This Means War

[la_belle_laide]

Okay, this movie was dumb and insulting, let's just get that out of the way. Two dudes stalking a woman and fighting over her like she's a piece of steak or something. And what was that ending line in "alternate ending 1?" "I'll be your bitch?" Really? And FDR was horrible. Horrible.

WITH THAT SAID, it did have some good laughs, mostly from well-timed lines and Chelsea Handler. Unless she's done something gross and creepy that I'm unaware of, I like her and think she's hilarious. She reminds me very much of a friend I used to work with, and actually, her character could have been this friend.

If it had been possible for me to ignore the sexism of the film, I would have found it really entertaining. There were parts of it that were super entertaining, in fact.

But aside from all of that, Tom Hardy. WHAT EVEN IS HE? I don't get it, I don't understand his existence. How was Reese Witherspoon not straddling him every second? How was EVERYONE not straddling him in every frame? I damn near climbed onto my TV set. I legitimately can't even look at him for too long because his face hurts my eyes. I'm being honest when I say I hope I never get the chance to meet him, because if I did, I'd probably just try to mount him and it wouldn't even be my fault. "Hi, nice to meet you, I want to hug you with my legs." Also, I'm pretty sure I would lick him.



It seems weird to me that he's a real, living person and not someone made up – and I actually feel bad about that, because I think it's horrible to misunderstand someone's humanity because you see them in movies or whatever. It's not because he's in movies, it's because HE CAN'T EVEN BE REAL. My eyes feel like the want to reach out of my head and pet him. He's so impossibly lovely with his stupid perfect nose and crooked teeth that it physically pains me to look at this bastard.



And if you disagree with me, you're wrong.





I hope I've made myself clear.

Comments

[la-belle-laide.livejournal.com]

I don't mind the use of the word "warrior" when it comes to games. In fact I prefer martial "arts" to actual, true martial acts - acts of war.

[bad-machination.livejournal.com]

Ah. It drives me bonkers, because "warrior" has so much very serious stuff attached to it, imo. Putting it on the same level as "athlete" seems to cause impressionable athletes to think they are indeed warriors.

Philosophically, though it is without question that games are preferable to undiluted violence, I feel that I train not for the art aspect, but for the martial aspect. That is to say, that I don't care if my form is perfectly beautiful, or what color my belt is. I want to know how to master violence in preparation to the possibility of having to use it.

If there does come a time when I have to use it - and I would much rather have and not need it - then I want it to do it's job efficiently and effectively.
I find it to be a matter with a lot of ethical and moral gravity, so I get all ruffled when people don't seem to pay attention the the very important difference between the real stuff, and the game stuff.

Even more so that the game stuff is glamorized. Let's glamorize gentle hippies.

That is not to say that I consider myself any kind of warrior, either. Far from it.

[la-belle-laide.livejournal.com]

I don't think that anyone who gets in the ring, even if it's for sport, is a "gentle hippy."

Further, even if I did think so, I don't think there's anything wrong with being a "gentle hippy."

You can do something for art and still have it be effective. The "game stuff" turns automatically into the "real stuff" the second someone puts their hands on you. That's why we train. Would I bust out a damn form if that happened? No, I'd probably just go directly for the weakest spot. I don't think the two are mutually exclusive.

[bad-machination.livejournal.com]

There is no implication that anyone we're talking about is a gentle hippy. That's a direct and straightforward statement. The glamorization of gentle hippies, for instance, is better than the glamorization of violence, in my opinion.

The two are indeed not mutually exclusive. A form serves it's purpose - to strike effectively - but with the embellishment of grace, or whatever other artistic aspect is seen to add value. What I was speaking of was a matter of focus points.

Form without the function of a good strike is closer to dancing than fighting, I would think, though I've not given that particular point of analysis much thought.

That a form hits is natural, though a particular, traditional, or beautiful form is not always necessary to hit.