The fascinating thing to me about Cabaret is how it reveals ambivalence & guilt about sexual freedom and gender norms. That’s why Fosse’s version in early 70s was a big deal then & endures now. The anxieties which spawned the musical had grown exponentially. #TCMParty 1/x
I think Cabaret belongs with things like Rosemary’s Baby and The Exorcist, which portray repression as actually demonic, but “conjured” by another bad thing: weakening of patriarchy, thus “society out of control.” Big topic of pop culture 1960-80. Maybe THE topic. 2/
Which is a neurotic distortion. In addition to increases in female power, there are two distinct things going on in Weimar: postwar sexual openness (good), and TONS of prostitution caused by poverty (bad).
But it’s all rolled into one, as a cautionary tale. 2/x
The question should be: why is men wearing eyeliner or women getting jobs such a trigger for mass neurosis? Gender fluidity is a human constant.
I think, sadly, the answer is Christianity & the subterranean guilt it carries from its destruction of pagan/polytheistic Europe. /end
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Since everyone's talking about it, I want to say a few things about crypto.
As a publisher of a satire magazine in a time of Fascism, I am interested in blockchain's possible potential to evade censorship, and get people paid. That's what attracted me initially.
/1
Can blockchain support freedom of speech in these ways? Unclear. ISPs are exquisitely vulnerable to government suppression. It's as if every newsstand in the country could be disappeared with a flick of a switch.
Any publishers who've cracked this, I'd love to hear from you.
/2
Anyway, this got me interested in cryptocurrencies, which seemed to be a reasonable part of a larger portfolio, a place to park a small amount of money (1%) for the possibility of large return.
It is gambling. It may mature into something more, but right now, it's gambling.
/3
As a fellow humorist and magazine editor, who shares a lot of friends with PJ O’Rourke, I have a few thoughts on the occasion of his death. Not on PJ as a person — we only met once, briefly, at a taping of Bill Maher in 2006 — but as a writer, editor, and cultural figure.(1/25)
Before I begin, I want to say that PJ’s colleagues — people who worked for/with him at Lampoon who now work for/with me at @BystanderTweets — liked him. That’s by no means universal — paging Mr. Hendra & Mr. Simmons! — so I give it a lot of weight. (2/25)
A former teenage Maoist, PJ arrived at Lampoon around 1972 with a few alt-weekly clips and loads of can-do spirit. In a magazine full of stoners, he quickly became someone you could depend on, and so the assignments flowed. (3/25)
I spent all yesterday writing & deleting tweets, explaining why US comedy is coming up short as Fascism looms, and...I'm giving up. The topic's too big. I'm just going to blast out a bunch of half-baked BS. Enjoy.
Now is a life-or-death struggle for comedy, at least as you and I know it. Not only will you not be able to make or distribute American-style comedy in a White Christian ethnostate, it's clear the GOP would happily toss every comedy person into a Dachau-of-the-Ozarks.
2/x
So where's Jon Stewart? Why does Maher bitch about "woke-ism"? Dave Chappelle knows history, why isn't he sounding the alarm?
Comedy people are our public intellectuals; why are they mostly AWOL or obsessing about 95% fake "cancel culture"? Let's go back to the beginning.
3/x
You've certainly heard of Julius Caesar who (the story goes) ended the Roman Republic, and was slaughtered by freedom-loving patriots.
But everything Caesar did--marching on Rome, setting up one-man rule, remaking the Senate--had been done by Sulla 40 years before. 2/
So what's the difference? Both men were fantastically wealthy oligarchs--but within that spectrum, Caesar was considered a liberalizer, and Sulla a conservative.
Caesar said he was going to change things; Sulla said he was re-establishing the old ways. 3/
One of the most powerful tools abusers have is words. If you do not listen, they lose much of their power and control.
Absent yourself--physically if possible; mentally if necessary--and abusers lose. [1]
Abusers know this.
If they can't physically trap you and FORCE you to listen, they convince you that you HAVE to listen. That a normal person would, or a nice person would, or you owe them your attention because they're your parent or child, friend, boss, or President. [2]
This is always bullshit. You don't ever have to agree to be abused.
But if you fall for it, they say things designed to make you feel powerless and frightened. And anything less than immediate counterattack is interpreted as support/agreement. [3]
@AryehCW just told me he's considering writing an article about "how a lot of modern problems are moderator problems."
Being a lifelong editor (and occasional creator), I have a lot of THOUGHTS, which are arrayed below:
[1/x]
To me, trouble began when tech companies began saying that "gatekeepers" were holding back a massive flood of genius.
This (turns out, wrong) idea is American to its core, in ways good (anybody can do anything) and bad (my ignorance is as good as your expertise).
[2/x]
At the same time, publishing was corporatizing. Editing is unquantifiable; there's no way to directly tie "better editing" to "more revenue." So editors were the first to go. Whenever possible their jobs were offloaded to creators, or commerce-first middlemen like agents.