MovingThrowaway

joined 5 months ago
[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

My reading of the trope isn't about the character dying per se, but that they're thrown away for sake of the plot or other characters' development. They're flat and disposable.

Whereas in Night, he outlives the other characters, is central to the plot and thesis of the movie, and his death at the end is meaningful in and of itself (both to the story at face value and symbolic interpretations of the film). But I really like Dawn too.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago (4 children)

I really like Night of the Living Dead for avoiding this trope.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago

Nope also subverted the trope, although I don't want to spoil anything about that movie because it's best if you go in completely blind.

Us does the same thing actually. Big fan of Peele.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

Movies like Beau is Afraid, with a lot of themes and symbolism to dissect that rewards repeat viewing.

You might say that all movies have themes and symbolism, intentional or otherwise, and I agree. But what I mean and why Beau might be a good example is a lot of people call it self indulgent and meandering and way too long, and that's exactly what I want it to be.

They may not always be coherent or even have any substance behind all the smoke and mirrors and layers but I still enjoy the vibe.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 months ago

Yeah, symbols are imperfect representations of their essences, and each layer of abstraction is ripe for ideological obfuscation. The entirety of our culture seems trapped in a semi-orchestrated signifier dance that suppresses not only class consciousness, but consciousness in general.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago

Wouldn't want to dilute their mediocrity with good writing

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago

I have a special plan for this world

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago

Because pretending either of these parties have wide support of the working class is disingenuous at best. You have to drastically move the goalposts to try and retain any claim to truth.

Low voter turnout suggests that some segment of potential voters don't support the given options. If voter turnout was 20% would you still think your adjusted claim is identical to your original? "When [some subsection of the working class] chooses to vote, it votes for one of the only two real options" borders on tautology.

Not to mention the extant parties have a duopoly over electoral institutions, meaning it's illogical to assume that even the people that do vote necessarily support either party, rather than voting for whichever one they find less bad.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago (2 children)

If half of people don't vote, then that's half of the population not voting Democrat or Republican.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago (4 children)

I mean, that's just as false as it is true. Voter turnout ranges from 40-60% depending on the year and election, meaning that roughly half of eligible voters don't vote for either party. And generally, active voters skew wealthier, so I'd bet the stat is even more pronounced.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 months ago

Is that the instance filtering that out? Thats removed lol

What are you trying to say?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago

I've heard it with varying degrees of the R sound. There's a common shorthand "bougie" (BOO-zhee) that people often hear before learning the original term, so they'll maintain the pronunciation into BOO-zhwa.

Sometimes the R is slightly swallowed so it sounds more like BOH-zhwa, maybe very light throat vocalization. Or people skip over it and it's buh-ZHWA. Some commit fully for BOR-zhwa.

Universally seems to maintain (my non-native understanding of) the French "oi" and silent S.

I have yet to hear anyone pronounce it correctly: bor-gee-oice.

view more: next ›