The Myth Of Persephone in "Mythic The Musical"

Most of these Persephone Project posts are for books or chapters of books so it’s always exciting and mildly anxiety-inducing to encounter a visual medium to write about. I’ve only done one musical in these Persephone Project write-ups and that was for my favorite musical, Hadestown. Now the myth of Persephone is underlying in that musical, which is part of what made writing about it a unique experience and I eventually expanded and edited my original write-up for the Hadestown Zine. But then my buddy Suzi told me about this musical. It took me a while to work up the nerve to listen to it as it’s a teen pop rock musical version of the myth of Persephone. If you couldn’t tell from me saying Hadestown is my favorite musical, I should say that teen musicals are not really my thing. I think “Heathers” is the only one I would cite as really liking. I wasn’t even into teen musicals when I was a teen. But in the interest of post consistency, I’m going to divide this into two parts: one where I specifically talk about the way the myth is done and one where I just talk about the show.

The Myth

In this version of the myth we get a lot of interesting character development for Persephone and Demeter that is happening concurrently throughout the show. Because of the “teen musical” concept the main theme is heavy on the ideas of growing up, finding one’s place in the world, and accepting your children’s adulthood.

To zero in on Persephone first, we find out somewhat repeatedly throughout the first three songs that she has lived her whole life on Earth and hasn’t really met the other gods but is motivated by a desire to find a place where she feels like she belongs. We get the sense that she feels smothered by her mother, a bit superfluous next her mother, and that while she’s okay with her life she hasn’t seen enough of the world to feel like she’s sure she wants to stay where she is. She wants her own purpose basically. The idea of shifting a focus to Persephone and giving her these motivations gets an A+ from me and is obviously a common feature of modern adaptions of the myth (I think this is most comparable to George O’Connor’s Hades comic).

She bumps into Aphrodite and convinces her to take her to a party Zeus is throwing for Athena (Aphrodite and Zeus are main characters numbers 4 and 5, by the way, and have their own motivations that I will get to). Seph says some not at all nice things to her mother before she leaves when Demeter tries to stop her. At the party Persephone doesn’t really have much fun and bumps into Hades who has come to yell at Zeus about a surplus of virgins in the Underworld. They chit chat a bit, she tells him he’s nice and he denies it, but this is an establishing of their chemistry. Another common trope in modern retellings: having them meet before going under.

Aphrodite then decides she wants to “stir shit up” and plans to do that by getting Hades to hook up with her. He shoots her down and as revenge she curses him to kiss Persephone (who I think is also cursed because she goes from “wow, my first kiss” to “take me to bed” in literally twenty seconds). Now the idea of their relationship starting from a love god’s influence is an interesting detail that is uncommon but certainly not unheard of. Ovid did it as was the case with Allison Shaw’s Persephone comic but I think both of those used Eros instead of Aphrodite. Either way, the force of their passion (or like, the force of Hades’ horniness at this point) leads to them going underground and Aphrodite is immediately sorry for what she did. We get this unique detail about how spells are broken underground which I’ve never heard before but kind of organically makes sense. Like, why would earth/sky god magic have any effect in the land of the dead? It works.

Once underground, they break apart and get awkward. I haven’t really addressed it yet but the interpretation of Hades in this one has elements I have never seen. First of all, his primary motivation in this one is just to be left alone. Persephone asks him to take her home and he tells her he can only go above ground once every six months. This six months rule I have really never heard of but I guess it does set the audience up for six months being an important concept later on and provides a reason for him to not help her. I mean, that reason could have been a lot of other things but it’s a reason. He then tells her to just go away and stay out of trouble and when they meet up later he apologizes for getting her stuck down there but basically says there’s nothing he can do. Overall, his characterization at this point reads as someone who is trying very hard to be perceived a certain way (a “deep, dark damaged soul”) but is actually just kind of socially awkward and not in any way bad.

Alone Persephone basically decides to go around sprucing up the Underworld through interactions with Charon, Ascalaphus, and Minos. Hades gets annoyed about it (annoyance is kind of his primary emotion) and after he thinks about locking her up over it, they have a heart-to-heart about his daddy issues and this reputation he never wanted. It’s kind of their starting to fall in love moment. Persephone then gets attacked by furies and Hades saves her. They have another actually falling in love moment where Persephone convinces him that the Underworld is actually kind of great and he believes her.

This should clinch things for their relationship but then Aphrodite shows up in the Underworld to try to fix things (a thing that definitely never happens and also kind of can’t) and Hades tells Persephone to go with her because he seems convinced that his feelings are still a part of the spell or something. Persephone refuses and basically tells him off that she likes it here and runs away. Then she chooses to eat the pomegranate mostly for personal reasons but one seed is definitely for “the guy I love”. The whole interaction is curiously hostile. It leaves me in this weird place of wondering if I should even be supporting this relationship.

After eating, Demeter shows up (again, a thing she probably can’t do) and she and Persephone make up and offer some tearful goodbyes since Persephone can’t leave now. Hades comes after hearing about the seeds, apologizes, offers to make her Queen of the Dead, and they kiss or something. Then Aphrodite and Zeus show up (WTF) for some Zeus Ex Machina that doesn’t work. Persephone gives Demeter back her powers since she’s Queen, which she lost going underground I guess because of the established curse rule but it’s kind of flimsy, and Demeter sets the six months rule since she is the maker of fruit anyway. While this ending feels sloppy in a lot of ways, I like the idea that Persephone and Demeter did these things for each other. I just wish Demeter’s decision didn’t come off so self serving and this probably could have been solved with a tip from, of all things, the Hercules: The Legendary Journeys interpretation where Persephone says outright that she doesn’t want to be forced to chose between them. At least it’s better than Zeus setting the rule, which is how it is in basically every other telling (except like, Hadestown).

In Demeter’s concurrent plot, her primary motivation is find Persephone, of course, but to do this she has to get over this fact that everyone thinks of her as a lesser goddess without any real power. This was really strange to me, but that set up does pay off. She takes down a cyclops, confronts Zeus (a thing from most myths!), and then destroys the crops on hearing what happened to Persephone (also good). So her story is actually fairly in line with a lot of myth retellings except for this inferiority thing. Where does this come from? Well, that’s where her plot rubs up against Zeus (and also Aphrodite and implicitly Hades). Zeus’ primary motivation is to stay in charge and part of how he does this is by belittling everyone else. The Act 2 reveal for Demeter is that Zeus was lying about her weakness, and she’s only been operating on half a tank forever. Effectively, Zeus is the antagonist of the story. Kind of interesting since in a lot of versions of this myth, Zeus approving Hades suit of Persephone or alternatively offering Persephone to him, is the catalyst to the rest of the story, but this is seen as a neutral thing.

Overall, there were some interesting choices in adapting this myth to a musical for a teen audience. I feel like the Demeter plot works really well and that the Persephone plot works pretty well too. The problem I have is with how the Hades and Persephone aspect of this story is handled. It has a lot of great notes to it, but it doesn’t really come together because of the need for frequent denials and a sort of uncomfortableness with Hades character. From a strict story perspective, the concept of Hades and how his relationship to Seph develops is one of the weakest things about the book.

So that leads me to…

The Musical

This musical is, uh, kind of a mess.

As I said before, the ending is really sloppy and the book handles Hades’ character and his relationship with Persephone really poorly. Aside from eliminating or reframing some of those million times he denies her, I think the musical could have really benefited from a song or a dialogue scene where Hades is the main character. Persephone and Demeter have really well developed motivations and personalities because they have a lot of moments where they are speaking more to themselves than anyone else and we can see what they really think and feel. Aphrodite gets a few moments of this in act one and a whole song (that I dislike so much I can’t even listen to it) in act two. Zeus has a whole song explaining his drive. But every Hades song is in the context of him speaking to Persephone with the exception of a very brief moment in “Summer All The Time” where we get an initial vibe for who he is. A moment in act two when we can actually see his real thoughts and feelings towards Persephone would do a lot for making their relationship (and maybe even his denials of her) make sense. I really like the two songs they have together but the utility of those songs is different from actually showing what Hades really feels.

There are other weird book issues, the relationships between Zeus, Hades, and their father springs to mind, but I gotta move on.

To talk a bit more about the music and lyrics, this musical has a lot of cringe. Like, a lot. I have a whole document of the cringiest lines in it and it’s much longer than my lists of “ridiculous but great” lines and “just great” lines. There are so many failed attempts at being hip that I physically cringe when I listen to the soundtrack and after 20+ times I’m still cringing. I get that it’s directed at a teen audience, but I work with teenagers. I know they would cringe with me. The lyrics that aren’t cringe have a tendency to be kind of trite or unmemorable. I think Demeter’s songs are the least cringe, but they’re also some of the least interesting musically. The music overall is kind of blandly enjoyable really. The songs are fun mostly and I do really like some of them (”My Own Place In The Pantheon” is cute, “Mess Around” makes me want to dance, “Dark, Damaged Soul” is so cringe that it loops back around to fun pop punk, “Rebellious Children” makes me laugh, and both “Not A Chance In Hell” and “Beauty In The Darkness” give me some feelings) but none are a brilliant work that I would send to my non-musical friends as purely a good song.

So about the acting and singing. Well, let me be clear that I did not see either the London or the Montreal productions (although tragically I think the London production was running at a time I was in London and Montreal is a long but not in any way unreasonable drive from my house so I’m not pleased to discover this musical so late). My opinion is based on the London soundtrack and an audio bootleg of the Montreal show (which is how I know all the dialogue bits too).

• I think London Persephone has a better voice but Montreal Persephone makes better acting choices (pitches her voice down a bit so she sounds a bit more mature, reads lines in much more reasonable ways, etc). 
• Both Demeters are good singers but I think Montreal Demeter makes better acting choices. She feels more authentically Demeter to me by mitigating the coward aspects of London Demeter. 
• Between Hadeses there is no contest. I love London Hades’ voice. As a Hadestown fan I was skeptical of a tenor Hades but his voice has this very beautiful sound in the lower notes (he doesn’t sound like Michael Arden but Michael Arden’s voice also has this quality and I love it) and it’s very powerful and he has just the right vibe to sell it. Montreal Hades has a very reedy voice and overall gives off a distinct whiny teen vibe that is just all wrong. Young Hades I am totally fine with in a story like this but he has to be mature to compensate. 
• Both Aphrodites are great. The character of Aphrodite is a type, and I’m fairly certain you will always be able to find a good Aphrodite. 
• The Zeus situation is weird because the interpretations of Zeus are wildly different in both productions. London Zeus has a nasally voice and a kind of guido look and vibe that I think works great. He’s really slimy. I feel like he’s going to pull out a wad of cash to make someone sleep with the fishes. Montreal Zeus is more big personality gospel singer and is styled accordingly. It doesn’t feel right for the character as written but it’s a fully integrated performance. 
• For our minor Underworld characters, they were all male in London but Montreal made Ascalaphus and Minos women, which I wholly cosign but I think Minos should have been an alto. Also Alecto is in it but male which is weird because Alecto is female. She’s a fury. Basically they genderbent everyone but Charon, I guess. Okay. 

If you’ve got a choice of which to listen to (like if you have a Montreal hook-up) I still say go with London overall. It’s on YouTube.

So finally, I’m going to talk about the aesthetic. Both shows seemed to have really minimalist sets, which I’d kind of have to see in action to understand. It seems like an odd choice but it might just be a cost effective one. Every image from London looks more like a concert than a show (by product of the success of Six, maybe?) but the Montreal shots look a bit more “acting-y.”

As for costumes, oh boy. Let me present an image of our mains from London:

So let me ignore the obvious for a second to say that Demeter in both shows is very hippie.


You can see a similar idea in both of these "Sweet Summer Days" images when you look at Demeter. She has other outfits too. The London show has a blue still-hippieish dress that I think is her act two look and the Montreal show has her clothes change entirely to this kind of biker look when she goes underground, which was definitely an element of that show. Not sure if the biker look is the best translation from an original hippie look but okay.


To look at Aphrodite (domming Hades during "Mess Around"):


Aphrodite is always blonde and wearing some kind of shiny silver thing. It works perfectly well.

The Zeus’ as I said before are very different but tailored to the performance being given and both are wearing very loud outfits.

Now, um

A list of responses from my musical-going and myth-aware friends about this picture:
* That is NOT THEM.
* Oh no.
* Looks like the costume designer was really inspired by American Idiot.
* This takes me right back to high school in 2003.

For the reference this is Persephone’s underworld look specifically but since her above ground look is a black t-shirt, jean shorts, fishnet tights, and Converse it’s not much of a change. I think both shows adopt this idea that the Underworld changes your wardrobe.

This mid-2000s pop punk styling is just a weird choice all around (although you could argue that Hades is actually more classic punk while Persephone is very specifically mid-2000s but still). On a more minor note, what’s with the hair? I mean there’s nothing saying you can’t have a blonde Persephone but why do this when you already have two other blondes in the main cast? Usually Persephone is a redhead or has brown hair and that would have been nice. With Hades hair I don’t even know what to say aside from why? I’m not going to say that Hades should only have dark, grey, or white hair depending on age (I’m gonna think it though) but this was a really curious choice. Also, the facial hair. Is that a John Waters mustache or am I losing my mind?

Montreal did a lot better here.

Hades’ look is solid. I like the warlock coat and how it’s kind of a fast track to intimidating. I like how without it he’s kind of at an intersection of art student and goth. It’s all good. I don’t even mind the hair because at least it’s not silly.

Persephone’s look is fine. I’m a little ruined by my friend pointing out that her above ground outfit is really 70s, but I’m trying to forget it. It’s better; I didn’t say it was the best they could do. Her underworld look is a great idea but that dress looks really unflattering to me. Maybe something like a black leather-y obi belt would really improve the shape and bring a bit more underworld to the look. Not sure what’s going on in the middle picture unless she has two underworld outfits but it looks fine. The barrettes were definitely a choice. Was flowers too obvious? Flowers would be better.

Also, Ascalaphus is adorable.

So in conclusion, someone hire me to red pen this musical so it can be good enough to continue its life after covid. I have a special place in my heart for flawed musicals that need a good red penning.

The Three Criteria of Art

As someone who enjoys museums and has wandered into my fair share of modern art museums, I am pretty accustomed to hearing people looking at modern art and decrying it as nonsense (or praising something that seems like nonsense to me as genius). I frequently drag friends to modern art exhibits and for my friends who are less into the experience, I have a theory that I turned into something of a game in order to make art critics of anyone.

People like to claim that art is such a spiritual thing that it’s indefinable, but I don’t think this is true. Art is made by human hands, not a message from the gods, and should not elude definition. I once heard modern art described as the intersection of I-could-do-that and but-you-didn’t, but while this may describe some modern art, it doesn’t actually define what art is.

So here’s my theory. In order for something to be considered art, you must be able to answer yes to one of these questions:

1.      Is it aesthetically pleasing to someone?

2.      Did it require a great amount of skill to create?

3.      Does it mean something symbolically?

Now, you can obviously answer yes to more than one of these questions and I could actually argue that the more yeses you get, the less likely you are to have the artistic merit of something challenged.

But I’m sure you can see a bit of a hitch in this theory: all the questions are subjective. Correct. Art is, at its core, subjective and thus the questions defining it will also be. If you genuinely don’t believe in any standard of taste whatsoever, you might find the answering of these questions to be completely impossible. But in order to actually get anywhere with applying this theory, you need to at least be able to accept that your taste may not be the taste of others and you should at least have some small background in critically reading visual media. This is the baseline you need to start from.

The first potential requirement is aesthetic pleasure. This is the one that most requires a divorcing from personal taste. Just because you might not enjoy looking at something, does not mean that everyone will not enjoy looking at it. Of the three requirements, this is definitely the most subjective but there are some examples I can use to try to get at how an art piece can fail this requirement. I once saw a painted canvas in an art museum. It was a single square canvas painted one uniform color. It was not part of any other piece; that was the entire work. Even if you enjoy that color, it seemed safe to me to say that there was nothing specifically aesthetic pleasing about this single colored canvas.

The second requirement of technical skill is probably the least subjective. It is not hard to look at something and determine that it is something you could not do without a great deal of acquired skill in painting, sculpture, metal work, crafting or what have you. The one real fault to this criterion would be an ego on the part of the viewer who wildly overestimates their own skill or who lacks any kind of knowledge of what creating a piece entails. Notably though, there are a lot of modern art pieces that do fail this requirement (hence the previously mentioned I-can-do-that idea).

The last requirement of meaning is somewhat subjective but is definitely the requirement that asks the most of the viewer. Most people can answer the first two questions quickly on a gut instinct from having lived in a world of senses and experiences, but this last one requires not only contemplation but also a measure of reading comprehension. Modern art especially is often not meant to be taken at face value in the way traditional art it. Aesthetics and skills are usually very apparent in traditional art where priority was placed on creating something that would be difficult for anyone else to make and which would fetch a high price for its decorative purposes. Sometimes traditional art doesn’t have a meaning outside of it being something skillfully made and nice to look at. Modern art, however, is commonly determined on this criterion alone, which is why modern art is vastly more mocked and underappreciated. Modern art that doesn’t quickly pass the test with the first two requirements will find itself beholden to the interpretative capabilities of the viewers.

It seems safe to say that modern art that fails the first two tests always has a meaning intended by the artist. What you are actually determining is whether a meaning is being conveyed. You are judging not the ambiguous intention but the communication. Sometimes at art museums there will be a little plaque next to a piece that will explain the meaning to a confused viewer. Sometimes the meaning explained will justify the work just fine and you will look back at the piece with an, “Oh” of understanding, if you decide that the author’s purpose was clearly conveyed and also that it matters. Sometimes you will look back at the piece and think that the justification isn’t in any way clear in its representation and you have truly found something that is not art. Sometimes there’s no plaque at all and you are left up to your own devices and you really need to be mentally flexible to try to pull out a meaning. This is where having a friend along is helpful for bouncing ideas off of. Maybe you can’t read the piece as well as your friend can. If a meaning isn’t coming through or an explained meaning is still unconvincing after explanation, the piece is not art.

A prime example of something I have considered not art would be Comedian by Maurizio Cattelan, the now famous banana taped to a wall. Let’s run the test:

1.      Is it aesthetically pleasing to someone? I would have to say no. Perhaps you do find a banana aesthetically pleasing but the juxtaposition of a banana and duct tape isn’t reaching any real level of composition to create something interesting to stare at.

2.     Did it require skill to create? A big no there. While it might be kind of difficult to do without crushing the banana if it’s quite ripe, this is something most people have the ability to do.

3.      Does it mean something symbolically? After staring at it for a while, I got nothing concrete. The artist has stated both that it represents “global trade, a double entendre, as well as a classic device for humor” and that “it’s supposed to be a banana.” Basically it means everything and nothing. When I first saw it I made some joke about how it represents the duality of man and the battle between intellect and the beast and it turns out my phony art critique impression was just as valid as the artist’s actual explanation. You could try to argue that the point is its silliness, bolstered by the title, but I really don’t think there’s enough actual creative mental lifting here to make this piece worthy of being called art.

Amusingly, Chipotle made a social media post as a joke of a burrito taped to a wall after the banana from the piece was eaten. My brother pointed out that the social media post actually does qualify as art because it has a very clear meaning determinable by anyone with a basic understanding of the piece it’s responding to: it’s a parody. I would also argue that if the person who ate the banana claimed it was an act of performance art, I would completely stand behind the banana eating as art. The meaning is clear: it’s an act of showing the insignificance of the original piece. Or possibly it’s just adding legitimacy to the Comedian title. I can see an old comedy show where a bumbling joker accidently eats something that was part of an art piece and gets in trouble for it by the art world elites. It’s life imitating art.

So while the subjective world of art cannot totally be demystified, this is a good place to start. I often find that when others employ this method for the first time, they find themselves appreciating art in a way they hadn’t before and become overall less dismissive of the pieces they don’t understand. 

Theories In Short

Here's a collection of theories that I have been meaning to write, some for years. They are all too short to write full on essays about so here they are in brief.

People believe they deserve control, love, and a purpose, but not a single one of these things is guaranteed.

The Emotion/Logic Spectrum:

Everyone falls somewhere on a spectrum with emotion on one end and logic on the other. There are benefits to spending time with people who linger close to your side of the spectrum in terms of relatability, but spending time with people on the opposite of the spectrum is good for perspective. When making a decision, it is best to consult people on both sides of the spectrum if you are in the middle or people on the opposite side from you if you lean more towards one side.

If you live too close to the edge of either spectrum, it can be really hard for you to understand the motivations of people who live on the other side. For instance, someone who lives at 95% logic might not understand emotional responses to behavior that they believe can be surmounted with logic. Often the very logical view the emotional as weak or annoying and the very emotional view the logical as heartless and boring. If you do live too far on one side, it will be a lot harder for you to interact with people on the other side, but it is vitally important that you do so in order to get along with people.

Also important is that some people aren’t good at determining where they are on the spectrum. Plenty of people who claim to be solely logic-driven are actually heavily, if not primarily, driven by emotion. This flaw has a tendency to fall along gender lines as men are socialized to not be emotional, although they are actually socialized to show only emotions like anger. Therefore, men who do show socially acceptable male emotions view themselves as completely logic driven even though they are not. People of all genders who acknowledge a tendency towards emotion are usually more accurate in their assessment, but many are more than capable of logic-based responses. It just takes some effort and cultivation that people usually don’t wish to put in to develop logical responses.

Resilience:

The most resilient people are always the ones who have had to face the most in terms of tragedies. Early exposure to tragedy is often the most beneficial as children are more malleable and resilient and can then carry that resilience into adulthood. A person who is happy, or at least contented, either has suffered tremendously and managed to work through it or hasn’t suffered at all. When someone who hasn’t suffered is then faced with tragedy later in life they will have one of two responses. Either they will have built up enough good faith from a life of ease that they will be able to deal with the tragedy with positivity, or they will become completely disillusioned and fall apart. The latter is usually the more common.

It is also worth noting that early exposure to tragedy, while beneficial for many, can also fully break someone before they have had a chance to thrive. This is why the type of tragedy and the after effects can be very important. Facing the death of a loved one is usually the kind of positive tragedy that builds resilience as it teaches children that good things don’t always last and that you have to value people in your life. If that loved one was a primary caregiver, however, this can lead to negative after effects as a result of the death. Something like a sexual assault is the kind of negative tragedy that can have negative effects on future relationships. A lesson may be learned, but it is a lesson that should not be taught to a child and it should never be taught in that way.

Money & Happiness:

The idea that money can’t buy happiness is wrong. Money can buy happiness. The fallacy is in thinking you’ll know how to use it. Money can buy you a lot of material possessions, which is how most people would use a surplus of money if acquired, but material possessions are not something that can bring anyone lasting happiness. What brings people lasting happiness is connection with others and the meeting of basic needs, things that money can make easier to accomplish.

What money can buy are healthcare for you and the people you love so they you can better enjoy life. It can buy quality time spent with people you love. It can buy shelter and food so you never have to worry about how to acquire those things. It can buy supplies needed to fulfill hobbies that bring you joy. It can buy experiences that you could not have without the time or money to have them.

Money can buy happiness, but wealth cannot.

Rumors:

            If you find out that there is a rumor going around about you that is true, you have no reason to be upset about the rumor unless you are ashamed of that truth. If you live your life without shame, these rumors will never affect you.

            If you find out that there is a rumor going around about you that is untrue, you have no reason to be upset about the rumor as it is false. A false rumor can usually be proven false. The only situation you have to fear is a false rumor that cannot be proven false.

Tom’s People:

·         Engineers: Those who create and control and construct.

·         Data Analysts: Those who investigate and study and display information found.

·         Philosophers: Those who question and think and discuss.

·         Storytellers: Those who experience and engage and entertain.

There is overlap in these types.

A storyteller is an engineer in the way they take experiences and construct them into a story. A philosopher might engineer a theory. A data analyst may engineer a display of their findings.

When a data analyst meditates on people, they are looking at quantifiable information they may express in words or numbers. When a philosopher meditates on people they do so qualitatively but in the abstract. When a storyteller meditates on people, they do so qualitatively but in the concrete.

Engineers have a philosophy of construction. Data analysts have a philosophy they wish to prove. Storytellers impart their life philosophy with every story they tell.

Why You Don't Have Many Friends

There are three basic reasons why someone may not have a lot of friends. When I say not a lot of friends I do mean only about 1-4 people who they hold close outside of or including family. These are probably not the only reasons but they are the primary ones.

1. You actively chose not to have many friends.

Not having a lot of friends is by no means a red flag if someone is choosing to keep their friend group small. There are a lot of advantages to having only a few friends, particularly if you are a person who doesn’t like to socialize much. For some it’s easier to only have a few friends and for some it’s simply that they don’t enjoy the company of very many people so they have found the few people they like to spend time with.

2. You are not good at maintaining friendships.

As stated, having friends is truthfully a lot of work and there are some people who want to have friends but aren’t putting in the effort to keep up with friends and make plans with them. There are many reasons someone could be like this. Some people are very busy and then they feel it has been too long to try to reconnect in times when they can. Some people think they are not worth being friends with and decide that it’s up to the other person to keep the friendship going because that will show they actually want to bother with you. Some people have some sort of mental or physical disability which might keep them from keeping friendships alive. This is truly the most common reason.

3. You use friends for a functional purpose.

Most people who lack friends for this reason are the most oblivious as to why they don’t have friends. Unlike the people in group two who tend towards the self-deprecating side, people in this group have a tendency to externally think highly of themselves but internally have a lot of self disgust. People in this category have a tendency to rely on friends heavily for support but don’t reciprocate that support when the friend is in need, leading to a severing of ties. This category could be simplified as “people who aren’t good friends.”

2020 Movies

This post is coming out long after when I should have posted it because I have been so busy with work that movie watching has been the last thing on my list. It will be updated as I actually see things.

Movies I Still Need To See:
Transit: seems debately 2018
First Love: gotta get my hands on it
Dolemite Is My Name: waiting on Adam

Movies I'm Not Interested In:
The Irishman: This movie is so long.
Ford Vs. Ferrari: This movie is so male.
Once Upon A Time In Hollywood: I'd actually watch this if someone I trust wanted to watch it, but no one has expressed this desire to me yet.

Not marking the movies not nominated for Oscars because screw the Oscars. That's where I'm at right now.

Previous Years: 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011



Movies I Loved:

Midsommar: Similar to Cold War last year, this movie broke into my house and killed me but for totally different reasons. I love this movie. I was completely scarred by it after the first watch, rewatched it because I genuinely thought it was so good but hid under a blanket a lot, and then watched it a third time but this time as the director's cut. My favorite of the year by far.

Parasite: I need to rewatch this honestly. It was very good, but I think I need to see it again to adequately enjoy it. Either way, it's the year of eating the rich and I am down for it.

Little Women: This movie was very good: strong acting, strong screenplay, strong cinematography. strong everything. I cried like seven times and related way too hard to some parts in a way I don't remember relating when I read this book at 12.

Pain And Glory: A lot of the time with Almodovar films I walk away underwhelmed (Talk To Her) or a bit confused as to the point (Tie Me Up! but moreso Woman On The Verge) and the ones I remember liking have kind of faded from memory (Volver & Skin I Live In) so I went into this one hesitent. No need. This movie was great. The themes were perfectly displayed and the story was completely engaging.

Knives Out: Eat the rich: the crime comedy. I love a movie full of unique characters, the momentum of the plot was engaging, and the production design was a consistently interesting work of art.

The Farewell: I really loved the directing, the symbolism, the way the themes were portrayed, and the acting. I cried just a little off and on throughout and I loved the way it weaves together the ideas of culture, the immigrant experience, and family.

Portrait of a Woman On Fire: This movie was so tightly constructed it was unreal. I love how the visuals resemble paintings, I love the little connections to the Orpheus myth and that music piece, I love that I just read "Ways of Seeing" and it was the perfect prelude to the expectly displayed themes of the film.

Us: It's not as good as Get Out but it's still really dang good. It's more of a horror movie with a social commentary that sneaks up on you in the latter half, but of course it's solid. It's the year of class commentary, like I said.

Honeyland: I think this documentary is the clear winner for prettiest doc of the year. I occasionally found the story itself a bit hard to follow (possibly because it was shot over five years so time was strange) but every shot was a work of art.

For Sama: Ah yes, the documentary that made me cry the most. I loved the format of the film maker talking to her daughter and the amount of priceless footage was astonding. I was utterly shook by the scene where they brought a newborn baby back to life and the scene of just her husband's face as he cried, thinking of having to leave.

American Factory: I see this documentary as two parts: one about how manufacturing in America can only return in a distorted form after what was done to it and one about unions and why we need them. Classism again! This one made me think a lot.

The Edge of Democracy: When I think of this movie I most distinctly remember all the scenes of Brasilia as a monument to democracy that is not as strong as its buildings. Powerful imagery and a really timely documentary to watch as an American who is feeling the same crumble even with over 200 years of democracy. A reminder of how fragile structures are.

Hail Satan: What a charming movie documenting the rise of the Satanic Temple! I love the way the story was told and all the little interviews.

Fyre: I think I have watched this documentary four or five times. It's so engaging.

Fyre Fraud: I find this to be the lesser of the two Fyre festival documentaries but it was interesting for actually interviewing Billy MacFarland. I think the reason this one didn't resonate with me as much as the other was because it was less of a story and more of a commentary on millennials, which I didn't feel was always on point.

Knock Down The House: Keep on eating the rich by throwing them out of office! I was really sad to see only AOC winning but let's hope that starts a trend.


Movies I Really Liked:

1917: I think this is one of the most consistently stressful movies I've seen since Whiplash.  I've always preferred the bleak hopelessness of World War I movies to the optimism of World War II movies, and I think the simple plot works in this movie's favor. Do all the thematic lifting on your own and enjoy the technical achievements.

Jojo Rabbit: Is cute an acceptable word for this movie when a lot of bad stuff happens? I loved the satirical elements and it was fun.

The Two Popes: I didn't expect to like this as much as I did. I watched it on a wim while sick after Marriage Story and I found it really delightful. I really like friendship movies in general and the interactions of opposite personalities (plus the interesting morality dicatomy) so this was a win.

Uncut Gems: This movie was very stressful and is a great example of an unlikeable main character done well. This might be strange to say but I also just loved the vibe of the movie created by the soundtrack and the cinematography. 

The Lighthouse: Like The VVitch, I wanted to like this more than I did. I mean, it's got two characters in a room going nuts, beautiful cinematography, and a lot of sea scenes so it's right up my alley. I think my issue with it is the same as The VVitch where I felt like there was some kind of theme that wasn't as developed as it could have been. Still good though.

Hustlers: Eat the rich: the crime drama. I was skeptical going into this movie, but I ended up just loving it. I love movies where women band together and do stuff even if that stuff is, you know, crime. J.Lo not going a supporting actress nomination is the real crime.

Her Smell: I passed over this movie a bunch of times before finally deciding to watch it because I was afraid it would feel done to death. It wasn't at all. This is a movie full of things that I love: punk rock, the complication of existing as a woman, witchy stuff, a dirgy cover of a pop song, good cinematography, strange personalities. It's great.

The Last Black Man in San Francisco: This movie was very, very good (and very pretty) but I kind of feel like small pieces of it didn't really come together for me. I loved the ideas of identity and architecture\housing (I mean, my favorite book is Hunchback so architecture as a symbol is important to me) but somewhere around the 3\4 point I started feeling like the plot was muddling a bit. I think some strategic editing could have honestly fixed it for me.

Ready Or Not: Eat the rich: the horror movie #2. This was a great ride. I love all the little symbolism. i could see the ending being a topic of debate but I thought it was perfect so fight me.

Booksmart: Every year seems to have one really solid movie about teenagers and this was that movie. It was really fun and I love when teen movies aren't mean-spirited at all because I just hate that.

Happy Death Day 2 U: I watched both the original one and the sequel this year. I think the first is the stronger film but the second is fun too and more science fiction.


I Lost My Body: This movie was very unique and strange. I'm not totally sure that I get what it was trying to convey but I enjoyed it either way.

One Child Nation: I don't have much to say but it's really good.

Ask Dr. Ruth: I watched this movie almost a year ago at this point so I don't really remember it, but I found her life very interesting.

The Brink: Distrubing and interesting but in a year of really good documentaries this one ranks quite low.


Movies I Liked:

Joker: There was a lot of good cinematic verve to this movie and the acting was great, but there were some definite holes in the writing that someone needed to fix in order to make the movie really come together. Overall, it was good though. I just can't stand the people who really like it.

Marriage Story: I found this movie well made but kind of unpleasent to watch. I have no problems with realism and the acting was very good, but I just didn't enjoy watching this. I can see why people did, but I think for me angry people going through a divorce and having to watch it is kind of a circle of my own personal hell.

How To Train Your Dragon: The Hidden World: I watched this on the plane to San Francisco and it was enjoyable. The first in the series is still the best but they have all been competent.

Downton Abbey: It was exactly what you'd expect. I absolutely love the first three seasons of the show and then it crashed and got kind of middling fine after that. The movie is just more of that. I liked that Branson had more to do than he did for most of the later half of the show and the Barrow subplot about underground gay culture but there were a lot of subplots shoved into here (literally every character had one) and it got a bit overwhelming.

Dark Waters: I thought this was a very interesting movie but it just didn't really grab me in the way that I was hoping, especially because I've really enjoyed a lot of Todd Haynes movies in the past.

Blinded By The Light: This was a really fun film. I was kind of skeptical about the premise but the film really sold me and hell, I think it also really sold me on the significance of Bruce Springsteen overall after years of me just not getting it.

Long Day's Journey Into Night: And in the art house corner, this was a beautiful movie, kind of Lynchian, but a bit too incoherent for me to raise it above "liked."

Captain Marvel: I only watch one Marvel movie a year because I don't care about the Marvel universe so this was my movie of the year. It was fine. I liked the 90s aesthetic and the sapphic undertones.

Always Be My Maybe: This movie was cute and enjoyable. I don't really have much else to say about it.

Aladdin: I watched it on a plane. It was perfect plane watching material. Only thing I strongly objected to was that weird Jasmine song sequence.

Luce: About halfway through the film I remember thinking that it felt like it would be easy to adapt for the stage and sure enough it was a play turned film. This is fine but there's always something a little lacking about plays turned into films. Either way I love a good moral dilemna and complicated feelings without answer.

Frozen II: So this movie was cute and all but the plot either made no sense or was explained poorly.


Movies I Thought Were Okay:

Star Wars: The Rise Of Skywalker: Maybe okay is strong. This movie had a few things I liked and a whole lot of things I didn't like. I'm not sure if time is just making me forget most of the things I did like or if it gets worse the more I think about it so it's in this category very tentatively.

Tolkien: Okay was the best way to describe this. It wasn't bad, it wasn't especially good. It was a bit long and just, well, fine. RIP Chris Tolkien.


Movies I Didn't Like:

Breakthrough: Amusingly enough this movie is Oscar nominated for best original song. We watched it on bad movie night after Adam's sister said she liked it. It has what Sarah, an APRN, described "the worst coding scene she's ever seen in a movie." It also was just bad overall.

After: I watched this after stumbling on a bunch of comical reviews of how bad the book was and the movie was fascinating in the sense that they took a bad, smutty fanfiction and made an incredibly bland romance. It wasn't funny bad, but it was an experience in adapation.

Cats: A bad movie night watch and the only way I was probably going to sit through this honestly.