Monday, December 31, 2018

Charlotte Female Strippers

Here is what you get with our Charlotte female strippers

Your entertainment will arrive with everything needed to provide you with a full experience. How far the dancers go depends on the level of service you order. Any routine can be adjusted to meet the expectations of your guests.

A standard show includes your female stripper dancing for your guest of honor. She will then interact with your guests and allow some restricted audience participation. Some of our veteran Charlotte female strippers have unique talents they can incorporate into their strip shows. If this is your first time planning a bachelor party, it is worth ordering the unrestricted Fantasy Show Level.

Our girls are the best of the best female strippers in Charlotte who exceed the high quality standards we expect of them. You can relax knowing your guests will love the choice you made.

Searching For More Charlotte Female Strippers?

Charlotte Female Strippers

Then you need a special package from Hunks & Babes. Our signature Fantasy Show series leaves nothing to the imagination and will impress your friends. We will never send you amateurs that will ruin your party night. Our girls are ready, screened, and eager to perform! Imagine your friends’ faces as a team of our certified Babes walk through your front door. Their perfume catches everyone’s attention as they walk by your friends to get ready for their show.

Heads will turn as the two hottest girls come out and begin touching each other. The intense focus on the girls you ordered will be so great, your guests will freeze as if you had pressed pause. Most guys in their lifetime will never get to experience a live performance like the show put on by our girls. Will you let price get in the way of a permanent memory?

We now offer discounts on our special packages! Simply click on the PRICES tab in the main menu.

Charlotte Female Strippers Read more on: HB Strippers HB Strippers Adult Entertainment


Charlotte Female Strippers posted first on https://sites.google.com/site/hbstrippersagency/

Charlotte Male Strippers

Here is what you get with our Charlotte male strippers

Your entertainment will arrive with everything needed to provide you with the best experience. Your chosen Hunk brings a radio, costume, and a fun attitude! His routine can be adjusted to meet the expectations of your guests.

A standard show includes your male stripper dancing and teasing your guest of honor. He will then interact with your guests because audience participation is included. Our trained Charlotte male strippers put on a tasteful strip show in their thong. Fully nude is optional at an extra cost and can be decided at arrival. If this is your first time planning a bachelorette party, you will do well with the standard show.

Our guys are the best of the best male strippers in Charlotte who exceed the high quality standards we expect of them. You can rest easy knowing your friends will love the choice you made.

Still Need More Charlotte Male Strippers?

Charlotte Male Strippers

Consider a package that unwraps itself. A package so large, you need your friends to help you. You want an amazing party? Then you need to order our amazing team of dancers. Double or triple your wildness with male strippers who know how to get the job done. Your friends will hug you after a performance from a certified Hunk.

Lap dances for everyone? You got it! This is a ‘hands on’ experience everyone can enjoy. More strippers means more time enjoying the moment and less time worrying about life’s daily stresses. You’ve worked hard so why not order 2 male strippers for an extraordinary night?

A majority of female customers order only one male because it is their first time ordering. They are always concerned with the total cost instead of the once in a lifetime experience. You will do well with one of our Hunks, so we are offering a discount on two or more! Check out our PRICES in the main menu.

The following post Charlotte Male Strippers is republished from https://www.hbstrippers.net HB Strippers Adult Entertainment


Charlotte Male Strippers posted first on https://sites.google.com/site/hbstrippersagency/

The Leaked Louis C.K. Set Is Tragedy Masked as Comedy

A little over a year ago, Louis C.K. published a statement in The New York Times, after several women came forward to confirm the rumors that had, for years, been swirling around him. “These stories are true,” he wrote, expressing regret for several instances of sexual misconduct and suggesting that the acts being made public would be a turning point for him. His confession concluded with contrition: “I have spent my long and lucky career talking and saying anything I want,” C.K. wrote. “I will now step back and take a long time to listen.”

The statement was, for all its labored hand-wringing—a literary critic might think of it as foreshadowing—not an apology. It was instead, like so much of C.K.’s comedy, notably self-centered. In its nods toward introspection, though, the statement was marginally better than the half-hearted defenses offered by many other men of #MeToo, and so it was accommodated, in many quarters, with relief and a great deal of patience: Maybe he could learn. Maybe he could do better. Maybe he could find a way to make amends to the women whose persons he had disrespected and whose careers he had compromised. C.K., with more TK: maybe. Maybe. Maybe.

But 2018 has been a year of hard truths, and here, just before the calendar turns its page to whatever fresh hell might lie in wait, is one more: C.K.’s promise to listen and learn, it seems, was itself a lie. On Sunday evening, instead, an audio recording of a recent appearance C.K. made, reportedly, at Long Island’s Governor’s comedy club leaked on YouTube. The set suggests that, while C.K. may have been up to a lot of activities over the past year, listening and learning have not been among them.

In the set—one of many unscheduled appearances he has made as part of a quiet comeback—C.K. makes jokes about the word “retarded.” (He bemoans being unable to use the word as an apparent compromise on his freedom of self-expression.) He mocks the activist students of Parkland, who have been trying to convert a personal tragedy into social good. (“You’re not interesting because you went to a high school where kids got shot. Why does that mean I have to listen to you? How does that make you interesting? You didn’t get shot, you pushed some fat kid in the way, and now I gotta listen to you talking?”) C.K. also mocks Asian men, and black men, and nonbinary people. (“‘You should address me as they/them, because I identify as gender neutral,’” C.K. says, dripping with sarcasm. “Oh, okay. Okay. You should address me as there, because I identify as a location. And the location is your mother’s cunt.”)

It’s the kind of comedy that is so lacking in depth or insight that it’s not worth examining, on its own, in any more detail. What’s notable, though, is the broader implication the new jokes represent for C.K.’s alleged efforts at redemption. C.K.’s comedy evolved, over the years, as any comic’s will, but at their best and most well-known, his jokes were about interrogating himself as a means of interrogating American culture. As C.K. shuffled uncomfortably on stages and sets, clad in rumpled t-shirts and slouchy dad jeans, he served as his own act’s useful idiot: C.K., author and character at once, played the privileged guy who—he’d be the first to admit it—didn’t fully deserve his privilege. It was classic observational humor, bending its lens to examine the warped terrain of C.K.’s own psyche, and while it was winking and postmodern and self-hating and self-elevating, it also contained an implied transaction: Hearing C.K.’s confession would offer, for his audience, its own kind of reconciliation. His performed selfishness could seem, in its twisted way, generous.

But while offense, in that sense, has always been an element of C.K.’s comedy—offense as a means of inflicting discomfort, and thus, the promise went, of illuminating awkward realities—offense, now, is all there is. The layer of alleged truth-telling is entirely missing from the new material. C.K.’s new set, per its leaked version, doesn’t merely punch down; it stomps, pettily, to the bottom. None of it is smart or brave; it is simply cruel. And yet it tries to justify itself by suggesting that C.K. himself has been the recipient of cruelty. One of the key moments of the leaked set comes when someone, either by walking out or by shooting him a look, seems to question C.K. as he complains about being unable to use the word “retarded.” C.K. responds with a rant:

What’re you, gonna take away my birthday? My life is over, I don’t give a shit. You can, you can be offended, it’s okay. You can get mad at me. Anyway.

It’s an old story: The guy who abused others, claiming his own victimhood. The man who has so much, still, complaining about what he has lost, with no seeming interest in or regard for the people he has hurt along the way. It’s not merely a violation of Poe’s Law; it’s a much more basic affront. It suggests that empathy itself is a fair-weather attitude, fragile and tenuous and, in the end, inconvenient. Then: I will now step back and take a long time to listen. Now: You can get mad at me. Anyway.

It all makes for an especially petulant form of nihilism—and what’s especially tragic about the transformation is that it’s not at all isolated to Louis C.K. This period last year found many other people implicated in #MeToo expressing their regrets, seeming to take responsibility, and promising to do better. Harvey Weinstein said he would try to be better (“that is my commitment”). Kevin Spacey said he would be “examining my own behavior.” Charlie Rose said something similar. Mario Batali said. John Hockenberry said. Matt Lauer said.

A year later, however, the he saids that followed the she saids have been revealing themselves, again and again, to have been little more than empty performances. Charlie Rose and Matt Lauer and Mario Batali have been rumored to be staging comebacks. John Hockenberry wrote an essay in which he framed himself as a tragic hero, one deserving to play a key role in crafting a new cultural concept of romance. Kevin Spacey recently released a video in which, in character as Frank Underwood, he uttered the teasing line, “We’re not done, no matter what anyone says—and besides, I know what you want: You want me back.” Bill Shine, ousted from Fox News for his alleged efforts to cover up patterns of sexual abuse at the network, has been promoted to a job at the White House.

Earlier this month, another former Fox News executive, Ken LaCorte, announced that he will be establishing a new network. It will be helmed by Mike Oreskes, who was ousted from NPR last year after an investigation into repeated incidents of sexual harassment, and by John Moody, who left Fox in 2018 after writing a column that referred to the U.S. Olympic team as “darker, gayer, different.” As LaCorte put it to Politico, “I couldn’t have afforded either one of these guys had we not been in this crazy type of atmosphere. … In a weird way, I’m actually a beneficiary of companies being hypersensitive.”

It’s all part of another old story: semi-apologies that, in time, nullify themselves. The status quo, reassembling to its familiar, fusty order. Louis C.K., who has been treating cruelty as a game since long before this year, seems to be hoping that he can benefit from “hypersensitivity” in a similarly warped way—and in his new brand of comedy are the contours of tragedy: lessons unlearned, abuses unaccounted for, the people who truly deserve their anger written, once again, out of the story. You could read C.K.’s evolution as a gradual loss of control, as a wayward Id winning out over everything else. You could read it, as well, as something more strategic: a calculation that his core audience, now, is the red-pill crowd, with humor that is marketed accordingly. Either way, C.K. has reason to have confidence in his new brand of comedy: In person, his jokes about the inconveniences of empathy have been commonly met with laughter. And with enthusiastic applause.

A Year of Miseducation

The Blunt-Force Power of Widows, in One Scene

The Atlantic’s “And, Scene” series delves into some of the most interesting films of the year by examining a single, noteworthy cinematic moment from 2018. Today: Steve McQueen’s Widows. This will be the year’s final installment of the “And, Scene” series, which can be found in its entirety here.


There are heists happening at every layer of Widows. The central story follows Veronica Rawlings (Viola Davis), whose husband, Harry (Liam Neeson), died during a robbery; Veronica assembles a new team mostly made up of his crew’s widows and executes Harry’s next job to pay back his debts. But that is hardly the only stealing going on. In fact, Veronica and her crew’s theft comes at the end of a long chain of thefts. She’s robbing from Jack Mulligan (Colin Farrell), a candidate for alderman in Chicago and the scion of a political family; he, in turn, hired Harry’s crew in the first place to rob his electoral rival, Jamal Manning (Brian Tyree Henry); and the money being taken from Jack’s vault has been skimmed from corrupt government contracts he awarded.

In adapting Lynda La Plante’s 1983 British TV drama, Widows, Steve McQueen (and Gillian Flynn, who co-scripted) transplanted the action to Chicago and turned the story into an epic of municipal decay, one where the central crime becomes an act of reclamation and redistribution. Veronica is stealing from Jack, but really she’s just taking back money he took from the city; in the end, she gives her cut to Chicago’s schools, while one of her recruits, Belle (Cynthia Erivo), helps fund a local black-owned business (a beauty shop) in her neighborhood. But in one of the film’s most pivotal and telling scenes, which comes some 30 minutes in, Jack claims that’s all he’s trying to do as alderman.

Jack is the son of Tom Mulligan (Robert Duvall), a fossilized relic of Chicago’s past who has clung to his alderman seat for decades and is finally passing it to his son. But the Mulligans’ district is now majority African American, and Jack is facing a tough challenge from Jamal. So he holds a press conference for his father’s MWOW program; the letters stand for “Minority Women Owned Work.” Jack dispenses platitudes, ignoring questions from the press about bloated contracting and instead inviting a group of black women (his “success stories”) onstage to tout his connection to the community.

Later, we learn that MWOW is somewhat of a scam, providing money to black female business owners up front but eventually demanding hefty repayments with little support. It’s a Band-Aid for a bullet hole, but Jack is a politician who only understands optics, and so McQueen shows just how specious they are. Batting off the persistent press, Jack storms offstage and into his car, accompanied by his campaign manager, Siobhan (Molly Kunz). Then McQueen and the cinematographer Sean Bobbitt perch the camera on the hood of the car, giving the audience a view of the outside as the vehicle drives from Jack’s campaign stop to his headquarters, taking in the neighborhood.

Viewers hear Jack ranting as the car drives through a dilapidated section of the South Side. “Do you know how many shootings happened in this city last weekend alone? Thirty-four! These people are killing each other! This is not where I want to raise my children!” he screams. As they drive, the streets turn leafier, the houses get bigger, and finally, the car stops at a gated manse: Jack’s campaign headquarters. “Dollar signs and empty promises. Anyone who thinks different is fooling themselves,” he says, sighing. The dialogue is direct, but the images are even starker; this is a city so segregated that a journey of just a few blocks feels like traveling between two different worlds.

Reportedly, the studio tried to cut the car-mounted shot, which was originally planned to look inside the car, with just a few shots out the window. The external view is both striking and damning, turning a piece of expositional dialogue into something approaching agitprop; this is the world Veronica and her team are operating in, one where the heist has been ongoing for decades, at an institutional level. It’s the clearest use of the blunt-force power of visual filmmaking I’ve seen in a while, in one of the best films of the year.

Previously: Burning

Teddy Roosevelt’s Critique of Ostrich Science

Sunday, December 30, 2018

Houston Male Strippers

Here is what you get with our Houston male strippers

Your entertainment will arrive with everything needed to provide you with the best experience. Your chosen Hunk brings a radio, costume, and a fun attitude! His routine can be adjusted to meet the expectations of your guests.

A standard show includes your male stripper dancing and teasing your guest of honor. He will then interact with your guests because audience participation is included. Our trained Houston male strippers put on a tasteful strip show in their thong. Fully nude is optional at an extra cost and can be decided at arrival. If this is your first time planning a bachelorette party, you will do well with the standard show.

Our guys are the best of the best male strippers in Houston who exceed the high quality standards we expect of them. You can rest easy knowing your friends will love the choice you made.

Still Need More Houston Male Strippers?

Houston Male Strippers

Consider a package that unwraps itself. A package so large, you need your friends to help you. You want an amazing party? Then you need to order our amazing team of dancers. Double or triple your wildness with male strippers who know how to get the job done. Your friends will hug you after a performance from a certified Hunk.

Lap dances for everyone? You got it! This is a ‘hands on’ experience everyone can enjoy. More strippers means more time enjoying the moment and less time worrying about life’s daily stresses. You’ve worked hard so why not order 2 male strippers for an extraordinary night?

A majority of female customers order only one male because it is their first time ordering. They are always concerned with the total cost instead of the once in a lifetime experience. You will do well with one of our Hunks, so we are offering a discount on two or more! Check out our PRICES in the main menu.

 

Houston Male Strippers Read more on: HB Strippers Service, LLC HB Strippers Adult Entertainment


Houston Male Strippers posted first on https://sites.google.com/site/hbstrippersagency/

The Mysterious Conversation That Creates an Obsession in Burning

The Atlantic’s “And, Scene” series delves into some of the most interesting films of the year by examining a single, noteworthy cinematic moment from 2018. Next up is Lee Chang-dong’s Burning. (Read our previous entries here.)


“My father has an anger disorder. He has rage bottled up inside of him. It goes off like a bomb. Once it goes off, everything is destroyed.” So begins a confession of sorts from Lee Jong-su (Yoo Ah-in), an introverted, pent-up writer living on his father’s farm, trying vainly to write. It’s a confession he makes to the poised, handsome Ben (Steven Yeun), an enigmatic businessman who’s dating Shin Hae-mi (Jeon Jong-seo), the girl Jong-su has a lingering crush on. And it’s quickly followed by a much stranger revelation from Ben, one that’s at the center (literally and figuratively) of Burning, Lee Chang-dong’s woozy, beguiling mystery thriller.

In talking about his now-imprisoned father’s nasty temper, Jong-su recalls the day his mother abandoned the family, fleeing her abusive husband. “I burned all her clothes,” Jong-su says, laughing. “Sometimes I burn down greenhouses,” Ben replies, looking absentmindedly into the horizon. “It’s a crime, so to speak.” The two of them are sitting on a porch, stoned, and Hae-mi, the joint object of their affection, is sleeping in the house behind them. Jong-su’s memory suggests a lifetime of buried anger and deep-seated issues planted by his parents’ relationship, things the viewer might have guessed already. Ben’s admission is far, far more inscrutable.

But then, that’s the dynamic between the pair. Jong-su is a simmering cauldron of resentment, class envy, and sexual frustration; Ben is a blank canvas, a suave charmer who seems like a catch one moment and a creep the next. What he tells Jong-su is borderline nonsensical: He scouts out abandoned greenhouses in rural areas such as this one, sprays some kerosene, and lights a match, delighting in the wanton destruction. “You can make it disappear as if it never existed,” he tells a disbelieving Jong-su. “It’s like they’re all waiting for me to burn them down.”

An adaptation of a short story by Haruki Murakami, Burning is a narrative about the male ego’s many forms, and Ben’s destructive impulses suggest that he takes a childlike thrill in the freedom he possesses. But the way he describes his hobby—carefully selecting a greenhouse and burning it every couple of months—sounds almost like a metaphor for the work of a serial killer, hunting and stalking his prey. Jong-su eventually convinces himself that’s exactly what Ben was talking about after Hae-mi disappears. But the only real evidence the viewer has is this conversation; it is, without question, the most arresting exchange of dialogue in a movie this year.

Lee and his cinematographer, Hong Kyung-pyo, shoot the sequence like a fading dream; as the two chat, the sun dims in the sky, and the entire scene is bathed in blue twilight. Yeun plays Ben as so calm and collected that his story feels extremely mundane, like he’s talking about the weather or what to have for breakfast tomorrow. It only makes the confession seem that much stranger. In talking about his father, Jong-su was baring his soul; in offering this reply, Ben seems to be exposing the lack of one. “As I watch them burn to the ground, I feel great joy,” he says, with a hint of a smile.

Maybe Ben really does just like to burn greenhouses (though Jong-su finds no evidence of such). But even then, there’s something deeply unsettling about a wealthy, charismatic man engaging in needless destruction just to feel alive. Though Jong-su is no saint, he is at least an artist trying to engage in the act of creativity, whereas Ben is seemingly thrilled by nothing at all. But his blunt nihilism does reflect the blank heartlessness that, in Jong-su’s eyes, comes with being rich and powerful. It gives the entire conversation the feel of a fantasy, as though Ben is suddenly animated with an evil that only Jong-su can perceive. Their cryptic exchange is enough to lead the latter half of Lee’s film down a violent and corrosive path. But it’s just as easy to imagine that Ben’s confession never happened at all.

Previously: A Star Is Born

Next up: Widows

Saturday, December 29, 2018

The Timeless Bliss of Eating Hometown Food

A four-hour wait is nothing in the face of nostalgia. When Matt Fligiel learned in 2013 that the future of Blimpyburger was in jeopardy, he knew he had to savor one last meal at the local institution before it closed. “They said they were going to reopen, but nobody actually believed them,” said the 24-year-old native of Ann Arbor, Michigan, who now lives in Chicago. “I waited with two of my friends … on the third-to-last night to get some. We got there at 6, and we got our food at 10:30.” To his surprise, Blimpyburger did later reopen. But Fligiel, who had eaten at the spot since childhood, speaks of his quest for a final feast with a sense of duty and no regret.

Such dedication to a haunt frequented since grade school is hardly unique, particularly among those who’ve moved away from where they grew up. Despite the countless food blogs, ratings websites, and Instagram posts at diners’ fingertips, there’s not much incentive to be an adventurous eater when traveling back home for the holidays. While this season’s most elaborate rituals tend to revolve around lovingly prepared meals shared with family and friends, a trip home also offers a much-anticipated chance to visit treasured local establishments. Nostalgia and regional pride—not to mention the nature of memory itself—can make these outings feel both magical and obligatory.

For many, the ritual of heading to a cherished hometown spot after time away is akin to a pilgrimage; consistency is key. “I don’t go home enough now to try anything new or switch it up,” said Maylin Meisenheimer, a 25-year-old New York City resident who grew up in Corpus Christi, Texas, which she visits once or twice a year. “I’m only [there] for four days, [so] if I’m going to eat out, I only want to go to my favorite places, and I get the same thing,” she added, singling out a restaurant called Taqueria Acapulco.

Earlier this month, AAA forecast that 112.5 million Americans would travel this holiday season, from December 22 to January 1. For those who sojourn home, the trips mark an opportunity to enjoy meals they once took for granted—especially if they’ve moved somewhere that lacks a signature food or cuisine they were raised with. When Ryan Harrington, an adjunct professor of food studies at New York University, returns home to Santa Barbara, California, there’s no question that his first stop will be the fast-casual Mexican spot Freebirds.

“My plane could land at 2 a.m., and I would still go, get in line, and get my arm-size burrito, and just devour that thing,” said Harrington, who has lived in New York for more than a decade. “Mexican food had always been something I was really partial to … Freebirds especially was a place that my friends and I—from middle school riding bikes to high school when we would cut class to go get a longer lunch—this was a place that we often went to.”

While traditional holiday fare such as Christmas hams and Hanukkah latkes tend to dominate the discussion about festive eating, subtler food-related customs can reveal a lot about a place’s culture and history. If you grew up in the northern Chicago suburbs like I did, for instance, you might know to call the Chinese restaurant Yen Yen in Buffalo Grove at 5 p.m. on Christmas Day just to have a shot at eating by 7 p.m. Local favorites might become fixtures because they showcase what makes a place unique, such as its migratory history or its economic underpinnings. The decadent Oberweis milkshakes I gladly slurp in the dead of a Chicago winter are made possible by the rich dairy industry in Illinois and Wisconsin. Sometimes the adage holds true: You really are what you eat.

“Food has long been a reflection of who we are and what we believe,” Harrington said. “Because eating is such a central part of our everyday lives, even the small greasy-spoon diner you have in your hometown and the hole-in-the-wall ethnic restaurant … are strong indicators of what people in the town hold dear to themselves and how not only they think about food, but how they think about themselves.”

For those who traveled home this season, local pride, more than actual flavor, might dictate restaurant decisions, and standby spots become the natural settings for annual reunions. It’s common to see fans of regional chains such as Whataburger and In-N-Out posting tributes on social media after finally getting their hands on their beloved grub. “As a California native, one of the best moments of the year is when I visit home for Christmas, and take that first bite of In N Out,” reads one tweet. Fittingly, these smaller franchises also have intense fandoms that are convinced that their favorite reigns supreme. (David Silberberg, who grew up in Westlake Village, California, and now lives in Washington, D.C., told me In-N-Out was the clear winner and Whataburger “doesn’t even come close”; Meisenheimer, who declared those “fighting words,” said, “A Texan will choose Whataburger over In-N-Out every time.”)

To be sure, regular old nostalgia—a force that is as commonplace as it is amorphous and deeply personal—shapes people’s connections to the food they grew up eating. Sometimes specific meals hark back to the first exuberant moments of adulthood, so that a plate of nachos tastes less like cheese and more like teenage independence. For Katy Wahl—who is from Mount Juliet, Tennessee, but went to college in Indiana—the Nashville taco joint Taqueria del Sol is indelibly tied to her adolescence. “There was one five minutes from my high school, so that would be our Friday after-school ritual,” Wahl recalled. “They have outstanding queso and guacamole, and we would get tons for the big table.” While Nashville’s food scene has exploded in recent years, Wahl finds herself returning again and again to her old stomping grounds, as if pulled by an invisible line.

While this sort of affection makes intuitive sense, there’s also research to help explain it. In 2014, scientists at the University of Haifa found a link between the part of the brain that stores memories of new tastes (the cortex) and the area that records memories of where and when an eating experience happens (the hippocampus). They concluded that where people eat something has implications for how much they’ll enjoy the food itself—so just because they hated the rib eye at one restaurant doesn’t mean they actually dislike steak. It’s reasonable to conclude, then, that forming positive early memories in connection with a restaurant might make someone more inclined to fall in love with the food there.

As for Harrington, he thinks that people return to, and extol the virtues of, their hometown favorites partly because they’re stuck in a dance between their past and present selves, and because they subconsciously want to reaffirm the conclusions they came to as children. “Childhood is really an important time in forming your own identity,” Harrington said. “If I go back and eat [food I loved when I was 14], it’s going to be a lot harder for me to say, ‘This isn’t that good,’ because in some ways, that’s saying who I was and who I am is mistaken or incorrect.”

that sustain a community. By sharing photos of meals or tweeting at establishments, people can take a little piece of their favorite spots back with them. And whether or not an order of animal-style fries or a thick chocolate shake, is actually as delicious as one might remember, the comfort of a familiar meal can serve as a much-needed salve for the less sweet memories of life.joy of moments casualAs the holidays come to an end and travelers return to their regular routines, social media can help ease the pain of separation, while offering a reminder that the love we feel for any restaurant goes beyond the food itself. For me, scrolling through photos of Homer’s Ice Cream—the shop in Wilmette, Illinois, that is so special I wrote my college-admissions essays about it—is like getting an intimate look at all the

A Star Is Born Finds Movie Magic in a Parking Lot

Over the next week, The Atlantic’s “And, Scene” series will delve into some of the most interesting films of the year by examining a single, noteworthy cinematic moment from 2018. Next up is Bradley Cooper’s A Star Is Born. (Read our previous entries here.)


By the time Ally (played by Lady Gaga) and Jackson Maine (Bradley Cooper) are sitting together in an empty parking lot in the middle of the night, they’ve already been through an odyssey. Jackson, a famous musician, crossed paths with Ally when she performed “La Vie en Rose” at a local watering hole. Enchanted by her charismatic stage presence, he takes her to another bar, interrogates her about her passions, and then, after she starts a fight with a drunken patron and hurts her hand, whisks her away to a supermarket to get a field dressing of frozen peas and gauze. All this happens within the first 30 minutes of A Star Is Born.

During this whirlwind meet-cute, Ally opens up about her thwarted efforts as a songwriter and her insecurity about her prominent nose. “Everybody’s talented … but having something to say, and a way to say it so that people listen to it, that’s a whole other bag,” Jackson tells her, as Ally looks on with a mixture of interest and incredulity. But it’s only when they’re sitting side by side on a concrete curb, with Ally nursing her hand, that Jackson starts to open up in return.

“Nobody ever asks you about you, huh?” Ally asks, as Jackson tells her about growing up on a pecan ranch, his screw-up dad having him late in life, and being raised by his brother. She sings her next line. “Tell me something, boy: Aren’t you tired trying to fill that void? Or do you need more? Ain’t it hard keeping it so hard-core?” It’s the scene the whole movie hinges on, whether or not the audience realizes it. If Ally’s sudden creative outburst seems ridiculous, or disrupts the realism of the encounter, the rest of the film won’t really be able to take flight. But Lady Gaga somehow makes the moment feel genuine, and Cooper helps sell it by looking at her dumb struck.

Jackson has been peppering Ally with questions all night, nudging her about her ambitions, dismissing her perceived shortcomings, and flirting with abandon (including a particularly charged stroke of her nose). But Ally’s been taking stock of his character, too, and after their short time together, she’s emboldened enough to sing about it. “I’m falling, in all the good times, I find myself longing for change,” she adds, finally standing to belt out the chorus of “Shallow,” the film’s signature song. “Holy shit,” Jackson says, temporarily standing in for the audience.

The kind of tenderness on display here is hard to pull off in a totally naturalistic film, but A Star Is Born is also a musical of sorts, where characters can articulate their emotions far better through song. Cooper, who co-wrote and directed, manages to merge the two storytelling styles without sacrificing the distinct power of either. The parking lot is hardly a romantic spot, Ally’s hand is awkwardly wrapped in a bandage, and Jackson’s driver (Greg Grunberg) is leaning against the car and eating Cheetos 20 feet away. Still, the entire scene is imbued with a mystical air, as though these two characters have been struck with divine inspiration.

That’s exactly the magic of creativity—of “having something to say”—that Jackson has been monologuing about, and it’s mesmerizing enough to spur the two to fall in love, both with each other and with the songs they make together. A Star Is Born is one of the oldest Hollywood stories, and it takes a notoriously dark turn in its final act; but the film’s bigger ideas about the price of fame would feel hollow if they weren’t threaded through a relationship that the audience is sincerely invested in. The parking-lot scene—at once understated and soaring—is what seals the bargain for Jackson, Ally, and the viewer, and it could have just as easily been where the movie lost hold of all three.

Previously: Mission: Impossible – Fallout

Next Up: Burning

Friday, December 28, 2018

Charleston Bachelor Party

Guidelines for Throwing a Successful Charleston Bachelor Party.

With the evolution of online shopping, ordering Charleston strippers has never been easier. There are many stripping agencies in Charleston to choose from, so we’ve outlined some tips to help you make an educated decision. The following guidelines are not rules, but based off of the experience from thousands of customers. Your bachelor party mishaps can be avoided by reading the following stag party planning pointers.

The most important point is to order your Charleston female strippers in as far advance as possible. The bare minimum time you should wait is at least one week before the party date. What happens is the hottest girls are frequently booked for the same time slot and have their schedules fill up quicker than less requested strippers in Charleston. You’re most likely to receive an entertainer who may not be as pretty or popular than what you expect when you order a few days before your party. There is always an exception to ordering last-minute strippers.

It is okay and definitely possible to get adult entertainment delivered to your door with same-day service, but compromises must be met. Any veteran stripping agency will be able to accommodate your request as long as you are flexible with time. The most requested time to have a bachelor party is 9 PM on a Saturday night. The best suggestion would be to schedule your strip show as early as possible so that your chosen dancer has your party to go to first.

There is a large possibility that your entertainment will be late the later you choose your party time. The most popular female strippers during bachelor party season may have up to five shows in a single evening. It is rare, but some girls actually work at Charleston strip clubs before performing at private bachelor parties. The best solution is to communicate to the stripping agency that you have a very strict schedule and is highly recommended to say you have a ‘limo pickup time’ and is absolutely imperative the stripper(s) arrives at a specific time or you will cancel.

The second point is to have some sort of game plan. When planning a bachelor party in Charleston, you must have contingent alternatives in place or else you will be stuck with a lame party. Hunks & Babes cares about the success of your party whether you use our services or not. If you are only planning on ordering one female stripper, it is recommended to order at least one other stripper from a completely different stripping agency. The best solution is to order multiple strippers from one agency. One alternative we do not recommend is hiring bachelor party entertainment through craigslist strippers. When responsibility rests on your shoulders as the best man, all of your bases must be covered in case any unforeseen circumstances should arise.

The third point is to pick a location that best suits the bachelor’s taste. You are in luck because you live near the best Charleston bachelor party bars in the area. There are strict rules for stripper costumes and can vary when allowing different degrees of nudity. Some bars only allow topless waitresses while other nightclubs may allow full nudity within the privacy of a private guest room. There are gentlemen’s clubs in Charleston that requires topless females to paint clear latex over their nipples to meet the local sanitary food and alcohol laws. Either way, it is your job to communicate your intentions very clearly to the management of the establishment you plan on having your ultimate party night.

The same honesty must be communicated when choosing a bachelor party hotel Charleston. Often times hotel parties are broken up by either hotel management or local law enforcement because of noise. You can do almost anything as long as your intentions are clearly stated to the hotel you are having your party at. One of the best bachelor party ideas Charleston is to order exotic dancers and have them wear sexy stripper police costumes. The sexy uniformed girls can pretend to apprehend the bachelor for being too loud.

The fourth point is to have party supplies on hand and ready. Party supplies include liquor, whipped cream, baby oil, handcuffs, food, pudding, and maybe a pressurized bottle of seltzer water (for a wet T-shirt contest). The main point is not to run out of supplies because chances are everything is closed really late at night while you are having your bachelor party dreams come true. All-female exotic dancers come prepared by bringing their own music and props. Girls will almost always have dildos, vibrators, oil, whipped cream, a towel, and long strings of pearly beads that gradually get larger towards the end -all neatly packed inside their gym bag. In case your group of guys are little bit more wild than you thought, you will be the hero of the party by supplying the absent delectable naughty items.

The fifth and final point is to make sure you enjoy your time there along with your best of friends. It is easy to get wrapped up with the financial stress of bachelor party planning. Most bars, gentlemen’s clubs, strippers, or any other catering amenities you purchased require cash. You could be required to have a few thousand dollars on your person before the night begins and could be dangerous if anyone knows. Please drink responsibly so that you make the right decisions and do not run out of funds early in the night. If you know you will excessively consume drinks, a great idea is to place cash inside specifically marked envelopes labeled for each service you have to pay and seal them. This will make it easier for you to remember who you have to pay without remembering the amounts. Good luck and enjoy your ultimate bachelor party in Charleston!

The blog post Charleston Bachelor Party Read more on: HB Strippers Agency HB Strippers Adult Entertainment


Charleston Bachelor Party posted first on https://sites.google.com/site/hbstrippersagency/

The Branching Horrors of Black Mirror’s ‘Bandersnatch’

This piece contains spoilers for the Black Mirror special “Bandersnatch.”

For most of its existence, Netflix’s streaming television service has largely existed to pump out more and more content. Its never-ending feed is packed with new shows, revived classics, licensed hits from other countries, and big acquisitions like Black Mirror, a cult hit from the U.K.’s Channel 4 that tells warped Twilight Zone tales for an internet age. Given the onslaught of “more,” it stands to reason that eventually there’d be one television episode that offered the viewer thousands of choices all by itself. That is Black Mirror’s “Bandersnatch,” a feature-length special that behaves like a “choose your own adventure” book, proposing various branching story options that lead the audience down different (often grim) paths.

It’s a piece of interactive television that feels like an obvious new direction both for Netflix and for Black Mirror. It allows Netflix to harness its online platform in ways that classic broadcast television never could, letting subscribers choose plot options on their remote controls and load every permutation of the story onto their site. And it allows Black Mirror creator and writer Charlie Brooker to explore the blinkered sense of freedom that comes from gaming—video gaming especially. In “Bandersnatch,” the viewer is in control, nudging main character Stefan (Fionn Whitehead) to make various life choices, though the reality of the programming means there are only so many options.

[Read: The universe of ‘Black Mirror’ coalesces]

Brooker started out his career as a game critic and writer, working for PC Zone magazine in the ’90s. Some of Black Mirror’s best episodes, like “Fifteen Million Merits” and “Playtest,” explored the horrifying limits of futuristic gaming. “Bandersnatch” is set in 1984, at the height of computerized text adventures like The Hobbit and Zork, which first introduced gamers to worlds that didn’t entirely proceed on rails. You could make choices, solve problems in different ways, and even arrive at different endings, much like you can in “Bandersnatch.”

The story itself is a simple bit of meta-narrative: Stefan is an aspiring programmer, who is building a game called Bandersnatch based on a fictional choose-your-own-adventure novel by a psychotic, now-dead cult author. He visits a cool gaming company and meets his idol Colin Ritman (Will Poulter) and the business-minded manager Mohan Thakur (Asim Chaudhry). The latter offers Stefan a chance to create the game in-house, while the former stresses independence; it’s the first significant choice of many the viewer will make, picking between options that flash up on the screen (if you don’t choose within 10 seconds, the show randomly chooses for you).

But there are non-significant picks the viewer can make too, like which breakfast cereal Stefan eats, or what music he listens to, or how he talks with his father Peter (Craig Parkinson) and his therapist (Alice Lowe). Or are these choices so meaningless? With every click of a button, the story begins to snowball in weird and confusing directions, and the panicked sense of making the wrong pick every time increases the stakes. That’s the magic of videogaming, of course—the sense that you’re in control, meaning that every right (or wrong) move is attributable to your thinking.

Games like Bioshock have poked at the fallacy of that concept. Everything is, after all, programmed; even with increasingly advanced technology at work, there’s always going to be a limit to how much you can mimic real life through scripting and algorithms. In “Bandersnatch,” Brooker sometimes lets the viewer go back if a decision ends in Stefan’s death or artistic failure, much as you could always flip backwards in a choose-your-own-adventure book, or re-load from a save point in a video game. I explored various permutations of Stefan’s story before finally hitting a brick wall and an end credits sequence (the entire viewing experience ran about 90 to 100 minutes for me, but it can be shorter or much longer).

The episode also, unsurprisingly for Black Mirror, veers into self-awareness; at one point, I communicated with Stefan through his computer screen, sending him messages about how I was watching him on Netflix (from the vantage of 1984, he was mostly baffled). At another moment, I loaded a completely pointless action scene that seemed to exist mostly to mock any complaint that things were getting too boring. I’m sure there are many more rabbit holes for me to tumble down, but the overall darkness of the story (Stefan is frequently being pushed towards madness) might make it a slog to watch over and over again.

Still, that’s the magic of video games: The more you play, the more you’re emotionally invested. Through the various branches I found, I never got to an ending of “Bandersnatch” that felt truly happy or fulfilling, though I’m sure there’s one out there; the best (and last) one I arrived at was, at least, somewhat peaceful and touching, if a little mournful. But the show’s cleverest stroke of all came when I finally exited out of the episode and returned to Netflix’s main page. Next to “Bandersnatch” was a typical red progress bar, which usually indicates how many minutes you are into any given TV episode or movie. In the case of “Bandersnatch,” the bar was barely full; I’d just completed the story, but there are plenty of other completions to find. It’s fiendish stuff, but an undeniably clever new entry in the boundlessly reflective Black Mirror canon: The episode that never ends.

The Books Briefing: ’Tis the Season for Parties

Edward Gorey and the Power of the Ineffable

“Everyday life is very discomfiting,” the American writer and illustrator Edward Gorey told The National Observer in 1976. “I guess I’m trying to convey that discomfiting texture in my books.” But Gorey’s art did not merely aim to discompose audiences with its macabre Victorian-Edwardian overlays and casual depictions of darkly comic cruelty. It also sought to unsettle by resisting definitive explanations or solutions. In a later interview, Gorey clarified—in a manner of speaking—the dominant philosophical theme of his work: the power of the ineffable, the value of what is left unsaid. “Explaining something makes it go away ... Ideally, if anything were good, it would be indescribable,” grumbled Gorey, who died in 2000 at age 75. “Disdain explanation,” he similarly wrote in a meandering postcard to Andreas Brown, a fan and publisher of Gorey’s books.

The author is, of course, better known for his period Gothic aesthetic and funereal humor than for his skepticism of clarity. Gorey’s influence is evident throughout British and American pop culture, notably in works by Tim Burton—including the stop-motion films The Nightmare Before Christmas and Corpse Bride—and by Neil Gaiman, particularly the 2002 novella, Coraline, as well as its 2009 movie adaptation. Exhibitions of work by Gorey still routinely draw crowds today, much as his wildly popular and acclaimed 1977 stage adaptation of Bram Stoker’s Dracula did decades ago.

At first glance, Gorey’s oeuvre might not appear to require much explication or invite readers to search meticulously for meaning. Most of Gorey’s books consist of brief blends of rhyme and lavish black-and-white drawings. Often, they seem to exist simply for the sake of existing. Such is the case with The Gashlycrumb Tiniesthe first book of Gorey’s I read after stumbling across it in a London bookstore—a slim abecedarian that chronicles the ghastly demises of 26 children in a tone at once hilariously and eerily deadpan.

Because his books are slender and feature illustration, a medium long dismissed by establishment critics as less worthy of analysis than fine arts like painting, it is only relatively recently that Gorey has begun to receive scholarly attention. Many of his texts, under more scrutiny, are playfully and disturbingly irrational, resisting easy elucidation—a quality that reveals Gorey’s ideological views on both art and the universe. An impressively expansive new biography by Mark Dery, Born to Be Posthumous: The Eccentric Life and Mysterious Genius of Edward Gorey, attempts, often with success, to demystify the illustrator’s wide-ranging elusiveness—a quality that was also explored in two recent art shows, Gorey’s Worlds and Murder He Wrote. To varying extents, the book and the exhibitions delve into both Gorey’s Surrealism-influenced philosophy of art and into perhaps the ultimate puzzle of Gorey—the private life of the man himself.

The hallucinatory logic of Surrealism, a 20th-century movement in the arts and philosophy that sought to capture the irrational air of dreams, pervades Gorey’s work. Surrealism “appeals to me,” Gorey said in 1978. “I mean that is my philosophy if I have one, certainly in the literary way. … What appeals to me most is an idea by [the surrealist poet Paul] Éluard,” Gorey continued, referencing one of the movement’s founders. “He has a line about there being another world, but it’s in this one. And [the surrealist turned experimental novelist] Raymond Queneau said the world is not what it seems—but it isn’t anything else, either. Those two ideas are the bedrock of my approach.” Far from some purveyor of stock Gothic fare, Gorey embraced enigma and sought to relay, if indirectly, his Surrealist philosophy through his art. “Gorey was a surrealist’s surrealist,” Dery aptly notes.

Perhaps nowhere is this more evident than in The Doubtful Guest (1957): an illustrated poem in which a bizarre figure—part-penguin, part-reptile, wearing sneakers—shows up one night to a family’s house, uninvited, causing dismay and disarray. Gorey provides no sense of why it has come or when it may leave, a state of affairs resembling the existential absurdism of Franz Kafka or Albert Camus. The Doubtful Guest appeared the same year as Dr. Seuss’s The Cat in the Hat, another book in which an unexpected entrant brings anarchy into a home.

But whereas Seuss’s carnivalesque cat seeks to entertain, and cleans up before leaving so that the children don’t get in trouble when their mother returns, Gorey’s guest arrives with no clear agenda, does not remove its destructive messes, and shows no sign of departing. It is just comically, exasperatingly there, a discombobulation of domestic order far beyond the antics of Seuss’s feline. The Doubtful Guest distills Gorey’s Surrealistic aesthetic into a stark message: that events resist human control, that the mysteries that lie in the mundane cannot be fully solved. It’s telling, too, that Murder He Wrote, an exhibition at The Edward Gorey House, explores how influential murder mysteries were for the writer—and yet his stories regularly subverted the genre’s promises of resolution, planting misleading clues and reveling in maddeningly ambiguous endings.

If Gorey’s work embraced the inexplicable, Gorey himself was as enigmatic and textured as his art. Bedecked, in his best-known look, in a Harvard scarf, half-moon spectacles, the thick beard of a wizard, a voluminous technicolor fur coat, and blue jeans with scuffed white Keds, it was hard not to see Gorey as a figure of delightful contradictions: ostentatious pomp on the one hand, a sort of suburban simplicity on the other. “Half bongo-drum beatnik, half fin-de-siècle dandy,” Stephen Schiff memorably described him in a New Yorker profile. As much a persona as a person, Gorey partly seemed like one of his own illustrations, a dapper Edwardian gentleman fresh from attending executions or exequies, while simultaneously bearing the aspect of some beach-combing uncle. Gorey enjoyed things ostensibly removed from the high elegance of his illustrations: watching Buffy the Vampire Slayer or Golden Girls with cats perched on his shoulder while he did crossword puzzles.

Gorey’s personal art collection, on display in the Wadsworth Atheneum Museum of Art’s 2018 exhibition Gorey’s Worlds, offers a rare window into some of the works that shaped his sensibility. Dozens of these pieces—by prominent European and American artists, as well as by lesser known folk artists—feature subjects that often surfaced in Gorey’s own creations: the ballet, cats, bats, shadowy landscapes. “These works give us as convincing a picture as we will probably ever have of Gorey’s elective affinities—of his own private tradition,” Jed Perl wrote for the New York Review of Books.

As Perl suggests, despite the overtness of Gorey’s outward eccentricities, the artist’s personal life was more shrouded. When pressed by interviewers about his sexuality, Gorey declined to give clear answers, except during a 1980 conversation with Lisa Solod, wherein he claimed to be asexual—making Gorey one of few openly asexual writers even today, a short list that includes the Kiwi novelist Keri Hulme. In his interview with Solod, Gorey said, “I suppose I’m gay. But I don’t identify with it much.” Yet this admission, Dery reveals, was deleted from the published version of their exchange, possibly by an editor who believed an openly gay author would be taken less seriously.

Gorey never expressly denied being homoromantic—attracted to men for the purpose of a relationship, not for sex—but, with the exception of that excised quote, he refused to pin down his desires, as most labels repulsed him. (One failing of Born to Be Posthumous is Dery’s repeated insistence on claiming Gorey was obviously gay by virtue of his “flamboyant dress” and “bitchy wit”; here, Dery falls into the trap of equating effeminacy with gay men, an archaic stereotype.) It seemed Gorey just wanted to be himself, whatever that might be, and often found the company of his pet felines as pleasurable, if not more, than that of his fellow humans. Indeed, when asked by Vanity Fair, “What or who is the greatest love of your life?” his reply was simply, “Cats.”

Perhaps fittingly, Gorey’s books also avoided depicting sex, even in the suggestively titled The Curious Sofa: A Pornographic Work by Ogdred Weary (an anagrammatic pseudonym for “Edward Gorey,” the first name of which also appeared as a vanity plate on Gorey’s yellow Volkswagen Beetle). The 1961 text consists of innuendo-laden sentences about the activities of a household of adults, a number of whom are described as “well-endowed,” but never, despite the subtitle, explicitly have intercourse. In the last scene, a man pulls the lever on a garish couch that seems to double as a machine. A woman screams, but Gorey never reveals what has happened; the reader must imaginatively fill the blank.

In a relatively more straightforward—and, to me, more distressing—work, The Insect God (1963), the specter of sex also appears, but now as a possible punishment for a young girl who is kidnapped. At the start, the girl naïvely approached a vehicle filled with strangers, who offered her “a tin full of cinnamon balls” before they “lifted” her into the car; they brought her to be sacrificed before an insect deity, but “stunned” her and “stripped off her garments” first—an act laden with disquieting connotations of rape before murder.

Both of these stories contain subtle morals. The Insect God can be read as a demonstration of stranger danger. By never fully revealing the subtext of its lines, The Curious Sofa becomes a paean to intellectual curiosity, richer and curiouser if readers stop assuming the ending must involve pornography. But beyond that, the tales illustrate how the unexpected, and even horror, can enter at any time in Gorey’s world—and there is little, if anything, one can do to stop it.

Such is the case in Gorey’s heartbreaking tale, The Hapless Child (1961), in which a young girl loses her parents and guardians one by one, until the family lawyer sends her to a school, where students torment her. She flees, then is abducted and sold into slavery to a dipsomaniacal “brute.” During one of her captor’s drunken stupors, the girl escapes but is run over by a car—that of her father, who, contrary to what she had been told, was not actually dead. To cap off the cruelty, the book ends with the revelation that the driver’s “dying child” is so emaciated that “he did not even recognize her.” Death, and suffering, is never far off in Gorey’s stories.

But nearer still is the profound sense of unfailing, even irrational cruelty in The Hapless Child’s narrative: the feeling that Gorey’s protagonist, who did not appear to do anything to deserve her fate, was just as helpless to do anything to soften it. It was Gorey, after all, who averred in a 1976 interview that “I stand by the idea that you can’t prevent things.” What does one do, when an ineffable universe sets its sights on you?

In 1984, Gorey declared that “my mission in life is to make everybody as uneasy as possible ... because that’s what the world is like.” Gorey’s longtime friend, the writer Alexander Theroux, records the artist remarking that “life is intrinsically ... boring and dangerous at the same time. At any given moment, the floor may open up. Of course, it almost never does.” Gorey’s books unquestionably achieve unease—even wordless tales like The West Wing, which unnerve solely by their sepulchral atmospherics. But Gorey’s tales are also ludic, winking at the reader with a combination of frightfulness and fun that is apparent throughout the pieces featured in Murder He Wrote and Gorey’s Worlds. Ultimately, Gorey’s work is an altar to the writer’s faith in art as a medium for attempting to translate the untranslatable language of living.

Amid the terror and tumult of the world today, the floor may already feel like it has opened up, again and again. Gorey chose to reweave horror into odd but indelible imagery. At least, his work suggests, art can console in times of dismay, and, perhaps more importantly, unsettle when one grows too consoled.

A Mission: Impossible Fake-Out for the Ages

Over the next week, The Atlantic’s “And, Scene” series will delve into some of the most interesting films of the year by examining a single, noteworthy cinematic moment from 2018. Next up is Christopher McQuarrie’s Mission: Impossible—Fallout. (Read our previous entries here.)


The ludicrously dubbed “Impossible Mission Force,” the imaginary federal agency at the heart of the Mission: Impossible franchise, is difficult to define. Its members are international superspies with a gift for stagecraft; imagine MI6, but with an elaborate makeup department, a healthy CGI budget, and a flair for dramaturgy. Ethan Hunt (played by Tom Cruise) and his pals might combat villains by jumping off a building or executing a daring car chase, but they’re also fond of masks and voice-changers, and they always seem to have a wardrobe of disguises in tow. “The IMF is like Halloween, a bunch of grown men in rubber masks playing trick or treat,” sighs the CIA chief Erica Sloane (Angela Bassett).

But the beginning of Fallout, the sixth entry in the Mission: Impossible film franchise, suggests that the world has gotten too grim for fun and games. When the series launched in 1996, it was a hearty throwback, reviving a hit 1967 TV show for the decade’s biggest star. By 2018, Hunt is a man haunted by his years in the field, a marriage he had to abandon for work, and villains that are hell-bent not on financial gain or political power, but on apocalyptic destruction. Fallout is the third Mission: Impossible in a row in which the bad guy has decided that Earth is beyond saving and needs to be annihilated. And at its beginning, that’s exactly what seems to have happened.

[Read: ‘Mission: Impossible—Fallout’ doubles down on the ridiculousness of its hero]

In the film’s first scene, a sting operation to seize plutonium that’s floating around on the black market goes wrong, with Hunt saving his teammates and letting the fissile material get away. Fade to: a CNN broadcast, hosted by Wolf Blitzer, saying that three nuclear attacks have devastated Rome, Jerusalem, and Mecca. “We can assume the death toll is catastrophic,” Blitzer intones in the background of a hospital room, as Hunt enters to interrogate the captured scientist Nils Debruuk (Kristoffer Joner), who is suspected of building the bombs for the terrorist John Lark. It’s classic good cop/bad cop: Hunt threatens to kill Debruuk, is restrained by his fellow agent Luther Stickell (Ving Rhames), and then reluctantly assents to Debruuk’s request that Lark’s nihilistic manifesto be read on-air by Blitzer. Satisfied with the political triumph, Debruuk confesses.

It speaks to just how grim big Hollywood franchises have gotten that I fell for it. After all, this was the year that saw the Avengers movie end with half the heroes getting zapped into dust and antiheroes such as Venom and Deadpool rule the box-office roost. Maybe the Mission: Impossible creative team decided it had to raise the stakes and kick things off with something truly unthinkable, rather than relying on the usual high-tech, gadget-fueled fun. Debruuk’s confession is followed by one of the most satisfying, and ridiculous, rug-pulls of the series. His hospital room is revealed to be a facsimile, constructed by the IMF. Wolf Blitzer is the agent Benji Dunn (Simon Pegg), wearing a rubber mask. “Told you we’d get it,” Blitzer crows, satisfied.

The hilarious twist—which helps the IMF track the location of the missing plutonium—serves as a mission statement for the movie, and the series at large, one that the film doubles down on for the rest of its running time. The IMF might be playing Halloween, reliant on absurd theatricality rather than brute strength, but that’s why people buy tickets: They’re here to see Hunt and company cleverly wriggle their way out of every situation, not do battle in a world that’s already aflame. Beginning a 2018 blockbuster with a literal “fake news” sequence might have felt like a cheap bit of topicality from another franchise, but Fallout’s version serves as a reminder that international spy thrillers don’t have to be all death and destruction to make an impact. The real world might seem on the brink of chaos, but at least in the theater, Ethan Hunt is always on hand to drag it back to safety through sheer force of will.

Previously: Leave No Trace

Next Up: A Star Is Born

The 18 Best Breakouts of 2018

Thursday, December 27, 2018

The Disturbing Truth About Kevin Spacey’s ‘Let Me Be Frank’ Video

The video Kevin Spacey posted on Christmas Eve has been repeatedly described as “bizarre,” with good reason: No one knows what it means. Wearing a Santa apron and occasionally sipping from a mug, Spacey seems to inhabit his House of Cards character, Frank Underwood, drawling things like, “We’re not done, no matter what anyone says.” The monologue hints at a desire to return to Cards, despite his character having been killed off (“You never actually saw me die, did you?” he asks). It plays as commentary on the more than 30 allegations of sexual misconduct against Spacey: “You wouldn’t rush to judgment without facts, would you?” The confusion the video has sown may have distracted from the news that the actor was just charged with the sexual assault of an 18-year-old in 2016.

What’s clear, at the least, is that Spacey chose for his first significant reemergence to be a showcase—or “showcase,” heavy on the air quotes—of his acting. And for it to spotlight one of the roles that the public once fêted him for. And for it to dispense thoughts about morality and truth. All of which makes a statement: Don’t separate this artist from his art.

As year two of the post–Harvey Weinstein reckoning unfolds, that old ethical question—can art be evaluated apart from its artist?—feels more and more academic. Whether or not they should, many people clearly are fine with being entertained by alleged abusers. The cheers outnumbered the walkouts at surprise comedy sets by the confessed creep Louis C.K. The rapper XXXtentacion faced well-publicized allegations of hateful violence, and yet after his death his music has risen to mega popularity. Art, it seems, can survive allegations. What’s more unnerving is the suspicion, now, that artists can weather them too—by relying on the goodwill engendered by their work.

Spacey’s career long blended highbrow acclaim and mainstream appeal. A stage thespian before he was a film lead, he amassed glittering awards and a prestigious post as the artistic director of the Old Vic theater in London. These are not merely the spoils of a movie star; they are the signifiers of one who approaches his trade as capital-a Art. This particular artist’s muse? Evil. Spacey’s signature turns in The Usual Suspects, Seven, and House of Cards were all charismatic bad guys, and for 1999’s American Beauty, his suburban-dad character, Lester, lusted after a teenage girl. Accepting the Oscar for Best Actor, Spacey said he loved playing Lester “because we got to see all of his worst qualities and we still grew to love him. This movie to me is all about how any single act from any single person put out of context is damnable.”

The “Let Me Be Frank” video may be an attempt to reassert this professional history. Spacey the great actor is implied in his complaint that his scandals led to an “unsatisfying ending” that could have been “memorable”—a likely dig at the poorly reviewed final season of Cards that didn’t feature Frank Underwood. Spacey the philosopher of misdeeds is here, too: “I told you my deepest darkest secrets,” he says, seeming to speak both as Frank but also as himself the public figure. “I showed you exactly what people are capable of. I shocked you with my honesty, but mostly I challenged you and made you think. And you trusted me even though you knew you shouldn’t.”

[Read: The Kevin Spacey allegations, through the lens of power]

Left unstated is the way that Spacey’s acting career was accompanied by allegations of misbehavior, sexual and otherwise. (He’s apologized to his first public accuser, Anthony Rapp, and denied or remained silent on other allegations.) The Usual Suspects shut down production for two days after Spacey made an advance on a younger actor on set, the actor Gabriel Byrne told The Sunday Times. Producers on House of Cards conducted an investigation and sent Spacey to retraining in 2012 after an inappropriate “remark and gesture.”

Also left unreckoned with in Spacey’s video is the difference between the thrill of fictional villainy and the effects of the real-life kind. One of Spacey’s accusers, the filmmaker Tony Montana, has talked about the PTSD and shame he suffered when Spacey allegedly grabbed him. Another, who says he was 15 when a 24-year-old Spacey tried to rape him, told Vulture, “What he left me with, more than what he took from me, was a sense that I deserved this. And that’s the knot I’m still untangling.”

All of this queasy context is surely part of why Spacey’s video accrued more than seven million views in just a few days. People are rubbernecking at the disgraced star opting to play the villain. “Kevin Spacey is sending a very disturbing message as he chastises his audience,” the actress Ellen Barkin tweeted. “If you hypocrites loved me as a murderer, why won’t you love me as a sex offender? Maybe because Frank Underwood’s crimes are fiction and Kevin Spacey’s are not.” Wrote Patricia Arquette, “I’m sure none of the men who were kids at the time of their sexual assaults appreciate @KevinSpacey’s weird video.”

But another unsettling fact is that some portion of the video’s viewers really do miss Spacey on screen—and would cheer his return to public life, regardless of whether he’s an abuser. The YouTube clip has more than 51,000 “dislikes” and 170,000 “likes”: an imprecise and manipulable metric of public sentiment, yes, but one that’s reflected in some of the comments. One example: “Kevin Spacey is brilliant at what he does and what he does makes millions of people happy. The truth is we all never heard his side of the story.” The Daily Mail’s Tom Leonard reports on rumors of a comeback plan for Spacey, and points out that there’s a website of unknown provenance, supportkevinspacey.com, where fans can leave encouragement. It appears that some have written in to applaud “Let Me Be Frank.”

Netflix has not commented on the video, but it seems unfathomable that Spacey’s stunt actually teases a return on House of Cards, whose recent season was advertised as its last. (The company reportedly lost $39 million after ending its relationship with the actor.) With authorities in New England filing charges and other investigations of Spacey reportedly underway in L.A. and London, the likelihood of a career reboot seems even more ludicrous. The quality of this video itself—the home-software title font, the bad imitation-Cards dialogue, Spacey’s conspicuous failure to act as though there’s any coffee in his mug—adds to the sense of him as delusional. But at the core of this gambit may be the belief that a man like him can act his way out of anything. Given how many guys accused of #MeToo-related offenses seem to be doing okay, is that so far-fetched?

Leave No Trace Shows How to Critique Society—Without Demonizing an Entire System

Over the next month, The Atlantic’s “And, Scene” series will delve into some of the most interesting films of the year by examining a single, noteworthy moment. Next up is Debra Granik’s Leave No Trace. (Read our previous entries here.)


The most impressive thing about Leave No Trace is that the enemy of the film is not the government. Yes, Debra Granik’s story is about a father, Will (Ben Foster), and his daughter, Tom (Thomasin McKenzie), trying to live away from society, and the way that their dreams are shattered when they’re arrested for trespassing on public land. Will, a traumatized Iraq War veteran, craves isolation and peace above all else, and he chafes at almost any kind of institutional structure. So when he’s taken away from the forest, separated from his daughter, and hauled in front of social services, the whole process should feel monstrous. Somehow, it doesn’t.

Granik is a filmmaker with an incredible gift for conveying characterization cleanly and simply; her camera doesn’t judge, but rather empathizes. It’s likely obvious to the viewer, early on, that Will’s hope for a quiet life off the grid is bound to fail, especially as his daughter grows older and begins seeking a life of her own. It’s equally obvious that Will is going to ignore the orders of the state of Oregon the first chance he gets, even if he’s threatened with imprisonment. Still, soon after he and Tom are taken out of the forest, Granik digs into the specifics of the government’s intervention and the ways in which officials are trying to help. In fully considering the situation from multiple angles, she gives a careful portrait of its intractability.

[Read: ‘Leave No Trace’ is a shattering, essential drama]

Once Will is processed, he’s assessed by a social worker named James (Michael J. Prosser), who sits him in front of a computer and has Will take a personality test of sorts. “Respond true/false to each question … There’s 435 questions. If you can’t answer something, you’ve got three seconds, it’ll beep and move on to the next statement,” he explains soothingly, before turning the computer on and departing the room. The test is somewhat less soothing, featuring a halting, robotic voice that utters true-or-false statements like “I enjoy reading articles on crime” and “I have nightmares or troubling dreams.”

Will keeps up at first, but the statements grow more probing and accusatory, even as they’re delivered with the same flatness. “I think about things that are too bad to talk about.” “Things aren’t turning out like the prophets said they would.” “It seems like no one understands me.” Will’s grumpy demeanor quickly crumbles into anguished confusion; Foster, doing career-best work, expresses all of Will’s horror and despair at what he’s being asked with a single mournful stare. He’s someone trying to live a meaningfully detached life; the test’s assumption is, of course, that he’s crazy, angry, or both.

As Will ignores the questions, James comes back in to console him. “You wouldn’t be the first one to have a problem with this test,” the social worker confesses. James is as warm and sympathetic as he can be, but he’s still there to do a job, and the test is what it is—a fruitless, reductive attempt to glean why someone might not want to be part of society. The sequence plays out in an office decorated with forest wallpaper, a facsimile of the environment Will and Tom were just plucked from; it reads like yet another effort to offer comfort while reasserting control.

James and the other social-service workers do their best to find Will and Tom a placement with a rural family that might approximate their old life off the radar, while also keeping them on Oregon’s books. If this entire early section of the film played out malevolently, the rest of Leave No Trace (which sees an increasingly frayed Will taking Tom back into the woods to try and reclaim their former life) wouldn’t work; it’d feel too righteous and pure. Instead, all the tricky ideas Granik wants to explore are laid out from the start, so that the later acts can wrestle with them. The world that Will is trying to escape isn’t evil, but even at its most benevolent it has no real understanding of how to handle people like him, and vice versa. Thanks to Granik’s sensitivity, Leave No Trace is a humane attempt to grapple with that alienation.

Previously: Hereditary

Next Up: Mission: Impossible – Fallout

Why Fans of Elena Ferrante Should Watch The Best of Youth

When fans of My Brilliant Friend have finished the first season of HBO’s acclaimed television adaptation, they may find themselves looking to fill a void. The eight-episode series, which aired its finale earlier this month, followed the lives of Lenù and Lila, two girls growing up in a poor neighborhood in Naples in the mid-20th century. Their thorny, intense friendship—which Elena Ferrante’s wildly popular Neapolitan novels chronicle in intricate detail over the duo’s lifetime—has been fascinating to witness on the small screen. But until Season 2 arrives, viewers might consider passing the time with another acclaimed epic offering a simultaneously intimate and sweeping view of postwar Italy: the 2003 film The Best of Youth (or, La Meglio Gioventù).

When a recent Guardian article about HBO’s My Brilliant Friend noted that “this is a prestige Italian production, assembling the great and the good of the country’s cinema and TV,” the author could have easily been talking about The Best of Youth. Originally envisioned as a TV miniseries, the two-part, six-hour film directed by Marco Tullio Giordana follows two Italian brothers over the course of decades as they find their place within their country’s charged political landscape after World War II. Written by Sandro Petraglia and Stefano Rulli, the movie won the Un Certain Regard prize at the 2003 Cannes Film Festival and was even given a limited U.S. theater run. While some American viewers may have been put off by its length and subtitles, critics were nearly unanimous in their praise for The Best of Youth. A review in Slate said that the film, despite its length, “doesn’t have a boring millisecond.” Roger Ebert described the movie glowingly as a “novel” that made him feel as though he had “dropped outside of time.”

Both My Brilliant Friend and The Best of Youth succeed partly because they give viewers ample time to get to know and care for the characters, especially the central duos. My Brilliant Friend, with its stark, stage-set–like backdrops, drab colors, and characters who speak in dialect, feels like a window into an entirely different era and world. Meanwhile, the brightness of The Best of Youth, and the ease with which the actors—some already well known in Italy—inhabit their roles, holds the audience especially close over the considerable run time, making viewers feel as though they could be watching a home movie of their own family. Though the two works touch on similar political tensions and take expansive views of their protagonists’ lives during a certain period in Italian history, they diverge in tone and examine different slices of society. In many ways, The Best of Youth can be seen as both a cinematic complement and an antidote to the grimness and claustrophobia of My Brilliant Friend.

[Read: The gorgeous savagery of ‘My Brilliant Friend’]

That’s not to say the film shies away from tragedy: The Best of Youth introduces Nicola (Luigi Lo Cascio) and Matteo (Alessio Boni), two college-age brothers with very different personalities. The sociable Nicola boasts a lighthearted demeanor that masks a profound empathy, while the sullen, withdrawn Matteo struggles with anger issues—today, he might be diagnosed with clinical depression. In the mid-1960s, the movie makes clear, Italians with any kind of mental illness were often relegated to asylums or treated with electroshock therapy. Within the first 15 minutes of The Best of Youth, the brothers meet one such patient: a young woman named Giorgia (Jasmine Trinca), whom they decide to help. Their plan to smuggle her out of an institution and back to her family fails because, in their naïveté, they don’t stop to think that her family may have put her there in the first place.

This incident, which inspires Nicola to become a psychiatrist, is but one allusion to the larger societal changes that took place in postwar Italy. In addition to a reform of the psychiatric system, the film also tracks a rise in left-wing terrorism, and the Mafia killings and subsequent trials that would shake the southern part of the country in the 1980s. Both brothers become tangled up in these historical events, but their participation seems optional in a way that Lenù and Lila’s involvement in the ugliness of the era does not. In HBO’s My Brilliant Friend, which is also set in the latter half of the 20th century, the heroines are regularly threatened with violence, starting when they’re children, in their own neighborhood in southern Italy. Later, a teenage Lila realizes with horror just how much of their life is controlled by the Camorra, the Neapolitan Mafia.

Lenù and Lila can hardly be faulted for responding with a passive rage when faced with the limitations of their era, a time when women like them were expected to do little more than bear children to often abusive husbands. In its own way, this rage informs the girls’ fascinating, volatile relationship with each other. Their friendship is one that seems to fuel every manner of emotion—jealousy, fear, desperation, desire, and affection—as the girls work to envision a better future for themselves. The onscreen version of Lenù and Lila’s Naples feels closed off and Fellini-esque, with surreal backdrops and grotesque characters such as the lovelorn Melina and the predatory Donato. Just like the tunnel that separates the girls from the rest of the city, their poverty cuts them off from the outside world, also keeping their parents from imagining a different life for themselves or their children.

In contrast, Matteo and Nicola are both well educated and championed by their families from the start; the young men are aware of their relative privilege and of how society will define them by it. Their disappointment over the failed kidnapping of Giorgia sends them careening in different directions after they abandon plans to take a post-graduation trip together through Europe. Nicola gets as far as Norway’s Arctic Circle, while Matteo, praised as a brilliant literature student, leaves academics to enlist in the army. A few months later, the brothers reunite in Florence in November of 1966, during the flooding of the Arno River. They join the legions of volunteers who had come to rescue Florence’s priceless works of art, and who would come to be known as angeli del fango or “angels of the mud.” For many young people, this event would be their first taste of a lifetime of activism, and The Best of Youth is at its most relevant when it traces the brothers’ path toward that future.

As Matteo and Nicola grow older, the film depicts how the hopes of their generation—literally “the best of youth,” as in the title, taken from a Pier Paolo Pasolini poem—played out on both political and personal levels. The movie’s explicit examination of class privilege and responsibility will be familiar to many Italians who came of age in the postwar decades. Marco Cupolo, an associate professor at the University of Hartford, discusses this debate in his essay on The Best of Youth: “Would authenticity and unselfishness of emerging, well-educated classes lead the reforms of Italian institutions and society? What kind of moral values were young Italians looking for during the 1960s and 1970s?”

These questions call to mind a discussion that Lenù and Lila have with their peers in My Brilliant Friend’s fourth episode (“Dissolving Margins”) about whether to abandon their parents’ old rivalries in favor of neighborhood unity. “Our fathers did bad things,” says Lenù, as they discuss whether to accept a party invitation from the son of Don Achille, the feared neighborhood loan shark, “but we, their children, should be different.” Though the teenagers couldn’t have known it, their debate mirrored the social pressures that young people were confronting all across Italy.

Some young Italians concluded that their best chance at success was to leave the country altogether, an approach addressed in The Best of Youth as well as by Ferrante, who titled the third book in her Neapolitan series Those Who Leave and Those Who Stay, as if to underscore how much geography defines her characters’ identities. But The Best of Youth shows how saving a generation can mean pointing it toward an exit: Early in the movie, a professor advises Nicola, “Do you have any ambition? Then leave Italy while you can. Italy is a country destroyed, a beautiful but useless place … with dinosaurs in charge.” Giancarlo Lombardi, a professor at the College of Staten Island CUNY Graduate Center, spoke about this powerful conflict—whether to leave or stay—among the youth of that period. “Some parties and leaders see us as not having had the guts to fight for our country,” Lombardi told me of his generation. “But this whole idea of the best of youth—what does it mean? At the heart of the show is the question of courage and the importance of rolling up your sleeves and making things better.”

In the end, this is really what draws the two brothers together, and what sustains their story— and viewers—over The Best of Youth’s six hours. As a soldier who will become a police detective and a left-wing student who will become a doctor, respectively, Matteo and Nicola continue to find themselves on different sides of an ideological divide. The two meet up again during a 1968 student riot in Turin, for example, where Nicola attends medical school. In a heated exchange about the violence taking place on their streets, Nicola’s radical girlfriend, Giulia, claims that they fight for the poor, while Matteo says, of a police colleague who was attacked by protesters and left disabled, “he is poor in a way you will never understand.” Yet somehow, in spite of arguments like this one, the brothers’ deep affection for each other and sincere desire to make their country better—even if they disagree about how—is the key to their appeal. The audience comes to see each brother through the other’s eyes, to understand how great political disagreements can be reduced to mere squabbles in the face of filial love.

This kind of deep bond—one that manifests either as antagonism or affection—also anchors the Neapolitan novels, keeping readers engaged over four books and continuing to stoke “Ferrante fever” for long after the first installment was published in 2012. The girls’ connection is what made HBO’s My Brilliant Friend such a critical success, and it’s what will draw fans back when the show returns for its second season. Over decades of their life and amid the turmoil of their country, Lenù and Lila—much like Matteo and Nicola—are alternately family, friends, strangers, and enemies, each of their paths painfully incomplete without the other.