I’m absolutely losing it I was wondering why rodney wasn’t there and then I looked at the bottom right
i hate when i say something stupid and people are like what do you mean. if you know you know
i don’t know how to insert a readmore in mobile so you’re going to have to deal with this post. bear with me. i don’t understand why ds9 fandom casts garak as some sort of suave oscar wilde daddy dom when he’s clearly the kind of older man who gets trashed at a casino at 3pm on thursdays and tips dabo boys extra to hold him while he cries
the first thing we ever see him do is beeline over to the very shiniest twink from a nation comprised solely of shiny twinks (while he’s fucked up on space oxy btw) like “hey, i usually don’t approach people from space grindr in crowded public places before noon like this, but i haven’t had sex in nine years, so hmu if you ever want to…. ‘visit my tailoring shop’……… as they say.” he’s not that smooth.
imo that’s the very thing that makes g/b so great. like while garak IS technically a dangerous feminine powerful enemy spy, which as we all know is julian bashir’s charmingly bisexual fetish, even when bashir runs into ops for the first time like “I THINK GARAK IS A SPY AND WE CAN LEARN ALL MANNER OF SPY SECRETS FROM HIM” jadzia is immediately like “bro maybe but i’m pretty sure he mostly just wants to s your d.” and it’s actually incredibly magical that it even works!! ONLY fucking julian “teach for america” bashir would look at this portly middle-aged disaster of lizard man like “holy shit, i finally found my very own bond girl, holy shit, my dream.“ i honestly honestly just don’t think people understand the central themes of star trek: deep space nine at all
[Video description: In a dimly lit room, Brian David Gilbert dances expressively to the groovy flute solo from “Say Yes” by Kishi Bashi.]
Interesting essay on the specific Korean context of Parasite that keeps getting erased in order to highlight the unversality of the film. Goes through the entire movie so if you still haven’t seen Parasite don’t read it.
“Parasite has made history, which is a euphemism for achieving Western recognition — history’s qualifier. Recognition itself hinges on the gaze, and the imperial variety suffuses Parasite’s critical reception. In an early and emblematic review, Manohla Dargis[1] notes in The New York Times: “The story takes place in South Korea but could easily unfold in Los Angeles or London.” Parasite’s setting is rendered an obstacle that must be transcended as a precondition to its recognition.
In other words, the film has to be made applicable to “Los Angeles or London” to become legible. Dargis’s review isn’t particularly egregious, but it’s emblematic of the conceit of many critics, exceptions notwithstanding. The emphasis on universality is achieved through a negation of the particular in a typical display of liberal chauvinism. Consequently, the more Bong Joon-ho’s masterpiece is regarded, the more it seems to vanish in the spectacle of its acclaim. Parasite has made history; never mind how history has made Parasite.
This is not a charge against any attempt to relate Parasite to other contexts. Bong’s social critique concerns the international conditions of globalized capitalism, but particular to Korea’s neoliberal and neocolonial present. Examining the film as a story of class in the neocolony shifts it from a decontextualized tale of rich and poor to one of compradors and the colonized. This lens takes Parasite from an allegory of “class conflict” to one of imperialism, and illuminates the film’s recurring motifs of English, militarization and appropriated Indigenous material culture.”
Interesting essay on the specific Korean context of Parasite that keeps getting erased in order to highlight the unversality of the film. Goes through the entire movie so if you still haven’t seen Parasite don’t read it.
“Parasite has made history, which is a euphemism for achieving Western recognition — history’s qualifier. Recognition itself hinges on the gaze, and the imperial variety suffuses Parasite’s critical reception. In an early and emblematic review, Manohla Dargis[1] notes in The New York Times: “The story takes place in South Korea but could easily unfold in Los Angeles or London.” Parasite’s setting is rendered an obstacle that must be transcended as a precondition to its recognition.
In other words, the film has to be made applicable to “Los Angeles or London” to become legible. Dargis’s review isn’t particularly egregious, but it’s emblematic of the conceit of many critics, exceptions notwithstanding. The emphasis on universality is achieved through a negation of the particular in a typical display of liberal chauvinism. Consequently, the more Bong Joon-ho’s masterpiece is regarded, the more it seems to vanish in the spectacle of its acclaim. Parasite has made history; never mind how history has made Parasite.
This is not a charge against any attempt to relate Parasite to other contexts. Bong’s social critique concerns the international conditions of globalized capitalism, but particular to Korea’s neoliberal and neocolonial present. Examining the film as a story of class in the neocolony shifts it from a decontextualized tale of rich and poor to one of compradors and the colonized. This lens takes Parasite from an allegory of “class conflict” to one of imperialism, and illuminates the film’s recurring motifs of English, militarization and appropriated Indigenous material culture.”
