HELL BOUND 🔻

W.E.B. DuBois Criteria of Negro Art

Pinned post? This is who I am and what influences me so know b4 u get caught off guard:

I am a black anarchist communist [feminist] filmmaker and artist (with some cool shit to show for it!), a young millenial and it shows with how much i hate the world and must rebuild anew. As an artist, I have a deep deep DEEEEP critique of how we articulate and interpret critcism of anything PARTICULARLY cultural output and “media” and how that relates to our entrenchment. I hate rich people and I am not joking, i hate the state, i hate empire. What we have been ingesting is also propaganda so even with my enjoyment i will—must—talk about it. Everything we do has meaning. I will never vote in an american federal election again ever in my life and i take the idea of change, revolution, very very very seriously and yes my place in it. I do some organizing irl and am a part of “left” spaces.

That, my blackness, and bisexuality—which i am proud of despite everyone including “my own community” not wanting me to be and which i am absolutely going to talk about more wrt these shows—are integral to me as an artist and how i go about finding courage and getting over fear. I don’t pull punches if i think something isn’t right but i’m open to being corrected when necessary. Even if this is just some dumb blog where i can come back to it when i find something interesting that i want to see more of im STILL going to be this person. and this commitment and fear of future has gotten deeper since 10/7, one of the greatest modern resistance projects we have ever seen and one that has deeply moved me. so I take the WEB DuBois quote with the utmost sincerity.

My love of the world means that everything means something and i want to truly enjoy life not merely as a spectator. If you are looking for someone easy and fun i am that and quite naturally youthful but my values are so much a part of me ans my principles as a black anarchist come and love of this universe and yes my anger? Come first.

I am not an apolitical person and neither are you. (nor is that thing ur watching! it serves a purpose!) I never have been, i never will be, and my existence as an artist means i have no interest in pretending anything else is not either. Take what you will from that but that’s how i approach whatever the fuck youll see here. I am also very funny and pretty and pretty talented :)

with letterboxd links (i'm bored). feel free to leave your own recs!

girls of the night (1961), kinuyo tanaka

so far from india (1983), mira nair

children of shatila (1998), mai masri

the company of strangers (1990), cynthia scott

the cherry tree with gray blossoms (1977), sumiko haneda

day night day night (2006), julia loktev

embracing (1992), naomi kawase

song of the exile (1990), ann hui

living together (1973), anna karina

sacrificed youth (1985), zhang nuanxin

just another girl on the i.r.t. (1992), leslie harris

shinjuku boys (1995), kim longinotto, jano williams

leila and the wolves (1984), heiny srour

fast color (2018), julia hart

flight of the swan (1992), ngozi onwurah

travolta and me (1993), patricia mazuy

u.s. go home (1994), claire denis

portrait of a young girl at the end of the 60s in brussels (1994), chantal akerman

merrily we go to hell (1932), dorothy arzner

blood tea and red string (2006), christiane cegavske

the mourning forest (2007), naomi kawase

the scarlet flower (1978), irina povolotskaya

forever a woman/eternal breasts (1955), kinuyo tanaka

losing ground (1982), kathleen collins

the day i became a woman (2000), marziyeh meshkiny

be pretty and shut up! (1981), delphine seyrig

the other side of the underneath (1972), jane arden

the final exit of the disciples of ascensia (2019), jonni peppers

bärbel and charly (1994), ute aurand

clotheslines (1982), roberta cantow

tremble all you want (2017), akiko ohku

peppermint soda (1977), diane kurys

i was a teenage serial killer (1993), sarah jacobson

sink or swim (1990), su friedrich

the girls (1968), mai zetterling

twelve nights (2000), aubrey lam oi-wah

maria's days (1960), cecilia mangini

kamome diner (2006), naoko ogigami

the book of mary (1985), anne-marie miéville

once upon a time... (1990), galina barinova

girls' encounter (2017), yûka eda

the fourth dimension (2001), trịnh t. minh-hà

the lighthouse (2006), mariya saakyan

daughters of chaos (1980), marjorie keller

the amazonian angel (1992), maria klonaris, katerina thomadaki

a thousand and one (2023), a.v. rockwell

down in the delta (1998), maya angelou

i am somebody (1970), madeline anderson

daughters of the dust (1991), julie dash

belle (2013), amma asante

sky captain (1985), neema barnette

just another girl on the i.r.t. (1992), leslie harris

mountains (2023), monica sorelle

novitiate (2017), margaret betts

ayiti mon amour (2016), guetty falin

eve's bayou (1997), kasi lemmons

saint omer (2022), alice diop

the watermelon woman (1996), cheryl dunye

13th (2016), ava duvernay

pariah (2006), dee rees

zola (2020), janicza bravo

the fits (2015), anna rose holmer

I just read a brief theory by @piracytheorist that absolutely blew my mind.

The idea that Twilight’s true wish —his core motivation— is not exactly “a world where children are happy,” but rather “a world where children don’t have to cry,” completely changes the perspective.In Twilight’s mind, “not crying” probably equals “not suffering,” and if you don’t suffer, then you must be happy. It’s a logic he needs to believe.

But when you stop and analyze it, you realize this mindset is also the foundation of his identity as a spy and the reason he feels such a strong bond with Anya and Yor.For Twilight, the key is to avoid at all costs the situations that might provoke emotional pain. His strategy is to prevent trauma through detachment: not forming deep connections with others because he feels he lacks the tools to manage that suffering on an emotional level. His past and his current way of life have trained him to survive through reason and control, not through vulnerability.

A clear example appears in the cruise arc, where he confronts fear and discomfort through exhaustive logical analysis, even trying to decode Anya’s emotions as if they were predictable patterns.

Cold reasoning is his comfort zone, as it gives him the illusion of control. But when he faces emotional suffering —something impossible to measure with precision— he tends to collapse or overreact. Especially when he believes he’s causing Anya emotional pain, even though most of the time it’s just a misunderstanding caused by her mind-reading abilities.

Anya’s true pain, however, doesn’t lie in the traumas Twilight imagines, but in her constant fear of being abandoned. She worries that if she isn’t useful to the mission, her father will stop loving her —or worse, reject her altogether. That is the core of her insecurity, though Twilight doesn’t fully grasp it yet.

At its core, Twilight’s wish to protect Anya and all children from tears is nothing more than a projection of his own childhood suffering, of that boy once called a “crybaby” who swore he’d never feel that way again. Without realizing it, Twilight projects these insecurities onto his daughter, who, ironically, often shows far greater emotional resilience than her own father.

And this is where Yor comes in. Twilight not only sees her as Anya’s safe haven but also as his own. Yor embodies the emotional strength he cannot handle within himself: someone capable of feeling, expressing, and confronting emotions without fear. That gives Twilight a sense of comfort and security he denies himself.

I see a lot of discussions prompted by Shine the Series and especially towards the conclusion of the series so I thought it might be helpful to share this extract from 'First Queer Voices in Thailand,' by Peter A Jackson.

His book focuses on the attitudes held in the 1970's and 80's but would still apply to the late 1960's when Shine is set.

I hope that sharing this might give some people a better understanding of the choices that characters like Krailert, Naran, Trin and of course Dhevi and Dao all make within the series.

The following passage is talking specifically about men like Krailert, Trin and Naran who were considered "straight passing," and actually in that time they would have been considered heterosexual, especially if they were able to take a wife and fulfil societal norms as Krailert, Naran and Trin all had the potential to do.

At that time, men who were able to penetrate other men were considered to be "proper men," or "full men," as opposed to those who were on the receiving end. (Yes, Top and Bottom discourse has been around forever 😆) and if a man looked feminine or dressed as a woman (was trans) then they were labelled kathoey and were often ridiculed and abused. And men who slept with kathoey and fulfilled the role of "Top," often weren't considered gay at all. Only those who preferred to be penetrated or who were visibly perceived as not masculine were considered "fully gay."

There are many traditional Thai ways of referring to bisexuality which shows that idea people having both same sex experiences and heterosexual ones was not unusual and in an era where same sex friendships were considered more appropriate than mixing boys and girls, it is not surprising that for many, their first sexual experiences were with friends of the same sex and this was true of both men and women.

From First Thai Queer Stories

In understanding the place of homosexuality in the lives of masculine-identifiied Thai men…it is necessary to appreciate that the Thai heterosexual male is presented with three cultural models of masculine sexuality…he can, and should, have a chief wife (mia luang) to whom he has a long term social and economic commitment.

But if he is wealthy enough, he can have one or more, long-term lovers or “minor wives (mia noi), and he can also seek sexual gratification with a prostitute (sopheni).

In Thailand extramarital relations for heterosexual males have significant social tolerance, although not always approval, and can also include sexual relations with other men.

also the roles of active/passive. it is not simply about holes or being a hole. there's a reason penetration is off limits and patronage and pederasty are big. as well as the type of masculinities and sexualities we are shaped towards, how it goes towards our desires. how being is politicized and our bodies and lives do not exist independently of it.

also about enacting masculinity. tie that into nation, the red/black scares, and what is going on at the time....the fact that there are people on the outskirts of town v the developing city...the social tolerance is conditional and always necessitates an obfuscation of multivalent life and NEEDS the underclass in so many different, complex ways.