PSA: Very Serious readers should go see Tar - it is a tense but very funny psychological thriller about an artist having a nervous breakdown, done in the style of Stanley Kubrick. It isn't for everybody, but it is *not* a boring lecture about representation and cancel culture. If you liked Parasite you'd probably like it.
There *is* a cancel culture subplot. I think that the critics sense that the movie is very skeptical about the cancel culture phenomenon, that the critics agree with the movie's perspective, but that they can't bring themselves to say this in so many words. So they project their boring preoccupations onto the whole film. (They also miss that the way Tar talks in public is *extremely* pretentious: that is the joke! It's supposed to be funny).
I'll admit that this movie was basically made for me - an actually good film about classical music *and* basically all the characters are gay (including the men, pay attention).
Seems like they need to work on marketing, since critics really do like it! (90% on rotten tomatoes) This is the second time I've heard good things about this movie, but I still couldn't even google it easily (the first hits for Tar are about a 2020 Horror Movie about the La Brea Tar Pits).
Were movie critics always this insufferable? I feel like they always had different tastes but they used to at least treat going out to the theater like it was something that could maybe be fun
Tar is probably the first mainstream-ish film where the main characters are lesbians, yet the fact that they are lesbians is not the subject matter of the film. It would be a bit off to say that *this* film is unacceptably right-wing, wouldn't it?
The New Yorker reviewer actually called Tar "regressive" and "relentlessly conservative." He at least is being honest. The other reviewers are just embarrassed by the fact that they secretly agree with the film's implied politics.
But politics really aren't the center of the film, the critics just don't know of any other way to write about it.
CPI inflation fell to 1.9% in the second half from 10.7% in the first. The habitual use of year-to-year percentage changes is the same as adding 10.7 to 1.9 and dividing by two (6.3%), then claiming that was the pace of inflation a year end. The "shelter" estimates kept rising all year and even the Fed admits that was recording home sales and leases from a year earlier. So the 1.9% rate of inflation was overstated, closer to zero. https://www.cato.org/blog/inflation-fell-19-second-half-2022-107-first-1
Twitter without all the bloated workforce can make a lot of money. And the source of most money Musk invested isn't a personal risk but debt of twitter itself. It is a very good deal on his side.
The second part of your comment is incorrect. Only $12.7 billion of the $44 billion purchase price was financed with debt. He also had $7 billion of outside equity commitments as of May; if those all made good, he’s into the deal for about $24 billion in cash.
As for the first part, that’s speculation. I think it’s informative that until about two months ago, Musk was doing everything he could to get out of the deal. He clearly doesn’t think it was a good deal.
I’m actually more worried he ends up tanking Tesla by making himself a political lightning rod. Car and tech aficionados will still buy his cars, but “affluent liberals who are sort of concerned about climate change” is a pretty major electric car buying demographic, and no matter how much of a right wing cultural figure he becomes, conservatives are still not going to pay a premium for an electric car.
At the very least he should remember the words from the great businessman Michael Jordan that “Republicans buy sneakers too” (something I wish more people on both sides of the aisle were aware of) and remember that the same thing holds true of Democrats and cars.
I've never been on Twitter and have no desire to do so, but having read so much about it, I like the description: “transform Twitter from a social media platform distrusted and despised by at least half the country into one widely trusted by most Americans.” Just change it slightly so it reads like this: “transform Twitter from a social media platform distrusted and despised by at least half the country into one widely trusted by approximately the other half of the country.” And around we go,...
PSA: Very Serious readers should go see Tar - it is a tense but very funny psychological thriller about an artist having a nervous breakdown, done in the style of Stanley Kubrick. It isn't for everybody, but it is *not* a boring lecture about representation and cancel culture. If you liked Parasite you'd probably like it.
There *is* a cancel culture subplot. I think that the critics sense that the movie is very skeptical about the cancel culture phenomenon, that the critics agree with the movie's perspective, but that they can't bring themselves to say this in so many words. So they project their boring preoccupations onto the whole film. (They also miss that the way Tar talks in public is *extremely* pretentious: that is the joke! It's supposed to be funny).
I'll admit that this movie was basically made for me - an actually good film about classical music *and* basically all the characters are gay (including the men, pay attention).
Seems like they need to work on marketing, since critics really do like it! (90% on rotten tomatoes) This is the second time I've heard good things about this movie, but I still couldn't even google it easily (the first hits for Tar are about a 2020 Horror Movie about the La Brea Tar Pits).
It is a weird case- the critics all get that it is a masterpiece but describe it in a way that makes it sound tedious
Were movie critics always this insufferable? I feel like they always had different tastes but they used to at least treat going out to the theater like it was something that could maybe be fun
They seem to like a combination of acrid and "gotcha": e.g. "The Phantom Thread". This bears similar hallmarks.
Lol, that certainly describes the first review on rottentomatoes from the Atlantic:
"The film does tell its story in an elliptical, at times confounding way, but that stylistic choice shouldn’t be mistaken for moral indecision."
^ and that's from a positive review!
Tar is probably the first mainstream-ish film where the main characters are lesbians, yet the fact that they are lesbians is not the subject matter of the film. It would be a bit off to say that *this* film is unacceptably right-wing, wouldn't it?
The New Yorker reviewer actually called Tar "regressive" and "relentlessly conservative." He at least is being honest. The other reviewers are just embarrassed by the fact that they secretly agree with the film's implied politics.
But politics really aren't the center of the film, the critics just don't know of any other way to write about it.
CPI inflation fell to 1.9% in the second half from 10.7% in the first. The habitual use of year-to-year percentage changes is the same as adding 10.7 to 1.9 and dividing by two (6.3%), then claiming that was the pace of inflation a year end. The "shelter" estimates kept rising all year and even the Fed admits that was recording home sales and leases from a year earlier. So the 1.9% rate of inflation was overstated, closer to zero. https://www.cato.org/blog/inflation-fell-19-second-half-2022-107-first-1
I always love liberal-bias good, conservative-bias bad .... and vice versa depending on your perspective.
Neither side thinks they have a bias.
Always humorous.
Twitter without all the bloated workforce can make a lot of money. And the source of most money Musk invested isn't a personal risk but debt of twitter itself. It is a very good deal on his side.
The second part of your comment is incorrect. Only $12.7 billion of the $44 billion purchase price was financed with debt. He also had $7 billion of outside equity commitments as of May; if those all made good, he’s into the deal for about $24 billion in cash.
As for the first part, that’s speculation. I think it’s informative that until about two months ago, Musk was doing everything he could to get out of the deal. He clearly doesn’t think it was a good deal.
Maybe you are right. I was influenced by this opinion of a smart investor I follow:
https://twitter.com/lironmanor/status/1602872329477816320?s=46&t=hHRW5KphqMVu5RkDWUQY_g
I’m actually more worried he ends up tanking Tesla by making himself a political lightning rod. Car and tech aficionados will still buy his cars, but “affluent liberals who are sort of concerned about climate change” is a pretty major electric car buying demographic, and no matter how much of a right wing cultural figure he becomes, conservatives are still not going to pay a premium for an electric car.
At the very least he should remember the words from the great businessman Michael Jordan that “Republicans buy sneakers too” (something I wish more people on both sides of the aisle were aware of) and remember that the same thing holds true of Democrats and cars.
I've never been on Twitter and have no desire to do so, but having read so much about it, I like the description: “transform Twitter from a social media platform distrusted and despised by at least half the country into one widely trusted by most Americans.” Just change it slightly so it reads like this: “transform Twitter from a social media platform distrusted and despised by at least half the country into one widely trusted by approximately the other half of the country.” And around we go,...