undercooked. Tenet and Oppenheimer inundate you with so much exposition that you can feel overwhelmed. As for cinematography, while I love Interstellar, I've come to notice that Nolan's recent output feels rather small in scale despite their large budgets. Compare Gladiator and Kingdom of Heaven to The Odyssey and you'll see what I mean.

I don't know where else Nolan has to go as a filmmaker. He accomplished all he could do in the 2000s and early-2010s and has now established a formula based on superior films made decades ago, from Memento to Inception to Interstellar. But if you were to compare, say, The Dark Knight to The Odyssey, you'd see that the former feels grander and more cohesive despite not being a historical epic. It feels livelier, with moments of levity in between the more serious bits, engaging action, and leaves you more time to breathe. It doesn't feel like an extended trailer meant to showcase IMAX and cater to a particular brand.

I'm not going to say its a great film, but as a critique of Capitalism it puts a spike through the heart.

Marx's comparison of Capital to "dead labor" comes to mind, as well as the appeal to vampirism.

"As a capitalist, he is only capital personified. His soul is the soul of capital. But capital has only one sole driving force, the drive to valorize itself, to create surplus-value, to make its constant part, the means of production, absorb the greatest possible amount of surplus labour. Capital is dead labour which, vampire-like, lives only by sucking living labour, and lives the more, the more labour it sucks. The time during which the worker works is the time during which the capitalist consumes the labour-power he has bought from him.... Like all buyers, he seeks to extract the maximum possible benefit from the use-value of his commodity"

The film itself is a satire of the high-finance Art World, and Gilroy and Gyllenhaal join forces again, as they did in Nightcrawler (which was excellent). Some things in this film really stand out. Gyllenhaal is wonderful, he low key is becoming a favorite actor I think, though I seldom think of him. The way he changes the intensity of the caricature to fit the context is very deft acting. Sometimes he's an over the top, queeny Stanley Tucci, and at other times just very human and sincere. There is a great cast with good performances. The writing is excellent. A big part of the film is a sort of send up of the high-brow language of "criticism" and the elite concept space that drives "taste" in high-finance art trading. So much of this film is enjoyable, though it veers into canned horror, on purpose (the paintings are cursed).

What I really loved though was the critique itself of not even high-end Art, but really of Capitalism itself. Everyone who profited from the sale of this cursed art, which comes from a pained and possibly mentally ill mind, is cursed. The key is "profit" as a perversity of what "art" is, including the impulse of "punk" music and street art. The perversity of exploitation of intensely lived lives that produced "art" really maps further down into the exploitation of the lived lives of "labor" itself, and the affluent, high-brow, discernment of driven tastes which drive the flows of Capital around the world, what they call "going Global". As profiteers of various kinds ghoulishly extract value from the paintings, the genre cliche supernatural powers that come for them exact a kind of like-in-kind justice.

I didn't love the film, but I actually want to see it again, so interesting was its intellectual point.

First of all I am a fan of James Bond, of all six actors and all the movies(even though some time I dislike some of them) and books. Ian Fleming is a great writer. I rewatch and reread them in marathon.

And if I have to say which is better than which, then it would be like: All the movies including Never Say Never Again is more or less equal to Casino Royale 2006, and >= Quantum of Solace >= Skyfall = Die Another Day > No Time To Die >= Spectre 2015.

Either way that was just so you know who and where I come from. Now to main topic of the post.

In 2000s after the release of profiting Die Another Day, things seem to have gone a little over the top, and the franchise need a reboot. A re-boot don't mean something different or seprate. Earlier they were trying to make Casino Royale with Pierce Brosnan, and Quentin Tarantino was eager to help, but ultimately decided to go with younger blood.

So here comes the Casino Royale 2006, with Daniel Craig as next 007 after Sean Connery, George Lazenby, Roger Moore, Timothy Dalton and Pierce Brosnan.

On contrary to popular and imposed belief, this was never meant to ditach itself from being a fun movie(s) even after the paradoy and spoofs like 1967 version or Austin Powers or later Johnny English. It is a fact that I have laughed during The Living Daylights, Licence to Kill, Quantum of Solace and this movie, which are shouted to be 'gritty, realistic, sad, serious etc.' which is quite rubbish.

Also while I am here, I will point out that No, craig's bond is not the closest to book bond, as a matter of fact its more opposite, CR2006 was one of the few bond movies to be closer to adapting line by line in comparison to a book. Ian felming never wanted the films to be so close to the particular books, and producers were on helm with it. It provided a variety and not spoiling either movie or book for the possible audience. Not that I disliked 2006 movie being close to a book.

But the previous Bond movies had the core essence of what and why Bond is. Which is more or less eroded in newer movies.

So, either way, Casino Royale was great, it is and was what was need to the franchise. The black and white opening scene showed the past of you hero, the acts that led to him getting famous licence to kill. Then jumping to the colored scene of the villain with blood for tears. This movie re-booted the character James Bond, with the shooting of Mr White in the legs and Bond theme playing, though I wish they had kept Sandra's Casino theme as end title.

Okay if the previous movie did that then what the next installment should do? The answer to that is very simple, which was not really done in real life, is that RE-BOOT the franchise James Bond, with how 007 uses quips and one liners to get by his mission. The formation of tropes of Bond girls, like the dying bond-girl, the lasting bond-girl, the henchwomen bond-girl, the flirt bond-girl, the one night stand bond-girl. BUT no, instead they diminished the current bond girls by still whining about that 'dead-b-itch'.

What this movie should have been, that originating the gunbarrel intro, unrelated pre-title sequence, title sequence( i love the another way to die song and animation), and main movie where bond flirts with moneypenny and then is given a mission by M and asked to get tools needed from Q-branch and leave for the mission, then fighting the overplanning villain, and lastly caught having sex with camille. and then after credit rolls, state "James Bond will return in Skyfall". And use of Bond theme throughout the movie, and all the movies after this. Also no good about goodbye song as end title.

And this all could have been done, i know there was a writer strike. And the next movie, could have used total formula without any explaination. Instead of M centered villain, it could have been Dr No like villain, sylvia, with uncanny face, with secret island, where severine (my god, how good she look during hong kong window scene, all wasted), then share bath with her, and then fullfill the promise of saving her. and this time introduce Loelia Ponsonby aka Lil from the books as 00's seceratry, and have a seen where Bond asks her to arrange files (of previous mission from Dr No to Live and lET DIE AND SO ON.)

then you can even reintroduce spectre, though i prefer the new villains of moore era. but if they are hard on on SPECTRE, they could have just said that bond have fought spectre and blofeld in past and have killed him. But with other villains, some how the villain is not dead.

then even no time to die, with bringing back Olga from Quantum 2008, faking a child as james bond's, who is then kidnapped and bond really have no time to die, and then get recasted.

so Die Another Day 2002, Casino Royale 2006, Quantum of Solace 2008, Skyfall 2010, Spectre 2012, No Time To Die 2014.

what do you think?

I think that Bond formula is very core of what it is about the franchise i see it. the graphical intro like mulholland drive, a unrelated pre title sequece like a short film for both new and old audience, title sequence like art or abstract film, then movie where expectancy a great tool of cinema at play.

I also think that that Moore was the actor that made, of what we today think what is james bond, he made it possible that the character could be played by another actor without any inferiority.

timothy dalton only left the role because of legal problems of studio. and die another day was box office hit.

and the new replacement for 007 in no time to die was totally not 'political' 😑

One of the things that stayed with me from Lovers of the Arctic Circle is its obsession with circularity.

Even the names Ana and Otto are palindromes. They can be read in both directions, returning to where they began. The film seems to construct their relationship in much the same way: departures become returns, coincidences accumulate, perspectives repeat events differently, and the story keeps suggesting that Ana and Otto are moving around some invisible center.

What interests me is whether Medem wants us to believe in that idea of fate, or whether he is showing us how people create patterns when they desperately need their lives to have one.

Coincidence in the film rarely feels neutral. Ana and Otto interpret events, encounters and repetitions as though they belong to a larger design. And because the film itself is organized around circles, mirrored perspectives and recurrence, the cinematic form seems to validate their belief.
But there’s another possibility.

Maybe the film isn’t demonstrating that their lives are governed by fate. Maybe we’re experiencing reality through two people who have become so invested in their shared story that everything begins to look like evidence that the story must continue.

If the coincidences are objectively meaningful, Lovers of the Arctic Circle is a romantic tragedy about two people repeatedly brought together by fate.
If they aren’t, it becomes something stranger: a film about the human tendency to turn coincidence into narrative and narrative into destiny.

Do you think Medem ultimately asks us to believe in Ana and Otto’s fate, or does the film deliberately leave open the possibility that the “circle” exists mainly because they, and perhaps we as viewers, need to see one?

Rewatched John Hillcoat's Australian western The Proposition last night. Gotta say, it still remains one of my favorite westerns despite discovering it only a few years ago.

By far the best quality about it is Hillcoat's dismantling of the western genre. There's no romance, no beauty, or the slightest moment of humor in The Proposition. It's pure unremitting despair in a world so devoid of hope and full of violence it makes Clint Eastwood's Unforgiven seem cheery. Roger Ebert wrote in his review how the film feels close to being an adaptation of Cormac McCarthy's Blood Meridian and boy, he was not wrong. Though a different tale, The Proposition is not only unflinching in its violence, but it never feels cinematic nor sensationalized compared to other westerns. Furthermore, it also has the same kind of bleak setting full of characters that are almost morally reprehensible in one way or another. The fact John Hillcoat is said to be working on the film adaptation of Blood Meridian really shows how The Proposition is very similar tonally and thematically.

The decision to set it in 1880s Australia under British colonialism too is genuinely original. The unique setting perfectly fits with the film's dark narrative and characters, sometimes even making it feel like a loose adaptation of Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness in depicting colonization in a land that is hostile to non-natives. The way Captain Stanley wants to bring order to the land but fails to due to its hostile nature in many scenes really emphasizes this aspect.

Of course, Nick Cave's screenplay deserves much credit as this is such a smartly written western. The setup is simple, yet there are so many moments where much is said without dialogue between characters and their relationships. And when the characters do speak, it's incredibly engaging dialogue that brings a unique life to each character, especially the monologue from John Hurt that arguably is the best scene in the film.

All of this too is backed up by many great performances from Guy Pearce, Ray Winstone, John Hurt, and Danny Huston who, on rewatch, I think gives the best performance by far. The way he plays Arthur Burns as a cold-blooded, emotionless bandit who philosophies about life is genuinely unnerving, with even Ebert stating his character to feel like a takeoff of the Judge character in Blood Meridian.

To me, The Proposition is easily the most underrated western of the 2000s and possibly of all time. It borrows from many anti-western inspirations, yet John Hillcoat and Nick Cave take it in a vastly different direction. And the score by Nick Cave and Warren Ellis? Absolutely haunting.

Source: Ebert, Roger. "Blood on the saddle." Roger Ebert, 18 May 2006, https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/the-proposition-2006.

I watched the 1967 Jean-Luc Godard film Weekend recently. It’s a surreal masterpiece, much of it centering around a couple’s attempt to flee Paris because modern life has become impossible. But many other Parisians have gotten the same idea and there’s an absurd traffic jam on a small country road. Lots of wrecks ensue.
At one point the driver learns that someone they know has died in a wreck, and he turns to his female companion and says ‘Paul is dead.’
I thought Godard was riffing on the rumor. Then I realized that the Paul story started getting circulated after the movie.
It’s the kind of celebrated avant-garde movie the Beatles would have certainly seen, and I idly wondered if they or someone else got the idea for the hoax/conspiracy from Godard.
The death in a car accident evokes ADITL, of course, but time wise that has to be an artistic coincidence.
Idle thoughts from a guy sitting in a hospital bed. Thanks for indulging me.