Certain words can change your brain forever and ever so you do have to be very careful about it.
Ley
@too-tired-to-think-of-a-name
I spend my day in college crying about my tuition fee, ships, (G)I-DLE & Lovelyz, and Love Live
The longer I live the more I realize I just wanna be well fed and bottom nude all the time
Ok and???? Was he or was he not our Cunt King
This is my new favorite compliment
All good romance is earned.
casey lee fucking williams
Just say it, Yang
nakedsasquatch it’s ya man
Okay but seriously folks - as often as I joke about this movie stirs my loins and as weirdly popular as this text post got a while back, I wanna rap with you all about why the George of the Jungle remake is a pretty important piece of cinema.
It’s literally the only movie I can think of that is based completely around the unheard of “FEMALE gaze.” Granted, while I’m a huge movie buff I’ve not seen every movie ever made. But even so, even if there’s another example of the “female gaze” in cinema that has escaped me it’s still damn impressive that a kids movie from 1997 based on a Jay Ward cartoon from the 60’s managed to turn gender representation in media on it’s fucking ass!
First things first, let’s look at our leading lady and love interest - Ursula, played by Leslie Mann.
Let me just say that while Leslie Mann is adorable and a talented actress, she does look a little less conventional and a little more plain compared to the bombshells that Hollywood likes to churn out. Leslie, in comparison, looks much more like a real women you’d meet on the street. She dresses pretty conservatively and plain throughout the film ; Wearing outfits that are more functional than fashionable for trekking through the jungle, pulling her hair back and so forth. Not that if she was dolled up and more scantily clad it would give her character any less integrity, but can we appreciate how RARE that is in the male dominated industry of film? Just think about all the roads a film about a woman in the jungle COULD have taken but didn’t - no scenes with her clothes strategically ripped or anything! You can say this is a kids movie, intended for children and that’s why the sensuality of the female lead is so downplayed but there are PLENTY of kids movies that handle women in a very objectifying and sexualized manner despite the target audience is pre-pubescent. Like, a disgusting amount. So I don’t think “it’s a kids movie” is why the film doesn’t take ANY, let alone EVERY, opportunity to showcase the main female character’s sex appeal…
…especially considering the sex appeal of the film rests squarely on the well defined shoulders of our male lead, George of the Jungle played by Brendan Fraser in the best god damn shape of his life!
*Homer Simpson Drooling Noises*
Whenever members of the reddit community try to compare the sexualization of women in fiction to the design of characters such as Batman and Superman, I always want to just sit them down and show them this movie. Because THIS is what the female sexual fantasy looks like, and Batman and Superman are male power-fantasies. Look at him - his big blue eyes, his soft hair, his lean, chiseled physique built for dexterity rather than power. He’s wild and free, but gentle. It’s like he fell right out of that steamy romance novel your mom tried to hide from you growing up.
Hell, the whole plot seems to be designed around how damn hot he is! First, for the majority of the film, he wears only a small strip of cloth to cover the dick balls and ass. Everything else is FAIR GAME to drool over for 40 minutes. Then, after he meets Ursula she takes him with her to San Francisco just so we can enjoy him in a well-tailored suit (as seen in the gif set), running around in an open and billowy shirt along side horses while Ursula and all of her friends literally crowd around and make sexual comments about him, and my personal favorite, ditch the loincloth entirely and have him walk around naked while covering his man-bits with various objects while one of Ursula’s very lucky friends oogles him and makes a joke along the lines of “So THAT’S why they call him the ‘KING of the Jungle’…”
And yes, it’s also a very cute and funny little movie. Out of all the movies based on Jay Ward cartoons, it was the most faithful to the fast-paced humor and wit of the original source material (yes even the new Peabody and Sherman movie which honestly I thought was too cutesy-poo.) But that’s not why this movie is popular with the gay community or why we all became women in 1997. It’s just really cool that there’s a film out there where the sensuality of the female form takes a back seat for the oiled up, chiseled, physique of Brendan Fraser (in his prime that is)
One thing to add: in the scene mentioned above where the ladies are watching him in the billowy shirt running with the horses, it pans back to about 50 feet away to two guys in suits at this party looking at the women and one of the guys says, “Man, what is it with women and horses?” So not only does this movie highlight the female gaze, but it blatantly points out that western male sensibilities don’t have a clue what actually appeals to women.
ALSO
he’s non threatening
as mentioned above, he looks built for dexterity rather than power, but he’s still a 6+ foot tall extremely muscular man, and not once are you worried for Ursula when he’s with her
ALSO
let’s take a look at his rival - Lyle is a cravat-wearing trust-fund kid (who, interestingly, is into Ursula’s fortune more than her, which kind of makes this a gender-swapped gold-digger thing too). He’s blonde and Ursula’s mom LOVES him. He’s more uncomfortable and less prepared to cope with the jungle than Ursula is, in his pastels and shiny shoes.
But he talks over Ursula, insists he knows what’s best for her, ignores her autonomy. In spite of the fact that Lyle Van de Groot is a rich, educated, social climber who cares deeply about his clothing and appearances he is a point-by-point checklist of unhealthy masculinity in a way that beefy, inarticulate, uneducated George could never be. Ursula is off on her own doing her own thing and Lyle hires two FUCKING POACHERS to track her down in the middle of the jungle while she’s working (or on vacation? It’s never made clear because he interrupts her before she can explain why she went on the expedition). Lyle ignores the local guides, claiming his experience with a bridge in Maui means the bridge they’re on is safe - which leads to a significant injury for one of the guides. He then tells Ursula the guides are conspiring against him, trying to make himself and his poachers seem safe and the Africans who make up the rest of their party seem dangerous.
Check that body language! A post above points out that we’re never worried about Ursula when she’s around George. That’s because Lyle talks to her like this. Look at his aggressive lean! Look at him literally looking down at her! She’s tilted away from him in the least threatening position possible and he’s so aggressive about whatever point he’s making. When he finds her after he pushed her toward a damned lion he kisses her and she pushes him away. Want a textbook example of gaslighting? Here you go: she says “don’t get all smoochy with me! I remember what happened with that lion” and he responds “What are you talking about? I was fighting that lion the whole time - you were just so terrified you don’t remember.” Then he shoots George! And then he kidnaps Ursula and attempts to force her into marriage!
Now look at how George and Ursula interact (slightly NSFW):
Even though he’s a big strong dude and he thinks he’s doing what’s okay he lets her set the tone for their interactions. He accepts that he’s out of his wheelhouse and even if he doesn’t understand it he does what she says is culturally appropriate. He learns from her! He listens to her! Compare Lyle leaning into Ursula above to this image of George and Ursula talking:
He’s listening to her, all of his attention is on on her, but he’s totally nonthreatening. His torso is turned toward her but he’s not invading her space, his hands are clasped, he’s smiling, and she’s the one leaning into him. Look at that smile she has, look how happy she is to be listened to. Her posture in both images is vulnerable but in this one with George she’s vulnerable because she has chosen to share with him instead of because she feels threatened.
When George rescues Ursula from Lyle at the end of the film it isn’t a typical damsel situation - George doesn’t have a knock-down-drag-out fight with Lyle, he swings into a tree and offers Ursula a hand so she can reach up and save herself (and before he does it he acknowledges how much it’s going to hurt and *whimpers* and looks human and scared). And you’ve gotta remember that George rescues everybody. It’s not just Ursula - he also rescues a parasailer and gets shot rescuing Shep and Ape. He just likes helping, dammit!
AND this movie offers a perfect counter to the “nice guy” thing - Ursula starts engaged to a jerk who her mom thinks is a “nice guy” the moves on to actual nice man George who isn’t *just* nice - he’s also patient, listens to her, has his own skills and talents, is okay with being goofy, has his own social circle and isn’t totally dependent on Ursula, and looks amazing. Ursula doesn’t go with George just because he’s a *nice* guy who rescued her from an asshole, Ursula goes with George because he’s an interesting, fun person who is supportive of her different way of being an interesting, fun person. AND he’s emotionally available. Google image search George of the jungle and see how many smiles you can find, see how many open looks of confusion there are, see how much sadness you can see in George’s face. Now look for images of Lyle. His two expressions are a smirk and cartoonish fear. I know this is a cartoonish kid’s movie, but it is SO powerful that the hero shares his emotions while the villain masks every emotion but fear. Lyle doesn’t want to open up, he doesn’t want to be vulnerable, he wants CONTROL. George wants to learn, to protect people he cares about, to explore new places, to laugh when he’s happy and to be sad when he’s sad, and that he does that while being a broad-shouldered, physically powerful dude who is NOT totally self-involved is just…
Like, look, I didn’t sign on to tumblr dot com for George of the Jungle discourse, but I’m just now realizing that this movie may have done the most for destroying my conception of stoic masculinity and gender roles as a child.
Like
Damn.
2nd reblog because this is even better.
so I got into grad school today with my shitty 2.8 gpa and the moral of the story is reblog those good luck posts for the love of god
okay so i just got my dream job??? a week after applying to it?? and now i’m thinking….maybe this is the good luck post
…..not even six hours later i got an offer of a well paying full time long-term job with free room and board in queens in nyc, allowing me independence and a way to escape an abusive situation and an unhealthy environment
likes charge reblogs cast, folks, this is the good luck post
Wishing me and everyone best of luck for something good in your life! :D
Nothing will make you evil like trying to find a specific tumblr post
tumblr’s search engine gaslighting me by telling me a post that i made a few weeks ago and can remember word for word doesn’t exist
BNECGHLOE BECHLOE KISS [from twitter]
Just in case you forget this exists.
With those “when you want to design a character but you don’t know color theory” posts flying around I thought this would be relevant again.
SLAMs THE REBLOG BUTTON
there’s also Coolors website that gives you randomized palettes!
Don’t forget ColourLovers, either! It’s a social media-esque site where you can browse tons of palettes and share your own.
You can browse the most popular ones or search for certain colors, themes, and even specific hex codes!
When you find one you like, you can download a wallpaper swatch of it and also select the specific colors it uses to look at more palettes that use those same ones.
ColourLovers is my go-to for when I’m having trouble coming up with a color scheme! It’s also been around for over a decade, so there’s plenty to browse through.
i really didn’t think it could get worse, and then-
??????????????????????????????????????????????
LMFAOOOOO
OH MY GOD.
Me at the start: weird but this isn’t that bad.
The second bit:
The ending:
"Post+ is going to kill Tumblr, it's best to leave now before it gets worse :////"
Veterans who have been on this site for years:
{audio:Seekbar}
{audio:AudioButtons}
This is the oldest piece of music known to humankind. It’s engraved in cuneiform on a tablet from 1400 BC. And it was a hymn to their goddess Nikkal.
I wasn’t actually expecting something serious.
That was, um, actually unexpected.
What is this grand old instrument? It is almost ethereal to my ears!
I wish more ancient music was written down. It’d be interesting to study it!
Only 15th century BC kids will remember this bop
It would’ve likely originally been played on a sammûm, a bit like a lyre, in accompaniment of a singer.
Whilst its the oldest piece of music, it’s not complete (I believe the oldest complete song is the Seikilos Epitaph), so it’s transcription is controversial; there are a few differing decipherments.
The fact that this recording exists is nothing short of miraculous when you consider all of the background work that you have to do before you put a lyrist in front of a staff-notation transcription. This article will tell you about it in exhaustive detail: https://musicircle.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Babylonian-Notatin-and-the-Hurrian-Melodic-Texts_Music-and-Letters-1994-WEST-161-79.pdf
In short, here are some of the things a musicologist would have to do in order to get to the point where you can start looking for someone who plays an ancient Mesopotamian lyre (yes, the sammûm is a type of lyre):
1. Find the tablets.
2. Know enough cuneiform to identify the language, the culture, the time period, and the fact that this is music notation, which was vanishingly rare in a culture where people wrote with a stylus on wet clay.
3. Know what instruments people played and how they were used.
4. Figure out how many strings this instrument had and how they were tuned. This is harder than it looks because, while instruments can sometimes survive millennia, strings tend not to survive, and as any string player knows, tuning often doesn’t survive a single performance.
5. Figure out the tuning system – our Western even-tempered scale is a recent invention. J.S. Bach composed the Well-Tempered Clavier to show off even-tempered tuning in 1722. The octave is a creation of physics; dividing the octave into pleasing individual notes that can be put together to make music is a creation of culture, and there’s no reason to assume that ancient Mesopotamians used modern Western scales.
6. Learn the corpus of music theory that supports the structure of this piece of music. If you know the theory, you can figure out what the music is doing; if you don’t know the theory, you have a random string of notes, not music.
7. Because this was only a semi-written culture, music was heavily improvisatory. You have to know that what’s written down is more of an outline or a suggestion. The real art is in filling in the rest of the pattern. A lot of traditional non-Western music works like this (and up until fairly recently, quite a bit of Western classical music also incorporated this aspect; even today, the art of playing a cadenza is a Thing), so if you’re not an ethnomusicologist, you’ll want to bring one in, preferably one who works with contemporary West Asian folk and/or classical forms.
8. Ahhh! At last! You’ve gotten to the point where you think you can figure out what this piece is supposed to sound like. Now you have to transcribe it all into Western staff notation (which isn’t designed to handle music like this).
9. Unless you are also an expert on building and playing ancient Mesopotamian lyres, you must now go and find someone who is. Fortunately, there are one or two of these people around. Give that person your music, and book the recording studio!
10. The next time anyone asks you why studying music is important, now you know.
Anonymous asked:
i have a horrible misogynist rooster who only likes blonde hens so i always have to make sure i have 2-3 yellow hens around so he doesn't run anyone ragged. i didn't know this was a problem someone could have but i've had macklemore for eight slutty, slutty years and he's been overly obsessed with the blondness level of his lady friends for the entire time with no sign of slowing down so, like. props to him for sticking to his guns.
penstab answered:
SIR, PLEASE,
YOU CANT JUST CASUALLY LEAVE THIS IN THE REPLIES AS IF THIS ISNT A CRUCIAL ELEMENT OF THIS HARROWING STORY
SIR!!!!!!