[video]
i did it
i made the perfect polyvore set
@ Matt
I will remember to take a photo to post.
This is what I had for dinner tonight, and will be having for lunch tomorrow too:
Gnochci with cream and broccoli
- What’s in the fridge? Fucking nothing again, thanks, parents.
- Go to the shop. They have Gnocchi, awesome! Gnochi is delicious. Get other vegetables for the week.
- Get home, consider what to cook with Gnocchi. Decide on simple thing, with onions, garlic and brocolli. Find tarragon in fridge and decide to threow that in too.
- Wait, before you make dinner, you need to add salt to the homemade butter your girlfriend gave you so it doesn’t go off too quickly. Also this will sound really impressive on your blog. Put in food mixer with whisk attachement, add some salt (how much salt is enough? Fuck if I know), whip at very high speed because it doesn’t seem to work at low speed.
- Step 4 is relevant because the whisk attachement ends up covered in butter and you decide not to waste that, so you put it in a frying pan and melt the butter off it to fry everything with (check to make sure it’s entirely metal and not some plastic that will melt. It is).
- Chop onion and garlic while the butter is melting off the whisk (or, you know, if you’re doing this like a normal person, start chopping the onion a little before you turn on the pan so it doesn’t get too hot. Use oil or butter.)
- Fry onion and garlic on a low heat. Boil water, chop some Broccoli whit water is heating.
- When water boils, add Broccoli. Feel somewhat ashamed later that you have to check if Broccoli has two ls or two cs.
- Gnocchi cooks very quickly, so you can throw it in the pot a little after the Broccoli. Boil Broccoli for as long as it takes you to check if you have ingredients to make Chili tomorrow. Hurray, you do!
- Throw in Gnocchi. Packet says too minutes, so don’t bother to check what time you put it in at, it’s not like you’ll overcook it.
- Hey, maybe there is some Cream left? Oh, there’s a whole unopened thing of it. Do you really want Cream? Shit, today is the best before date, better use at least some of it. Pour it in to Onion/Garlic. Oh and add Tarragon. You probably had already done that by this point, but it’s not like you write this while you’re cooking. Boil off some of the water in the cream so it sticks to the pasta better. This is one of the things you learned from cooking in a real restaurant.
- Cook Gnocchi and Broccoli for probably three minutes. That was dumb. But it’s only a little overcooked.
- Drain Gnocchi/Broccoli, add Onion/Garlic/Cream/Tarragon sauce.
- Eat, with some bread to soak up excess Cream.
Huh, I just realised I think this is the first non-vegan recipe I’ve posted (not counting Hannah’s, but that one included the meat-free adaptation).
Oh man, I totally forgot Yan started a food blog that one time. It was awesome. I need to try some of these, I’m getting bored of just swapping between pasta (from a jar) and curry (from a jar).
[video]
FFAANNGGRRLL MIX TAPE 1: All Girl Summer Fun Mix (Click the picture!)
Tracklisting (for those who can’t see the image):
- Plumtree- Go!
- Charlotte Hatherley- Summer
- The Breeders- Saints
- Shop Assistants- Safety Net
- Novella- Santiago
- Tiger Trap- Super Crush
- The Pin Ups- Lookin’ For Boys
- Shannon and the Clams- Hunk Hunt
- Gore Gore Girls- I’m Gonna Get You Yet
- Trash Kit- Sun Spots
- All Girl Summer Fun Band- Jason Lee
- Henry’s Dress- Target Practice
- Cub- NYC
It’s about time I put this up here as the sun has finally shown itself over the past week.
In terms of the song choices, I think Plumtree’s “Go!” is the perfect start to anything and should be used on every soundtrack (and not just for Scott Pilgrim). Charlotte Hatherley’s “Summer” is actually kind of sad, but it’s hopeful and that’s what the beginning of summer has always felt like. The middle is the most fun part of course, and by the end it’s just nostalgia and memories (Cub’s “NYC”). I feel like I’m selling one of those really bad compilation ads on TV.
This is something I made to contribute to my friend Jaz’s zine, which should be finished and released shortly. As soon as I have any copies, I will be sure to post about it here in case anyone would like one!
Self promotion, womp womp womp.
Tis a good mix.
[video]
Anonymous asked: WOW @ tumblrdatinggame(.)com WTF is this.. my little brother's roommate is on this and I think I saw you too lol
… I very much doubt it anon, I very much doubt it.
Can Beth Ditto take a bad picture?
The answer is no.
I keep seeing a whole load of stuff being said about Adele, and how she’s “revolutionising what a pop singer can be”. But for me, a pop singer does three things:
Adele does only one of those things. Beth Ditto does all three of them, as well as being more outspoken, more Queer and the face of MAC. She posed nude on the front cover of NME, who aren’t a magazine who generally go for “arty nudes”. And it’s not like The Gossip are an obscure Indie underground band, Standing In The Way Of Control was EVERYWHERE, it’s STILL everywhere 5 years later. You can play it in any club and people will still go nuts for it. She hangs out with Kate Moss!
(Source: omdrn, via esmeweatherwax)
I watched this film today and really enjoyed it. Written and directed by Lars von Trier, it’s creepy, haunting, and just beautifully shot. The acting is superb. It’s weird for sure and you will either like it or hate it, and I ended up liking it.
The film revolves around a couple that lose a child and the aftermath of this event; they decide to try and mend their marriage with a getaway in a cottage.
So of course I was surprised when I read reviews for it afterwards and many movie critics had hailed it as misogynistic, something I had never really though of or noticed in the film.
It addresses misogyny and gynocide in history, but I do not consider mentioning these events to make a film inherently misogynistic. An issue is that the lead female has come to believe that women are inherently evil (which is misogynist, for sure… but this notion gives rise to the plotline in the movie, i.e. are these events real? Is she delusional? etc.) throughout doing research for her thesis. However, it is the character’s belief that women are evil, not a message of the movie. She supports these through events in the film where she seems to be able to control nature, claiming that Nature is “Satan’s Church”, animals representative of the evil of Nature (the 3 Beggars) appear and seem to support the wife’s reality. Meanwhile, her therapist husband seems more focused on her as a patient rather than his wife. He is of course a realist and insists that nature cannot do anything she claims it can (not in a gaslighting sort of way, more in a “we need to be logical here” sort of way), meanwhile, strange things are happening that he ignores routinely.
To add insult to injury, we find out the mother had given her son a foot deformity upon autopsy as she routinely put his shoes on the wrong feet. Was she purposefully injuring her son? Is this a result of her womanly evil?
Later in the film, she violently attacks her husband, crushes his testicles with a huge wooden block, and while he’s out cold she attaches a millstone through his leg to make sure he doesn’t move. She truly takes on an evil persona.
After he tries to escape, she finds him, apologizes profusely, and explains someone must die tonight as the 3 Beggars (a deer, a bird, and a fox) arrive at the cottage, I suppose to do Satan’s work or something. It’s complicated and I don’t get it 100%. She views her lust as evil as she flashes back to viewing her son jumping out the window and ignored it at the time as she was mid-sex; after the flash back, she cuts off her clit. Is this misogynistic? I really don’t know. I thought it was representative of the plot and her beliefs about nature and women, I thought it made sense.
I really don’t know if the film was misogynist. I thought it was trippy and beautiful and haunting and I did not focus much on the representative of women in the film because I was interested in the outcome of the situation, something that you really can’t predict. That being said, the entire film is unpredictable.
Does anyone else have any opinions about the film? I would appreciate feedback.
I’ve not watched the film. Lars Von Trier is one of those directors I like IN THEORY, but I really have to be in the mood to actually sit down and watch something he’s done. I did see an interesting review of it though (on a comedy site no less) which kind of addressed the misogyny of the movie, among other things. He mostly just criticised the movie for making no sense whatsoever (which is kind of his schtick).
He basically boils it down to three potential readings.
The first is that Von Trier, a man, made a movie about a potentially strong female character going crazy and making herself weak and trying to kill every male character she comes into contact with, thus undermining her as role model. Which makes it a misogynistic movie.
The second is that Von Trier, a man, made a film about a strong woman in a period of crisis who is consistently undermined by her husband who insists he knows how she should handle her grief better than she does. He deliberately (though debateably naively) puts her in harms way by forcing her to confront the very forest that haunts all her nightmares, and thus basically drives her insane, only to bitch about the resulting chaos, which is entirely his own fault. Which would make it a critique of misogyny.
The third was kind of a hybrid. Basically, Lars Von trier, a man, made a movie about a strong female character losing her shit as a direct result of her husband taking questionable risks with her health, which come back to bite him in the ass. However, the end of the movie basically absolves the husband of any wrong doing and, essentially, proves him right, she really was just a crazy bitch all along. Thus making it an ironically misogynistic critique of misogyny.
The reviewer never settles on one reading and merely presents them as theories, though he leans somewhere between the second and third reading. It’s either a misogynistic critique of misogyny, or it’s just a critique of misogyny that really badly fails.
Personally, from what I know of Von Triers work and the background information I’ve read about the film, I don’t think you can take that literally. Or at least, people are looking at the wrong kind of literal reading.
Von Trier has repeatedly stated that he made the film during a period of very, very deep depression, which left him barely able to function. So there’s two ways of reading this. Either he was making the most fucked up movie he could conceive, and in a sense artistically self harming, or it’s a metaphor for his own depression.
The second reading is kind of wanky, but kind of makes sense to me. The man is the rational side of his brain, while the woman is the irrational, depressed side. Which seems kind of sexist on the surface, but the movie repeatedly shows that The Man rejects the reality he’s clearly presented with because it’s “just a figment of his imagination”, and The Woman actually has a better grasp on reality as it’s presented, despite being crazy. The events of the film are not rational, but they are real, and it’s The Man’s inability to accept this which eventually hurts him.
At the beginning of the film, The Man is able to distance himself from The Woman. They are two distinct entities. Despite her sending him messages - in this case hurting their child - he’s able to ignore it and get on with his day to day life. But the more he tries to coerce The Woman into being normal, and the more he denies the reality around him, the more he eventually hurts himself. By the end of the movie, The Woman is trying to kill him as well as herself, while literally dragging him down with weights, leaving him unable to move.
Which, as wanky as it is, is a pretty decent analogy for severe depression. But again, it’s up to you. And that’s kind of the point of Lars Von Trier movies, they’re deliberately vague.
“Whatever your personal opinions and your insecurities about homosexuality and the various liberation movements among homosexuals and women (and I speak of the homosexuals and women as oppressed groups), we should try to unite with them in a revolutionary fashion. I say ‘whatever your insecurities are’ because as we very well know, sometimes our first instinct is to want to hit a homosexual in the mouth, and want a woman to be quiet. We want to hit a homosexual in the mouth because we are afraid that we might be homosexual; and we want to hit the woman or shut her up because we are afraid that she might castrate us, or take the nuts that we might not have to start with.” — Huey Newton, 1970 (via sonofbaldwin)
(via so-treu)