Avatar

Glory to the Resistance

@hussyknee / hussyknee.tumblr.com

Queer disabled lady from South Asia. Social Anarchist. Decolonize or die. Batfamily sideblog here. I swear a lot, follow at own risk IF you are over 14. DNI: suicide baiters, antis/fandom police, oppression olympians, radfems, zionists, tankies, blue-no-matter-who liberals.
Avatar

👻 corpsecourse Follow

dni if you support relationships between vampires and the vampire they sired. i am so serious, i dont care what your justification is, that is an unforgivable power imbalance. its almost as bad as vampire human relationships (and if you support that i hope you get a splinter in the heart)

🧛‍♀️ vampbites Follow

op what the fuck is your problem? more maggots in your brain than usual? go out into the real underworld and touch some graveyard dirt. i know at least 7 vampires who are in happy healthy relationships with the vampire who sired them. me included! this may shock you but we started dating when i was human and she was a vamp!

👻 corpsecourse Follow

i hate to tell you this but you're in a toxic relationship and i sincerely hope youre able to get out.

🧛‍♀️ vampbites Follow

HELLO???????

🦇 battybrained Follow

i keep seeing people saying this shit and honestly i think it stems from the infantalization of humans. humans are capable of making decisions for themselves. do some vampires abuse their powers over humans? of course! but you cant assume that every single human vampire relationship (or sire and sired relationship for that matter) is some unhealthy power imbalance, especially when you dont even know them!!!

fangs4fags Follow

i think op is forgetting that humans can be just as harmful to vampires as they can be to humans. dont tell me you completely just forgot about the existence of vampire slayers

🧛‍♂️ coffincreeper Follow

next thing you know op is gonna be saying that a hundred year age gap between fully fledged vampires is problematic

👻 corpsecourse Follow

it literally is. i dont care if you are a 1000 years old vampire, if your significant other is 100 years older than you they have more life experience than you. god you guys are stupid why dont you all step into a sunbeam

🩸 f33d3r Follow

hey guys i just went to ops account and their pinned post was about how they dont consider werewolves part of the monster community cuz theyre not undead. just block and move on it is NOT worth it

🐺vamplovingwolf Follow

isnt it funny how whenever theres some rancid discourse like this its always made by coffinscrews

Avatar
hussyknee
Avatar

wish the goncharov fandom would talk more about how scorsese’s blending of mafia genre conventions with plot beats typical to a tragic structure poses questions about how goncharov intervenes in conventional notions of the modern tragic hero, or how the presentation of goncharov as somewhat akin to a messianic figure could tether the piece back to scorsese’s broader directorial concerns with christian sin and redemption that manifest across his body of work. but you all only care about shipping goncharov with andrey i guess 🙄

Avatar
palant1r

I KNOW RIGHT like im not super well versed in scorsese’s work and my engagement with Goncharov never went much farther than a fairly surface level analysis of contrasting how it drew from post v pre christian ideals of heroism as divorced from/connected to morality (eg, the odyssean notion of heroism as opposed to a messianic notion) as it manifests in the ambiguous ending that abruptly denies the audience of catharsis while questioning the assumptions we were given about the central conflict throughout the third act, but i can still tell it’s a work that sheds a lot of light on scorsese’s overall canon, so i was pretty disappointed when i came to tumblr and all the analysis was about the fucking anchovy scene

right, and like. if you’re going to talk about the anchovy scene then at LEAST talk about the ichthys motif … but you guys are just horny. as ever.

@killyfromblame ‼️‼️‼️‼️‼️

Avatar
gothhabiba

[tags reading: I say this as a gay person: shipping goncharov with andrey is so misogynistic. yekaterina and goncharov are so in love but the fandom only cares about male characters. yekaterina svetlana goncharova is such a complex and human character and you’re more concerned with andrey? all he did was show penis and die. i know this movie was subversive for how much penis it showed. but andrey’s penis scene was the shortest in the entire movie. end tags]

I mean. my reading of this–and the most cursory analysis of the visual cinematographic language used throughout their scenes will back this up–is that goncherina as a relationship existed to subvert the concept of “love” as sufficient or relevant in the landscape of economic violence that goncharov was constrained to act within and across. the myth-making business of heterosexuality is laid bare within these scenes–the sheer perfection of them (the acting out of being “in love,” the relentless symmetry of the shots, the consistent showing of a character bound within a frame) is not aspirational but stifling. the most subsersive connotation the film supplies us with, I would contend, is the similarity of these shots with some of the most ‘obviously’ violent in the film–thus connecting the quotidian violence of heterosexuality with the more salient violence of the streets. andrey’s presence is powerful because it appears so briefly–it offers goncharov a vision of a world outside, a world beyond (and yet, contradictorily, still tragically bound up within the world of the mafia).

now of course you could argue that it’s misogynistic that a woman represents a world of stifling order and repressed play-acting, while a man represents a (however ultimately fallacious) world of freedom and openness (and, yeah, the narrative’s takes on heroism, however subversive otherwise, are pretty uniformly male). but the fans are just responding to what they see in the text. and I think it’s kind of elitist of you guys to just assume that popular criticism (and fanworks and meta do represent popular criticism) must be misunderstanding or over-simplifying the text, rather than responding in the very ways that the text calls for response! the erotics of the anchovy scene do call back to the broader point considering the inevitability of tragedy, and this is what is consistently emphasized across fanfic and meta that references this scene. so why is an erotic response not an “appropriate” response? who gets to decide that?

Avatar
reblogged
My husband is a man who collects things he can use. A pistol, a pocket-watch, a woman's love, a wife....

I'm obsessed with That Scene(tm) between Katya and Andrei in the California Director's Cut Rerelease of Goncharov, so I did a lighting study inspired by the film's Art Deco Posters! Little details like Katya never referring to her husband by his first name really add to Andrey and Katya's tense dynamic, which is one of the most underrated parts of the movie imo.

Avatar
reblogged
Avatar
beelzeebub

Goncharov (1973) dir. Martin Scorsese

“The greatest mafia movie (n)ever made.”

Plot synopsis: set during the Cold War in the 1970s. KGB agents and CIA agents are fighting throughout the streets of Naples, Italy. Taking over safe houses, fighting for control of various secret documents things like that. This is disrupting the business of the Italian mafia in Naples. The chase scenes are disrupting the businesses that have paid the mafia protection, senior people in the mafia are being caught in the crosshairs between these two powerful organizations. Then, one day as fall is turning to winter, all of the local mafia organizations unite to drive the CIA and KGB agents from Naples. The plan is to kill every single agent for both organizations in the city. They know that if they miss even one, both organizations will come after the mafia with a fiery vengeance. However, the mafia knows if they kill every single agent, both of these world powers will just blame each other. Thus begins one of the greatest movies of all time with covert spy games, epic chases, and undercover intrigue. 

Avatar

all you 21st century goncharov fans are completely missing the cold war context...

Avatar
vegacoyote

Oooooo sounds juicy anyone care to tell us about the cold war context?

i don't have an in-depth analysis prepared or anything, but i do remember what it was like living under the shadow of a hypothetical mushroom cloud, and if someone else wants to take on the task of describing how goncharov's self-destruction resonated with the sort of cliff-jumper urge to get the waiting over with that characterized a lot of cold war cinema, that'd be fantastic.

anyway, what's got me reeling is how y'all don't seem to have noticed that in 1973, you could not reference russia in any way without it being a political act.

not that it was frowned upon or anything. it didn't have to be hidden in subtext like the homoerotic tension was (and yes, it IS there, and for that era it is surprisingly blatant). but it was political by definition. it was also a major risk in terms of making the film's production cost back; while american censorship didn't work the way communist bloc countries' did, there was definitely economic pressure to support the narrative, you know? american jingoism was a major market force in hollywood. far more than it is today, believe it or not.

making you cry over a man with a name like vasily goncharov was a subversive act on scorsese's part. doing it with a film that had no american characters was revolutionary.

I was three when the Soviet Union fell and I’ve definitely noticed this context missing. I mean, Goncharov’s "we are both legends" speech to Mario? That couldn’t be more “mutually assured destruction is fucking madness” if it tried.

I know some folks here haven’t gotten to see the director’s cut, so I’ll give you the speech here. I’d like to note this scene also took place in Mario’s office, which didn’t appear in the theatrical release, so you should know the set was absolutely designed to evoke the Oval Office (in fact I wouldn’t be surprised if that’s why the scene was cut). Mario has a nice solid wood desk, very commanding, and to his right where an American flag would be in the OO there’s a gun case. There’s a religious icon where the Great Seal would be. Like, this was not subtle. And with Mario sitting behind the desk, in basically the last scene before Goncharov starts losing his mind, we get this:

GONCHAROV: [sits, pulls his gun butt-first from his jacket, pointedly opens the cylinder and dumps the ammunition in his hand. He slowly and deliberately--pointedly, even--puts the bullets back in his jacket and the broken-open gun on the desk.] So. Here we are. One might say we sit here as equals.

MARIO: A fool might. GONCHAROV: Then maybe we should listen to the fool. MARIO: [he activates a chess clock. Although chess clocks don't normally tick, there's a faint sound coming from this one. He folds his hands.] I promised you a meeting, Signore Goncharov. No more. GONCHAROV: Of course. Did your man tell you why I requested it? MARIO: You slandered my son. [pause] I should have you gunned down like a dog. GONCHAROV: I think you must know only lies are slander, my friend. And this is why I ask your audience, because there is still time...there is time to go back. [Mario doesn't speak, but makes kind of a "go on then, I don't have all day, say your bit" gesture with his head.] GONCHAROV: Here we sit, Signore. We are both legends; in Moscow they speak my name in whispers, and in Naples the crowds part at your word. But do we use this to our advantage? No...no, better your man should threaten my advisor, and my advisor threaten your son, and your son threaten me. The world rushes on and we squabble like children. This, this is the way power works. It could change the face of the earth. Instead we waste it on preening and strutting like peacocks, making giant displays rather than anything of real, lasting value. MARIO: [his hand edges toward the letter opener in his stationery.] You think my work is of no lasting value? GONCHAROV: I think in an organization so old it can be difficult to make a truly unique mark--something history will remember. But consider this: your son retracts his threat. My advisor will do the same. We will go forward in a spirit of friendship. Everything from Moscow to Naples will be ours. We won't be just legends, Signore; we will be the stuff of which epic tales are made. MARIO: [he picks up the letter opener and drives it into the desk between the barrel and butt of Goncharov's gun. Then he turns off the chess clock.] My man will see you out. Signore.

-----------------------------

Literally, literally could not more clearly be about the Cold War if it tried. The imagery of the chess clock is a one-two punch--there's the obvious reference to the Doomsday Clock, which is underlined by the ticking, but there's also the fact that it's a chess clock. The Soviets were very famously chess superpowers, such that when Bobby Fischer decided to dip on a match with a Soviet grandmaster he actually got a phone call from the fucking President being like "ay yo it is absolutely necessary that you play and win this match, or the Soviets get to say they're better than us." Mario's use of the chess clock is symbolically taking power from Goncharov, the Soviet, both in his control of it and in the fact that it's a symbol of Soviet power.

Then you've got the gun and the letter opener. Goncharov is being almost ostentatious in his removal of the bullets and placement of the gun--almost certainly a reference to the treaties signed by the USSR and USA in 1972 (SALT I and ABM treaties). But Mario's "answering shot," not dissimilar to the nuclear "tests" each nation used to basically show what big swinging dicks they were? It was calculated. It says you should be afraid of me but if you swing now, you look like the bad guy. A letter opener isn't going to kill anybody without serious effort. Goncharov's hands aren't even on the desk. It's a symbolic move--a statement, nothing more. But here, we see that everything has stalled--Mario isn't going to issue any apology or retraction, and Goncharov isn't going to stop his intended expansion into Naples. The abrupt stopping of the chess clock at this point is exactly the kind of thing @jumpingjacktrash was talking about--you really want Goncharov to have a second gun, or a knife, or to grab the paperweight off Mario's desk and hit him with it, anything to break the tension in the room. That's it, they're done, there is no more discussion.

And, of course, there's the whole underscore of the "we are both legends" speech itself--plenty of countries were involved in the Cold War. It's just that the US and USSR were considered the two superpowers involved. Yes, we could have worked together. The world we live in today would look unimaginably different if we had. But what did we do instead? Exactly what Goncharov says--we argued, we blew up nuclear weapons to show off to each other, we turned the exploration of space into a pissing contest, there is literally no end to the amount of bullshit we did to go "nyah-nyah, our side is better than yours." (And by "we" I mean both the US and the USSR.) For fuck's sake, we added "under G-d" into the Pledge of Allegiance specifically because Those Godless Russian Communists had atheism as a state "religion" (for lack of a better word). Which, while the Catholic icon behind Mario's desk was certainly window dressing for him being Italian and in the Mafia, it was probably also a subtle nod toward that particular philosophy.

The fact that Scorsese even tried to get this speech on the screen in 1973 is absolutely stunning. It's a heartfelt plea for nuclear disarmament and the end of hostilities, (barely) disguised as a pair of mob bosses arguing over a matter of pride.

You really, really need to learn a little of the history of the Cold War to truly appreciate all the levels in this movie. It's no mistake that Goncharov is from the USSR, and if you don't know that background, you're missing so much.

oh my god, for real? i never saw the director's cut and i'm dying. you know what's between naples and moscow? the eastern european states the nuclear superpowers spent the 50s through the 80s squabbling over.

he didn't just parallel the cold war. he outright said the US and soviet governments are organized crime cartels.

no wonder the damn scene got cut.

Yeah, there's a lot in there that makes it kind of shocking it ever got released at all, instead of people just pretending it didn't exist.

Avatar
hartsnkises

Okay, but, and maybe I'm reading too much into it, that scene reminds me of the pre-WW1 negotiations. The Russian ambassador, I don't remember to where, tried SO HARD to keep war from breaking out. And when negotiations failed, he was sent out courteously (which obviously doesn't happen here). But the Cold War could have been WW3. In that context, this feels like not just a call to end hostilities, but a call to a more 'civilized' form of war

No, I think you make a really good point. And one thing important to remember in context is that Goncharov comes into this discussion at a disadvantage. His advisor has been forced into hiding, he’s on the hit list of a Mafia don’s son, and there’s dissension in his ranks. There are definitely some parallels there to Nicholas II, and the way WWI went down for Russia was a big motivation in him being forced to abdicate and then executed.

Avatar
reblogged

Broke: The fact that Goncharov lights Andrey's cigarette for him, with his own cigarette, with a hint of great affection, in a scene under the rainfall, symbolises his longing for the - entirely fictional - life he believes Andrey might offer him. And the fact that both of their cigarettes go out in a few seconds foreshadows how this destructive desire will ruin them both.

Woke: The cigarettes go out because they're standing in the rain with no umbrellas. It symbolises the fact that they're both really fucking stupid

Avatar
reblogged

ok just in case it needs to be said: we need to boycott the goncharov remake. don't engage with the marketing, don't watch it, don't post about it. just ignore it. i mean not only is it a slap in the face to true gonchheads to cast fucking timothee chalamet as goncharov, but apparently martin scorsese wasn't even consulted about any part of the process?? like he had to find out about it from twitter after the first teaser dropped. the whole thing a transparent cash grab by soulless studio executives. i know it's exciting to see a fresh take on your favorite movie, but not like this. just one example: judging by what zack snyder's been saying in interviews, they're cutting the entire subplot about andrey's grandfather's watch. yeah. the symbol that clarifies the entire thematic undercurrent of the story. that watch. basically it's looking like goncharov 2023 is going to be a huge mess and an insult to everything that made the original great. don't see this movie.

You are using an unsupported browser and things might not work as intended. Please make sure you're using the latest version of Chrome, Firefox, Safari, or Edge.