Review: Ace of Spades

Ace of Spades by Faridah Àbíké-Íyímídé
My rating: 1 of 5 stars

Where do I even start?


None of this story makes sense

They accept black students basically just to get them to drop out? Why would they accept them into the school in the first place? I am flummoxed by its popularity beside representation because it does such a poor job. It is just an inconceivable conga line of trauma that really makes me weep for black ya writers if this is the kind of novel that gains praise. The racism is so overt and cartoonishly evil, it really makes it hard for me a black American to accept the existence of such a school and such a group of idiotic characters.

Even the small details like why did Chiamaka have her mother’s surname instead of her dad’s seems weird. I don’t know why, but that just surprised me that it was never explained or that the name wasn’t even hyphenated?(I know it’s nitpicky but it seemed indicative of the author who presumably has African heritage and wanted a part African part European character projection of herself and forgot that she was also part Italian somehow… ?) This was just so bad. Almost offensive.

I am also confused by what plot twist people kept referring to in reviews? There was no plot twist. The thing that you expected to happen, happened. When you compare a book to Get Out, I’m just gonna believe all the white people are racist and plotting and my expectations were confirmed to be true in a way that somehow less feasible than the twist in Get Out.

My worst complaint is that it’s not an accurate representation of racism and instead of allowing readers to empathize with black characters in a new and novel way it does it in a way that it always has. It uses our pain as entertainment. Racism is way more insidious and covert than how it’s portrayed in this book.




View all my reviews

Review: Dark Places

Dark Places by Gillian Flynn
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

Lyle calls this case a “Whodunnit” which was my exact thought as I was listening. This one differed greatly from Sharp Objects in that the mystery is not as solvable. There were too many suspects in Dark Places. But it still carried that same ‘everybody is fucked up’ trait of Gillian Flynn’s. Her characters inhabit a world where cynicism and lewdness reign supreme which is really the perfect setup for a murder mystery because it seems as if anyone has a dark side to them capable of murder. In some ways, I admire this more than Sharp Objects because the mystery was not so obvious(well…partially true. Her go-to inclusion of a female psychopath reared its head into this story as well). But it was sort of dumb. A big Deus ex debt assassin murdered the mom and then murdered the other sister for reasons…? But even prior to that, it felt awfully gimmicky with its commentary on toxic true crime communities and the McMartin case. But Gillian Flynn’s writing and her commitment to shocking readers and exploring the darkness of her characters is something I cannot help but praise in spite of those aforementioned shortcomings. I will forgive the gimmicks because I can admit I crave a good gimmick. It’s just that mine don’t include an oopsy daisy murder epilogue. Just a lot of internal monologues about misanthropy. Yes, I am a delightful person.


View all my reviews

My Dark Vanessa

I am going through a bit of a renaissance in listening to Fiona Apple’s early music…First Taste, Limp, Sullen Girl… and so this book came to me at a perfect time. As all others have said, this book was difficult to parse through. It was both intimately and strategically written. I woke up one morning and just pondered it. My heart was heavy for Vanessa. It was one of those moments where you think to yourself ‘this isn’t real…these aren’t really people…’ But it is real. Kate Elizabeth Russell set the stage for someone like Vanessa to be preyed on. Not because she was weak but because she was lonely. She was wounded. We are not really shown a lot of information about who she was before being groomed. Just some petty school drama. Her parents seem normal if a bit clueless. I think this is done on purpose to show how much of an effect this man has had on Vanessa’s life. 

The main character traits she is presented with is an obsessiveness that can sometimes border on despair when her needs aren’t being met and a messiness. This one I thought about a lot. So many characters besides her abuser comment on her messiness (and I get the symbolism. But I think I do feel called out in a way honestly lol).

I found this book incredibly relatable. Again the way the author presents these events… she wants you to feel like Vanessa feels, honestly lured in by the ‘love’ story. We may not have all been abused but I think many of us have this rose-tinted recollection of romantic encounters that weren’t actually good for us. And indeed I’ve been in a situation of cognitive dissonance. When you know that they are kind of full of shit and calculating but you remain still tethered. When all that remains is a dream or a soft memory surrounded by mess and you’re just tethered. And again I just adore Fiona Apple. 

Before I began reading this book I watched a really Nostrodomian video essay about the vilification of famous women which referenced Britney Spears and Miley and other pop culture celebrities who are given this Nymphette treatment. Girls really are seeing all this and imbibing it the same as everyone else and they’re getting vilified and discarded for it. Even though it permeates our culture. For Vanessa, it seems to seep into every area of life, music, and media. And again I must praise Russell's skill as a writer. I see the commentary on the ubiquity of rape culture but also just the way people you love seem to seep into every area of your life and color it and once they no longer are really a part of your life it starts to become a curse. 

The relatability and sympathy I had for Vanessa sometimes turns to alienation. Understandable alienation, but still. She could be so wrong, specifically adult Vanessa but I still felt that the people who surrounded her were more wrong. (Exceptions being Taylor, Natalie, Ruby, and Charlie. They were all real ones) I do but I don’t understand her mother. You know I kind of had to play One Republic in my head when she actually admits her error as a parent to an adult traumatized Vanessa. It’s too late to apologize bitch. Vanessa was stunted after what he did to her. She doesn’t mature in my opinion past the moment of her initial ‘dalliances’ with that man, she just kind of floats in life. And she always seems to be on the cusp of a eureka moment. A realization that this was something bad that happened to her. Strane is the mess, not her. Henry is the mess. Men like them are the problem. But she can’t allow the thought to take root. It takes me a while to realize that she will not have that moment by the end. The book ends at the beginning of Vanessa’s journey to accepting the cruel truth and I think that makes it so much more true and impactful.

Just a fantastic book, all in all. Disturbing but very poignant and evocative. This is one of the best books I’ve read in years.

What's On the Agenda

 

What’s on my watch list:

• Under the Banner of Heaven 

• Shining Girls

• Why Didn’t They Ask Evans?(Hugh Laurie’s show he wrote, produced, and acted in based on the Agatha Christie novel)

• Anything on HBOMax tcm channel but I’m especially looking into the French New Wave directors

• Might get Mubi. There are a few movies from there that have piqued my interest

• Could Severance be my Black Mirror withdrawal cure?

• I want to finally see Last Night in Soho. It pains me that I missed watching it in theaters

• Everything Everywhere All At Once is a must see in theaters

• New season of Undone!(Just about the most underrated tv series. It's like an animated Fleabag)

What’s on my read list:

• I might read the Shining Girls before I watch it

• Finish Nine Stories

• Caroline Kepnes’ Providence

• A great YouTuber I follow has spoken the praises of Notes From the Underground so I might delve into that but you know I want something light, something funny and I mean belly laugh because your girl is going through it so something amusing but still semi profound would do. Bojack in book form essentially. Just a little divertissements to calm the flames. 

The Last Duel

Named thusly because two of the leads quarreling throughout the movie, mostly with Matt Damon’s De Carrouges instigating and Adam Driver’s Le Gris retaliating. So, the culmination is of course this big fight to the death in an unnecessary show of their masculinity. Even Jodie Comer’s character Marguerite, wife of De Carrouges points this out: it didn’t need to be done this way, but Jean’s pride and I believe his desire to blot out Le Gris, his nemesis, meant more to him than his wife. Margueritte never wants to blot out Le gris. She merely wants justice. 

 

I think each man represented the spectrum of toxic manhood that can exist in this setting. Each man sees himself as a hero in his retelling while Marguerite sees them as brutish in his own unique way. A medieval Chad and Nice Guy squire if you will. We get their three perspectives. I never saw Rashomon before. My introduction to this storytelling device was through The Disappearance of Eleanor Rigby. So yes, I have endurance. I can sit through 3 full-fledged movies told from different perspectives (although the inclusion of Chastain, McAvoy, and Hader helped) and I got what the movie was trying to convey. It is an interesting portrayal of a woman's plight to maintain humanity in an inhumane society. Everything about it betrays your expectations. There isn’t much dueling to be had. And I mean sure we all expected a rape, but the presentation was unique both times. It’s presented as a story about two men’s bitter feud, but it really focuses on the woman who is just a pawn thrust in the middle of it. 

 

It’s like the inverse of the Godless Netflix series controversy. A show presented as a female western utopia that really focuses on the feud between two male outlaws who were nearby. But I digress. I just felt very meh about this movie despite all the great themes I’ve deciphered. I can’t really articulate why. It’s not the accents. (Marie Antoinette is one of my favorite films) I found myself wondering if this would work better as a stage play or perhaps if they didn’t play it straight. Though the performances were fine, especially Jodie Comer who got to show off her polyglot skills, I found myself wishing that I was watching whatever movie Alex Lawther was in instead (He played an eccentric and underutilized King Charles VI). His mannerisms brought unexpected humor that I think could’ve done the film good if it just leaned into it.  

 

Hear me out. The subject matter is truly grim but the tone to me seems self-aggrandizing as well and too austere for its own good. I know men and women even those you love and are close to can be complicit in rape culture. Especially in medieval France. And I know its release during this reckoning moment is an indictment against the sort of subdued treatment against women that persists. Especially in Hollywood. But it still rings kind of hollow for me.  Or at least, not novel. And I think I love good satire that does these things more than a drama.  Something like Galavant but more politically conscious. Hell, Measure for Measure is considered a comedy despite Isabella being propositioned by Lord Angelo against her will…But you know, that’s just one millennials’ opinion.

Deep Water

 

Do not be fooled by what this film presents itself as. It is anything but an erotic thriller. It is comedic at times. Several times, in fact. (My favorite moment is the climax when a character utters the words: ‘goddamn fucking autocorrect’) It is apparently humanitarian as this report seems to insinuate: IndieWire.com On Affleck’s part, at least. And it is all publicity. This is like the fourth film in Ben Affleck’s career that I know of that seems to want to draw viewers in using allusions to his personal life. That might be starring alongside a girlfriend at the time or working with an auteur who found the perfect casting choice for their domestic thriller. This movie so wishes it was Gone Girl. But it’s like it knows it can’t live up to that level of complexity, so it resigns itself to just be gossip fodder. I mean there are so many allusions to Affleck’s personal life in this movie that must be intentional. His first rival is played by an actor who seriously favors Matt Damon, which is… a choice. Choices like these seem to exist only to make viewers speculate about the actors’ personal lives instead of the really weird but somehow banal lives of the characters. It solidified this opinion in my mind that Affleck’s celebrity status seems to hinge on his celebrity which only obscures his actual talent. I guess they both (Him and Ana de Armas) do a good job playing these characters, but the script really never allows us to explore why and how these characters got to be the way they are, so it seems really pointless. That being said, I kind of enjoyed how ridiculous this movie was. Again, it was very funny. Basically, that Sound of Silence meme personified with some gratuitous sex scenes and snails. The Room with greater production value and... everything. If that's your jam, I sincerely recommend Deep Water.

The Knick

It’s not exactly a new concept. An acerbic but brilliant doctor with an addiction. The only thing that makes it stand out is it’s setting and time and of course Soderbergh's involvement. There is also a modernity to the period piece that I think we can attribute mainly to the music composed by Red Hot Chili Peppers’ member Cliff Martinez. This show however is no Downton Abbey or Grey’s Anatomy  for that matter, as it makes explicitly clear with gruesome shots of  blood and bone and suffocated fetuses et cetera. When I began watching, I wasn’t certain if I liked it. It drew me in with a kind of bile fascination or maybe more apt would be to call it a bloody fascination, but not for the reasons I’ve expressed. You see, nothing could prepare me for the moment when a character uttered the words ‘ dusky coon’. And that should tell you a bit about what we’ve come to expect in our period pieces now. Even with the presence of black people,   there seems to be two modes: a revisionist utopia or at least one where our mains are progressive enough to ‘see past color’. 

As much as I appreciate the Knick  for not sugarcoating the facts of the time( not going the white savior route)I can’t help but suspect that its authentic cinema verite vibe and historical accuracy is a ruse for the free license of using racial epithets much in the same way I feel similar shows have excused female debasement. Hence, the bile fascination. I don’t like Chief Surgeon John W. ‘Thack’ Thackery(I don’t recall ever hearing anyone call him Thack), but I know we’re also not meant to like Thackery, we’re just meant to see his genius in spite of his moral and behavioral failings. I prefer to see neither. I see him as entertainment. But at times his schtick can be so terribly hackneyed and that sort of ruins the enjoyment. I knew at once she was introduced, he would woo and corrupt the bland Nurse Elkins, and I rolled my eyes at flashbacks where he was introduced as a plucky young doctor with a lost Lenore. As a very wise woman once said ‘ am I supposed to feel sorry for that bitch? Because I don’t!’ The best parts of House M.D.  in my opinion, were the sick burns that House dished out indiscriminately and so is the case for this fictional physician. It is really captivating to watch a show set in a time where medical advancements were unfolding and slowly becoming what we know today. 

It was hard to watch the sole black physician, Algernon Edwards, endure everything he did and still soldier on for these people. But boy did I relish in his small victories. And I suspect that was the point. His hardships are compelling and unfortunately historical. He and Dr Thackery have an Iago/ Othello dynamic at first, which wanes less and less once Thackery discovers Edwards work and begins to see him as a worthy member of his team. All of the surgeons at the Knick have their own vices:Thackery’s is drugs, by far the most lethal, Gallingers is prejudice, Edwards is brawls and Bertie’s is a crushing naïveté and adorable-ness that I do not look forward to seeing dissolve. And of course, Bertie also had the misfortune of crushing on the same bland nurse.  

I should make clear that Clive Owen is brilliant in the role. I just find the character largely unimaginative and a little bit inimical. With his manly physique and good looks and toxic manly ways everything about the character of Dr John Thackery again seems to be designed to be critic proof. Smart viewers will see him for what he is. Less smart viewers might say ‘He's not an asshole, he’s a genius.’  And knuckledraggers might offer that ‘The two aren’t mutually exclusive’ and in fact  the plethora of stories like these seems to insinuate that there is a correlation. But I’d wager that it does not mean causation. And it especially doesn’t excuse it.  And then there is the fact that Thackery does suffer from a cocaine addiction, back before his disease was even classified as such. Already I imagine another chorus shouting: ‘Dr Thackery cannot be an asshole! He was making history!’ I wonder what Darwin would’ve called that bunch?

Drawing on the oft repeated circus theme, can you imagine a musical based on this show in the vein of the Greatest Showman, but you know actually good?  After all, Thackery was based on a real physician. Now there’s a novel concept.