Brewster McCloud

Sepultura did a pretty great cover of it, as problematic as some of the sensitive souls of the UKFF are about the word:

Well, that's me schooled. Poo off, bogey bum.

1 minute ago, Hannibal Scorch said:

I don’t believe you know any followers of Islam. Unless by followers of Islam you mean people who literally follow Muslim people around

I live in Indonesia, the most Muslim country in the world. I work and socialise with 'em. My point is that the sort of daft remark that Boris Johnson made really doesn't matter to the people I know whose opinions I respect. 

17 hours ago, Liam O'Rourke said:

I don't know if the man is a racist. But I think referring to Muslim women wearing burkas as "looking like letter boxes" demonstrates the type of poor judgement and underlying douchebaggery I don't want near a decision making position.

He also did a 180 on May's deal twice in the last 24 hours (claiming May's deal was a suicide vest for the country, then saying he'll back it when May offers her head, then when he finds out the DUP aren't switching stance, he backs away again), and has been a chief offender since the beginning of Brexit in pointing to that demonstrably bollocks bus talking about we'll save £350 million a week we can spend on our public sector that was proven wrong immediately. He's the worst type of political figure - a guy who's worthless opinion is treated with the same weight as somebody with a fact-based argument, but because a lot of people in the general public have the same approach as him (spouting nonsense they heard at the pub) rather than understand what's really going on, he can speak with a loud voice and has to chance to try and influence others. Every politician has to rally, but a disregard for the truth and the public to progress yourself is different.

I'm pretty sure he doesn't think his lovely white skin and wacky hairstyle makes him better than others. To quote the great man himself:

"[I am] free-market, tolerant, broadly libertarian (though perhaps not ultra-libertarian), inclined to see the merit of traditions, anti-regulation, pro-immigrant, pro-standing on your own two feet, pro-alcohol, pro-hunting, pro-motorist and ready to defend to the death the right of Glenn Hoddle to believe in reincarnation."

So, pretty much on the same page as me, although he has said some silly things and I'm certainly not a fan of his anti-EU stance. Is saying that Muslim women in burkas look like letter boxes really a terrible thing? It's only poor judgment in the sense that certain people get triggered by it, and most followers of Islam that I know have a chuckle about that sort of thing.                    

14 minutes ago, Chest Rockwell said:

I think you know I am the resident expert on apologies, Brewster. And I firmly believe you owe everyone one for making them read your terrible posts.

Ooh, how you've stung me! You're an idiot seeking upvotes, nothing more nothing less. It's quite pathetic how morons like you try to score points with their e-friends - as if this shit actually matters - but whatever, mongoloid.

So should we obsess about the correct way to express an apology or think about the best way to run the country?

Well, it kind of is, isn't it? I'm more than happy for you to explain the difference. 

2 minutes ago, hallicks said:

It's the difference between an actual apology and saying "well I'm sorry something bad happened." How's that ideology? 

You just answered your own question.

Do you honestly think Boris Johnson is a racist? Seriously? 

Just now, hallicks said:

Isn't that a bit of a non-apology? He's saying sorry if people got the wrong impression (implying he said nothing wrong), then apologises for the distress caused without taking responsibility for it. 

I'ts better than nothing, man. We're at the point now where no apology is good enough unless it happens to chime with one's own ideology. 

And his "casual racism" is absolute nonsense - just words that don't make any difference. 

6 minutes ago, hallicks said:

Getting that British journo incarcerated in Iran for an extra 5 years by being an incompetent twat and then not even apologising? Getting that journalist beaten up for printing stuff he didn't like? His casual racism/islamophobia? He's not on the side of anything other than what gets him more power, as this week has highlighted yet again. (During the referendum campaign he was both pro-remain then pro-leave, based on whatever way the wind was blowing. 

He's a genuine bastard hiding behind a foppish, buffoon-like appearance. Fuck him.

Getting? He aplogised: 

Speaking in the House of Commons, Johnson said: “I hope the House will understand with crystal clarity that Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe was there on holiday. She was not there in any professional capacity. 

“Insofar that people got a different impression, it was my mistake, I should have been clearer ... I apologise for the distress and anguish caused to Ms Zaghari-Ratcliffe and her family. Our priority now is to everything we can to get her out of Iran on humanitarian grounds.

Would that more people in power realized their mistakes.

2 hours ago, Liam O'Rourke said:

You know Boris is full of shit at face value, but has anybody done more harm to their political "gimmick" than Rees-Mogg these last few months? What a slimy, gutless, flim-flammy toilet licker, a man far more concerned with personal gain while cutting disingenuous promos hoping people believe his posh accent. Heard a quote this morning of him off-handedly spewing, "Regrettably, no deal has been taken off the table". Why is that regrettable? The only outcome that is universally panned and that the CBI and TUC finally agreed to something on (that it was shit), but he stands to gain a personal profit from, he pimps hard. He says May's deal is worse than staying in the EU. She says she'll stand down, he does a total 180 and says he'll back it.

Fuck off. This guy deserves a lot more public scrutiny.

Well, hang on. What has BJ done or said that is actually harmful? Overall, he's on the side of rationality and he's hardly at the weird religious end of the Conservative party spectrum. He's a history scholar and very articulate, I really enjoy reading his writing. I wouldn't mind him being PM at all, certainly more than I would that massive prick Rees-Mogg.

That was pretty good - I like this trend for Ween/Bobby Conn style pop. By the same token:

On 3/26/2019 at 9:26 PM, organizedkaos said:

  Hide contents

I dunno, I felt was making a more nuanced point than say They Live or Society which were a lot more in line with the basic "rich use the poor, capitalism bad!" message you crticised. The fact our hero is essentially an embodiment of 80s Reganism pulling her way out of lower class into high class and being absolutely willing to step all over 'her' people to ensure she got what she wanted. The symmetry yet jarring differences between things that could be done without a care upstairs yet caused so much damage downstairs (the boys both playing with fire, plastic surgery reflected in facial scars, the talk of c-sections) Our bad guys are those who feel they've had no control in their life, envious of those they perceive to have control (and those who we initially believe to have no knowledge of the destructive sides to decisions they make).  As you said these aren't unusual ideas but I felt he was playing with them in a more complex way than you've given credit for.

So much of this is subjective but clearly something in his films doesn't click for you (which fair play is the way with any sort of media, I'm not trying to take a stance that you're not getting it or whatever just offering a different perspective). I found the first half of the film incredibly unnerving; not really have a sense of what was going on not knowing what the invaders were or what they wanted but knowing it did not bode well for the family, that was far more unnerving than You're Next (which I also loved) trading in a more standard "bad guys have invaded your sanctity, you will die now".  Went in a group and several people were pretty much not OK with that watching that first half at all.
I'm also really surprised you'd use You're Next as an example of something with a greater visual style and ironic soundtrack? Visually Us has continually fantastic shots (from the shadows across the beach to the layering of faces in exposition scene) and whilst the style is a little reference centric the red jumpsuits and glove evoked far more reactions (and memories) than animal masks. Musically You're Next is one song, and Dwight Tilley does links the whole thing together in a brilliant way but that's very different from Us' varied and playful soundtrack (and the fact it's maybe the only film that should be allowed to use a dark reimagining of a pop song). Even the NWA tune which initially felt like a trite joke ended up working by the way it weaved in and out of the scene's tension. 

Again, I really enjoyed You're Next but it's a fun mish mash of mumblecore family drama, home invasion and home alone. Most of the stuff I liked about that film (character work, changing agency, well planned suspense using the house's layout) are quite different from what made me enjoy Us (surreal imagery orientated nightmare trip thing). Obviously whatever buttons it pushed in my brain didn't work for you but I feel the comparisons you've made don't really do justice to what the film really was

I quite liked the opening at the carnival (Black Flag t-shirt ahoy!), but the film fell apart for me when the girl entered the haunted house. I'm such a cowardy custard when it comes to scenes like that (the shower curtain being yanked back etc.) usually, but my heartbeat didn't increase slightly at that moment or indeed for the duration of the film. It all just felt rather tame and toothless, a horror film for people who don't really like horror films, but want to y'know, pontificate. For what it's worth, I didn't detect any signs of fear from my fellow audience members either. 

As for the soundtrack, I thought it was too on-the-nose - like someone saying "Ah ha! Didn't expect to hear that, did you?" rather than coming up with something more subtle or lesser known. The whole "dark reimagining of a pop song" trope is a bit old hat to me at this point - James Wan took all the fun out of it. Speaking of You're Next and its maddeningly catchy theme song, I thought Adam Wingard's follow up, The Guest, did something really interesting with 80s style synth pop in a similar manner to Donnie Darko. I'd rather films introduced me to new stuff (see: Drive) rather than just indulging in comfortable auditory necrophilia, but hey ho. 

One of the all time great trailers too - "Nobody is safe from the man from Hong Kong!" Brilliant carny voiceover. 

Shanon Shelburg from the Cows: 

Oh, girl  I love it when you make my asshole bleed!

3 hours ago, BomberPat said:

I was putting together a chronological Scott Walker primer last night for a friend, so those of you keen to check him out. Listening to it in order, I find you notice the exploration of consistent themes taken to extreme lengths;

 

I've put Amsterdam in there as an example of his Jacques Brel material - feel free to swap out for Mathilde, Jackie, or Next.

It's always interesting who draws the line where, I've seen a few "essential" playlists going around today that would make you think he never recorded anything after Scott IV, and I know experimental music fans that won't touch anything before it. Personally, seeing that growth from the Walker Brothers' early days through to collaborating with SunnO))) is part of what makes him so fascinating. 

Great list, but I'd include After The Lights Go Out. It's an early indication of Scott's lurking darkness back in the 60s. He didn't write the song, but the lyrics are a signpost to his more out there stuff later on. There were hints!

 I was taken aback that he'd died because 76 isn't that old these days, and his music is fantastic, all of it - the pop stuff that still had an edge to his Residents-like stuff later in life. All of it has been a huge boon to my life. Fucking brilliant musician. Thanks, you mental genius. 

What's scary is that the mainstream media are reporting this as if it was actual news, rather than just a pathetic gambit to make more money. 

Us. It was a bit rub, despite all the glowing reviews that I was prepared to let sway me. The emperor isn't just nude in this case, but he's dancing the macarena. It's a home invasion film with doppelgangers. Fine, that doesn't sound too bad, but the execution is just so fucking weak and derivative (in a bad way). Peele, given that this is his second bite at the homage-friendly retro horror cherry, just isn't capable of doing anything actually scary, being content to reference the 80s and make some vague point about inequality. It's the sort of thing films like They Live and Society covered 30 years ago more than adequately and almost as bluntly. In fact, any run of the mill home invasion film is about the underclass taking revenge on the lauded gentry. It's hardly a new concept. As a retro home invasion film it's not as good as You're Next or Strangers: Prey at Night, both of which had more visual style and better ironic soundtracks. Still, at least earnest people were able to exit the cinema saying to themselves, "I knew there was something wrong with the whole capitalism thing. I just knew it!" Really makes you think about, like, stuff, doesn't it, Us?

5 minutes ago, Chris B said:

From the verdict on that page: "There is an absence of data as to whether tourists go to the UK specifically because of the royal family"

Yeah, overwhelming right there.

According to this, tourism has been up each year since 2010.

https://www.visitbritain.org/nation-region-county-data

And also at that time of year.

https://www.visitbritain.org/latest-quarterly-data-area

In fact, it's gone up each year, whether or not a royal wedding happened. Except for 2008-2010, which was a time period in which, for some reason, tourism was down. Which is really weird because we had a royal family those years as well.

OK, but we don't have any data that would suggest visits would go down if the monarchy was scrapped. Tourists aren't the only reason for keeping the monarchy; you have to consider history, tradition and the fact it doesn't actually do any bloody harm. My gut tells me lots of people like visiting the UK because of the monarchy and keeping it is no bad thing. 

11 minutes ago, Fog Dude said:

 

Singapore is undoubtedly rich, but you and I clearly have different definitions of success. Singapore rich if it doesn't share out the wealth? As you say, it's actually full of clientelism so you now admit it's not even the kind of meritocracy you were arguing against! You've tied yourself in knots there. Oh, and it's a republic too, by the way. It's also a democracy, albeit an authoritarian one of the sort which I wouldn't like to see over here. It certainly doesn't come with 'lack of diversity' either.

Yes, going from a fishing village of a few hundred people to a city state of 5.6 million in under two centuries does require creative housing solutions. Even though we have more space in this country, we can afford to give everyone a decent home but those in charge choose to make that more difficult than it needs to be. 

2

Well, what's your definition of success, then? Socialism, I suspect? I used Singapore as an example of an ostensible meritocracy that has some pretty big flaws; it was in response to Carbomb's point about monarchies somehow queering people's thinking and how we'd be better off with meritocracies. Singapore is a very ethnically diverse country, but its government isn't - they had Lew Kuan Yew and his cronies for 3 decades!

Just now, David said:

I'm sure you think of yourself as an immigrant 😉

Before you started getting arsey, it wasn't something I'd considered much because it's not important. What do you think, I parade around Jakarta in my golden robes referring to myself as an "expat" and demanding special favours?

2 minutes ago, Chris B said:

Better than any you provided. And you already acknowledged that the people visiting would be visiting anyway.

As you wish:

When Prince William married Kate Middleton in April 2011, the UK’s Association of Leading Visitor Attractions claimed it: 

Saw an additional 600,000 people come to London for the weekend, 60% from UK, 40% from overseas, spending £107m … The value to ‘brand Britain’ due to global media coverage was approximately £1 billion.

http://theconversation.com/fact-check-do-tourists-visit-britain-because-of-the-royal-family-88335