Reading heart of darkness in 65 degree weather in front of a tree branch that was snapped during the historic blizzard two weeks ago as lingering piles of snow melt rapidly by my feet
It’s more dignified to whack it at a peep show then whatever the fuck this is
museum curators describing literally any portrait of a woman: she boldly meets the viewer's eye, confronting our gaze
I think the most important revelation is that they both know exactly what they're doing and it's all just choreography; he knows that she knows (this is a dark lady sonnet) that he isn't young enough or naive enough to fall for obvious lies but they're both keeping up the role-play because it works
the twists in this one are just so good -- starting off so inauspiciously with what looks like a conventional "deceptive women" poem and then moving in the second line onto the paradox of choosing to believe something that the speaker knows to be false because it makes him feel good (i.e. young)
I just think it's neat that Shakespeare decided to cap off his career in theatre by writing the only honest poems ever written
I think of that clavicular kid as a kind of sin-eater for the neuroses of his entire generation, like the zoomers are going to burn him alive in the Wicker Man and then afterwards they'll all have normal relationships to their bodies, sexuality, each other etc.
My old art historian roommate had to read all these old German guys for her degree whereas I have to read all these old French guys: the is the real divide within the humanities
in the best-case scenario they get a straight guy in a Bruins hoodie who walked in because he thought they were playing the game
Comically over-ambitious to try this in Rhode Island (I have seen every single person who lives in this state with my own two eyes)
to understand Liza Minnelli, as a concept, you have to remember that she’s literally the child of a homosexual man and Judy Garland -- basically, the gay Kwisatz Haderach
Hi, I’m Johnny Knoxville and welcome to Salò, or the 120 Days of Sodom!
to be clear, my point is really just that I think it's reasonable for the movie to show that the conventions and mores of theatre spectatorship (as we understand them now) were neither universally recognized nor set in stone in the early years of the 17th century
sure, amateur productions of the type mocked in A Midsummer Night's Dream would have presented anyone with the basics, but the playhouse is a different game, and most scholars agree that Tudor audiences were rowdy, with little regard for the symbolic dividing line of the proscenium.
there are no purpose-built theaters in the whole country between Roman Britain and the 1560's (and that one is a short-lived blip.) They spring up in the 1570's-90's but, strangely, only in London (with literally just one exception: the Prescot Playhouse)
I think the film takes it a bit too far, but it is easy to forget what a genuine novelty permanent theaters were in Elizabethan England. Yes, plays were performed by amateurs in churches and schools (and importantly, the Inns of Court) but professional theatre was new!
funnily enough, I wasn't a big fan of Hamnet but I do feel a bit defensive of an aspect of the film that seems to have drawn a lot of criticism: Agnes's "naive" reaction to the theatre
could have added: you have third-year PhD candidates born after 9/11 lol
Older faculty member made a joke to me about how college students probably don’t even remember 9/11 any more and I was just like Right so our college freshmen were born in 2008, actually.
including theology, mind you
it's incredible how Evangelicalism has produced literally nothing of value in any arena of culture
Yes Fear Shakespeare
I can tell at a glance who has and who hasn't had the humiliating but formative experience of walking through Hot Topic with their parents as a teenager
(Anglican guy at the tavern in 1620 or so) very well—what say you to this: Catholic son or Dissenter daughter?
"The decision to enlist in the army is shaped by historical, material circumstances beyond an individual's control and so you can't" -- first of all, literally all decisions are shaped by historical and material circumstances that are outside of our control
I like some of his work but Jonathan Goldberg (RIP) is always arguing that we can overcome the trap of retroactive Identity by historicizing sodomy (etc) and it's like Fine so why are you only writing about the gay sonnets then? Why stake any claim to be the inheritor of the old "Gay Studies"?
like Okay
early modern queer theory from the past 15 years or so tries so hard to overcome any sexual specificity implied by the term "sodomite" to make it mean something like "general antisocial activity" and then you look at their examples and it's always someone who just happens to have been fucking dudes
there's something funny there, too, about the relationship between behavior and identity (Shane having sex repeatedly before announcing himself gay, mocked by many viewers as "obvious," as opposed to Love Simon's entirely platonic homosexuality, sundered from desire etc.)
yeah I think that sounds exactly right -- Love Simon is a good point of comparison (am I remembering this correctly or does he not even meet the romantic interest until the literal last 10 seconds of the film? lol)
