I'm Not That Innocent...

"While it's well known that Pattinson plays multiple versions of Mickey due to the cloning process, what many don't realize is that director Bong Joon-ho insisted on filming certain key scenes without Pattinson knowing which version of Mickey he was playing until just before shooting. This method was meant to capture the confusion and existential dread of a clone struggling with his own identity, leading to some of the film's most unsettling and raw performances." Mickey 17 (2025) dir. Bong Joon Ho

encounter with an angel

If Armand ever calls Old Man Daniel "beautiful boy" I swear I'm gonna run up and down my street in my underwear screaming and banging pots and pans together

bro cant have one peaceful night

wpuld love to hear your gripes about striker's design!

aah it’s mainly the fact that he looks so cool and yet way too busy. i’m used to viv’s maximalist style and for the most part i like it and don’t think character designs should be simplified because this is the show’s style—but striker has too much stuff going on with his clothes in particular.

i really liked how he looks vaguely coyote-ish, so it’s mostly his clothes for me—there are at least 3 different shades of grey in his outfit and it made it difficult for me to picture him when he wasn’t onscreen other than coyote with cowboy hat and big teeth. there’s also a lot going on with his tail—if it were a solid color without the stripes and spikes, i’d be able to follow its movement better and distinguish it from his accessories.

he also doesn’t really pop out from the wrath environment in general, having such muted colors, which i think could be intentional to show him as being much more ‘native’ to there than moxxie, but the same thing happens in other places, too—grey just really doesn’t stand out.

so yeah i think it’s just the dissonance between the fact that i think he’s really cool/yay snake cowboy so i really like some of his design, but also that his clothing is too busy without much contrast and there are so many stripes and layers which make it difficult to follow the minutiae of his movements!

Eligo in Summum Pontificem

details under cut

i read the conclave book in less than a day and watched the conclave movie twice and i feel like i can say edward berger definitely read the book and thought "you know what the problem here is. not enough benitez as a jesus allegory content"

just a few changes to showcase this:

1. In the book Benitez is constantly portrayed being welcomed by Filipinos, Africans and other nations due to his reputation. Multiple times the book has shown Benitez being dragged into groups and numerous nationals listening intently to what he has to say, which is why he rose so slowly but prominently.

In the movie, Benitez is almost always alone--the scene where Lawrence finds him looking at the late popes turtles alone was originally Benitez talking to a group but deciding to leave to speak to Lomelli instead. The movie frames Benitez in the same quiet but thoughtful work as it does the nuns and all the important female figures in the Church--watching, listening, saying nothing until the spirit moves him to speak the truth. The book shows Benitez still being involved in the politics of the Conclave, dragged around his social groups, whether he wants to be or not; the movie expressly separates Benitez entirely from the politics, placing him in a kind of objective, angelic watcher position.

2. Jacopo Lomelli's name is changed to Thomas Lawrence. The book is likely referring to Jacopo as Jacob, the man who wrestled God, but in the movie he is clearly focused on being Doubting Thomas, the man who interrogates and sees proof of Jesus's resurrection from an abdomen wound. Guess who Lawrence was interrogating about the treatment of an abdomen wound in the movie

3. Speaking of the treatment, the movie changed Benitez's condition from having a fused labia to having ovaries, and also changed the way he found out from a car bomb explosion injury to an appendectomy. Again. This is probably an allusion to Doubting Thomas checking out Jesus's wound. But the fact that even this major detail was changed to fit the "Benitez as a Jesus allegory" narrative is hilarious to me

4. This is my biggest, funniest observation of the Conclave Book vs Movie Benitez. Book Benitez is determined to make Lomelli win. He gets up and speaks after the discovery of the terrorist attack to expressly say that the conclave has already had a majority vote (Lomelli) and that all the 24 people who voted for Benitez should vote for Lomelli instead to strengthen the church. He doesn't outwardly express any disdain for the conclave, just that he wishes they could work together to strengthen the Church. Movie Benitez is VASTLY different because he just straight up says sth along the lines of "all of you are petty and weird and know nothing about the conflict youre getting into and i cannot wait to go back to kabul and do some actual good for this world instead of being stuck here with all of you. " its just such a holy takedown of the church that clearly separates Benitez not as a member of any faction but as a voice of God

I love both the movie and the film for completely different reasons and I think everybody who reads or watches one should check out the other just to get a complete picture of both visions

saw a tiktok of a mother taking her very tiny daughter to an art museum and she’s just walking around going “whoooa” “woooaah” to everything but then they got to a marble statue of a nude woman lying on her back and the girl points and goes “mommy🫵” and i just immediately welled up with tears and all the comments are just laughing about it and of course it’s funny but how are you not insanely moved by the way art connects everyone on earth from a centuries-old sculptor to a toddler in 2023

be cunning, and full of tricks, and your people will never be destroyed.

i like whatever the fuck dynamic is going on between them