The GardenA blog by yours truly

Stuff i watched recently, i forgor edition

A montage of the undermentioned works
  • Aniara (2018). I actually watched this one back in February, but forgot to mention it at the time 鈥 a Swedish hard(ish) sci-fi tragedy, where a colony ship on its way to Mars gets knocked off course with no fuel left to turn back. This is unrelentingly bleak, sometimes to the point where my brain would shut off and stopped caring, but there鈥檚 a lot to like.

    I love the idea of the Mima as a character/narrative device/whatever: a living AI that uses people鈥檚 memories to bring them back visions of Earth as it was, then gets depressed because too many people are using it and flooding it with memories of the apocalypse. Giving the holodeck a soul? Genius.

    Unfortunately it doesn鈥檛 so much end as it just fizzles out 鈥 i guess you could make a case that that鈥檚 on purpose, since that鈥檚 how these situations go in the real world, but i found the whole d茅nouement deeply unsatisfying excepting the veeeery final shots (if you know, you know). 6/10.

  • Anatomy of a Fall (2023). Caught this one at the Tyneside, where it happened to be the next film on at the time i got in. This spoke to me not just because of the powerhouse performances from Sandra H眉ller, a dog named Messi (how did they get him to do that?), and the fifteen-year-old(!!!) Milo Machado-Graner, who i wish nothing but the best in his future, but because it matches up with events in my life to a frankly concerning autobiographical extent. This would never, ever be in my wheelhouse were it not for random chance, but i teared up thrice over. 10/10, and i鈥檓 annoyed i couldn鈥檛 make it my best of last year.

    Ten seconds after watching鈥 Wait, people online think she killed the husband? Are they fucking stupid? What? It鈥檚 obviously an accident. Did we watch the same film? Did the cut they saw not have all those carefully-inserted moments where people almost fall off of ledges or get hit by cars to hammer home that accidents can, in fact, just happen? What?? I 鈥 am i just projecting my own experiences here and not wanting to believe that my mum would kill someone? And then if they don鈥檛 think she killed the husband, they鈥檙e like, oh, well the husband deserved it, he was so awful in that argument, and like, no!!! The mum in the film near enough turns to the camera and says 鈥渢he worst moments in someone鈥檚 life are unfairly cherry-picked as evidence for a trail and do not represent them as a whole鈥; again, did we watch the same bloody film? Are people stupid? Am i stupid? Is Justine Triet stupid? Am i dying?

  • Reservoir Dogs (1992). Mama鈥檚 pick for family movie night. Every time i watch a Tarantino film i really get the sense that he鈥檚 jacking off to how clever he is writing the script and this is that tendency at its worst. I get why it caught on, i really do, but this is absolutely insufferable from start to finish any time someone who鈥檚 not a cop is on screen. I do not care about your thoughts on Madonna鈥檚 鈥淟ike a Virgin鈥, Quentin! 3戮/10.

  • Monkey Man (2024). I have been hyped as shit for this ever since the first trailer came out. You can tell this is Sexiest Man Alive Dev Patel鈥檚 first time in the director鈥檚 chair (looooots of shaky-cam close-ups), but it鈥檚 damn stylish, and he shows a lot of promise. I can also see why Netflix did not want to touch this with a barge pole given that the plot is essentially 鈥淒ev Patel kills the BJP鈥. (It has some, ah, terroristic overtones that would be a little concerning if it were even 10% less shlocky.)

    That aside, i really enjoyed the film, and thought it got better as it went along 鈥 early on, i wasn鈥檛 super clear on the character motivations at play, but then the most me-bait thing since The Northman happens: Mr Patel鈥檚 character has a near-death-experience flashback and wakes up having been rescued by a hijra priest at a secret temple to Ardha­nari­shvara, a half-male, half-female incarnation of Shiva. Into! my! fucking! veins! 6陆/10.

  • De dolende god (2018), as seen previously on The Garden. This is pretty much designed to appeal to me specifically, and yeah, it鈥檚 really good. It鈥檚 sweet, heartfelt, absolutely gorgeous, and of course, extremely European. It鈥檚 the odd one out in this list, being a comic book rather than a film 鈥 a medium i don鈥檛 have much experience with, so it鈥檚 hard to give it a numerical rating in the absence of comparisons鈥 but let鈥檚 say 8/10.

Ranking the sciences by how evil they are

11. Biologists

I actually think in their heart of hearts all biologists want to be mad scientists. The problem is that they鈥檙e really bad at it. You try attaching a chimp鈥檚 head to a man 鈥 that鈥檚, what, half a casualty? That鈥檚 nothing! Even if you put the tinfoil hat on and say, ah, but lab leaks and viruses and whatnot 鈥 if we鈥檙e going to rank the sciences on their ability to do a pandemic, covid isn鈥檛 a particularly good showing when all most people under 90 remember of it is being really bored, sticking uncomfortable Q-tips up their nose, and baking sourdough bread.

They鈥檙e in dead last because of all the sciences in this list, biology has the largest negative kill count, having saved billions of lives and thus making themselves known as utterly incompetent at being evil.

10. Astronomers

Like biologists, every astronomer dreams of waking up to an imminent asteroid impact. (This isn鈥檛 a particularly secret ambition, either.) They鈥檝e read and written all the sci-fi lit there is, and theoretically have a pretty good grasp on how to destroy the world.

Un­for­tu­nately when a mad astronomer says the world will end it carries the same tenor and believability of that snotty-nosed kid on the playground saying his uncle works for Nintendo. A gamma-ray burst will end all life on Earth? When鈥檚 that, sweetie? Oh? Two trillion years from now? That鈥檚 nice, dear. Ooooh, an asteroid that has a 0.001% chance of passing by the moon? Terrifying.

9. Computer scientists

If they really wanted to, the computer scientists definitely could kill everyone and break all electronics forever. Un­for­tu­nately they鈥檇 be out of a job if they did that, so i don鈥檛 think we have much to worry about.

8. Sociologists

The good news for sociologists is that they are, genuinely, completely fucking insane. The bad news is that they don鈥檛 even know how to write a paper with replicable results, let alone take over the world. If they ever figure out how to distinguish a fake article about toxic masculinity in dog parks from a real article about toxic masculinity in dog parks they might move up a bit in the ranks.

7. Linguists

This is actually a statistical error caused by Spiders Noam and should be ignored.

6. Psychologists

Psychologists have really fallen off since the initial publication of the Haber鈥揌aber Scale of Scientific Evil back in 1932. They used to rip monkeys from their families and put them in cages, get people to administer lethal electric shocks, put people in prison for the lulz 鈥 now, alas, they seem content to let their perfectly developed evil skillset go to waste and futz around figuring out how to make people subscribe to emails instead. Sad!

5. Chemists

Chemists are great at doing evil. They can make poisons, kill people with radiation, pretend 鈥溛-(5,6-Di­methyl­benzi­mida­zo­lyl)co­ba­mid­cyan­ide鈥 is a totally normal thing to say 鈥 the list goes on! The main thing bringing them down is that they don鈥檛 seem at all interested in doing evil. They know the nega-utils from working at big pharmaceutical companies are going to the economists here, right?

4. Physicists

Ah, physics, the 鈥渇uck around and find out鈥 of the sciences, whose practitioners never met a death, destroyer of worlds they didn鈥檛 like. Ever since the atom bomb they鈥檝e been a consistent presence in the upper tier, and it鈥檚 not hard to see why. Even when they鈥檙e not literally killing millions, they鈥檙e sticking heads in particle accelerators, developing new and innovative ways to undo the fundamental forces of the universe, and causing chaos among the general population by convincing them their collider would destroy the universe. Their fourth place position says more about the quality of those who ranked ahead of them than any faults of physics specifically.

3. Mathematicians

Mathematicians are barely holding on to their humanity. They haven鈥檛 seen the sunlight in days. They think quantum physics is just too soft and people-y. In this lies their danger: the possibility that they might snap.

Take Grigori Perelman, a mild example. He was a prodigy, proving conjectures that had stood unproven for hundreds of years 鈥 and then, at the apex of his career, the million-dollar prize鈥 he just stopped. He just left the field, became a hermit, and was never seen again. Mr Perelman鈥檚 story is the best-case scenario.

The worst-case scenario? Well 鈥 the real reason mathematics is so high is that they have the dubious distinction of being the only field on this list to have spawned an actual terrorist. If it were up to me, i鈥檇 keep the mathematicians under 24/7 CCTV surveillance.

2. Economists


1. Geologists

Geologists? What? Surely they鈥檇 be at the bottom: all they do is study rocks!

That was my thinking too. But then i thought about it. And thought about it. And uncovered the dark secret of geology. No, they can鈥檛 make earthquakes happen on demand, or turn themselves into lava. That鈥檚 theory. But what of applied geology?

Applied geology has other names. Chief among them: mining, fracking, and drilling. The geologist plan is a slow burn. They dig, and dig, and dig, guzzling up all the coal and oil they can muster, spewing their flames into the atmosphere. And by the time anyone noticed鈥 it wasn鈥檛 their problem anymore. Oh, they say, that鈥檚 not us, that鈥檚 Nasa, that鈥檚 the biologists, that鈥檚 the economists, it could never be us humble innocent rock nerds. But they know. They know, deep down, that when the last forest burns itself up, when the last city falls into the sea 鈥 the geologists will look over the rubble, and the geologists will be king.

Mx Tynehorne鈥檚 link roundup, volume XXIX

The greatest impulse purchase in history

Step 1: Go on Wikipedia, as one does.

Step 2: Notice the following item in the 鈥渄id you know鈥 section.

Did you know鈥 that Fabrizio Dori wants his comic book 芦Il dio vagabondo禄 to bring attention to an ancient Greek view of death?

Step 3: (See Figure 1.)

A biology textbook diagram labelled "Monkey *sees* action"/"Neuron activation"
Figure 1

Step 4: Activate dedicated hyperlink-clicking neuron that has evolved after years of online brain poisoning.

Step 5: Oh my god the main character is a satyr who lives in a tent in the suburbs.

Step 6: Oh my god it鈥檚 beautifully illustrated. (See Figure 2.)

A comic illustrated in a colourful style reminiscent of Ancient Greek pottery
Figure 2

Step 7: Begin seriously weighing up the possibility of The Greatest Impulse Purchase In History.

Step 8: Ctrl-F 鈥淓nglish鈥. No results.

Step 9: Wallow in non-Italian-speaking misery.

Step 10: Ctrl-F 鈥淒utch鈥 as a last-ditch effort. You have been meaning to brush up on it鈥

Step 11: Oh my god they did a Dutch translation before an English one.

Step 12: Google 鈥渁mazon鈥 even though you know the URL.

Step 13: Click onto Amazon and look up the Dutch name of the comic.

Step 14: Find out there is one (1) copy left in stock.

Step 15: Look at the price.

Step 16:

Step 17: Pretend you didn鈥檛.

Step 18: Buy anyway.

Step 19: Notice that they鈥檝e finally gotten rid of that 2003-ass UI in the purchase phase.

Step 20: You have now completed The Greatest Impulse Purchase In History. It will be there in a week.

Stuff i watched recently, Marchuary edition

Letterboxd screenshot of a list of 鈥渕ovies about spice worlds鈥, with the two adaptations of 鈥淒une鈥 and 鈥淪pice World鈥
  • Star Trek: The Next Generation, season three. How did i let myself not get around to this earlier鈥 This is soft sci-fi running at peak performance 鈥 a crew of hyper-competent and endearing1 people on a starship, sometimes just going on wacky space adventures, other times using science fiction as a lens through which to view our own world. 10/10. My three favourite episodes so far:
    1. 鈥淭in Man鈥. Our character actor of the week, Harry Groener, plays a member of a mildly telepathic species who has a small problem: he has Space Autism, thus can鈥檛 turn said telepathy off. Man, does this episode get it. Every little thing about him is painfully relatable, the ending reduced me to tears, and i would like seven seasons of a buddy cop spinoff show starring him and Data right now, please and thank you.
    2. 鈥淭he Survivors鈥. The third episode in the season, this is the one that made me sit up and go: God damn, that鈥檚 good television. Our character of the week, John Anderson, is the man of the house for an elderly couple who are the only ones left after the decimation of their planet. I can鈥檛 reveal anything more than that, but he sells it like no枚ne else could.
    3. 鈥淒eja Q鈥. This one鈥檚 just funny.
  • The Revenant (2015). Stepdad鈥檚 pick for family movie night. When the credits rolled, i thought it one of the best films i鈥檇 ever seen鈥 but a few weeks on, i鈥檓 not so sure. The cinematography is epic, and Tom Hardy鈥檚 brilliant, no doubt, but i really feel more could have been mined from the premise. Leonardo DiCaprio鈥檚 half-Pawnee son in particular is the heart of the film, and the key role through which to interpret the conflict between the three warring groups, but he gets unceremoniously killed off halfway through, for no other reason than to bolster Mr Hardy鈥檚 villain cred and, i am left to infer, because the writers had no idea what to do with his character for the rest of the story. Mr DiCaprio himself goes completely overboard and could really take Lawrence Olivier鈥檚 advice to heart: 鈥淢y dear boy, have you tried just acting?鈥 6陆/10.
  • True Stories (1986). My pick for family movie night. This sweet and mild-mannered musical comedy is David Byrne鈥檚 only director credit, and that鈥檚 a damned shame. Most places call it a satire, and i can鈥檛 help but think they鈥檙e projecting. This is a genuine ode to small-town American life, whatever its pros and whatever its cons, and next time i鈥檓 sick, i know exactly what i鈥檒l be putting on. 8/10.2
  • The Wicker Man (1973). Figured i鈥檇 watch a whimsical musical from the seventies in preparation for the next one on the list. Great vibes, great music, great ending, great showing from the legendary Christopher Lee3, but good heavens, is our main character ever an unsympathetic, bigoted prick. He鈥檚 stumbled on a conspiracy to murder, and he just won鈥檛 let go of the fact that he saw some NEKKID WIMMEN prancing around a henge! 7/10.
  • Wonka (2024). Mama鈥檚 pick for family movie night. This is a bad idea for a movie and they should not have made it. That鈥檚 fine, though: lots of good films make poor ideas on paper. This isn鈥檛 one of them. Timoth茅e Chalamet is terrible! You never once buy him as anything other than Timoth茅e Chalamet in a hat. He鈥檚 far too much of a goody two-shoes 鈥 not a droplet of the sinister nature of Gene Wilder and Johnny Depp鈥檚4 Wonk忙 is anywhere to be found. 3/10.
  • An American Werewolf in London (1981). Stepdad鈥檚 pick for family movie night. A bit of a throwaway, but there鈥檚 some good stuff in here, especially the titular American Werewolf (Who Went Hiking In The North But For Some Reason Is Taken To A Hospital) In London鈥檚 zombified friend. 6/10.
  • I鈥檓 Thinking of Ending Things (2020). Shades of Tenet and Asteroid City here: it鈥檚 not Charlie Kaufman at his best, but it is Charlie Kaufman at his most, and he may have finally metatexted too close to the sun. Some really interesting stuff spread out over a turgidly paced first and second acts and a completely nonsensical third. I presume Jesse Plemons鈥檚 directions were just 鈥減retend to be Philip Seymour Hoffman鈥. 5/10.
  • Dune Reloaded / Dune 2: Dune Harder / D2NE (2024). Seen in Imax. A titanic achievement that improves upon the often unfeeling first in every way. I take back everything i said about Wonka 鈥 Mr Chalamet is magnetic in a way that cements him as the zoomer generation鈥檚 first true movie star. Every gushing ten-star review you鈥檝e heard is true. See it now on the biggest screen you can, with bass that shakes the leather in your seat, because you鈥檒l never forgive yourself if you don鈥檛. 9/10, with that final point conditional on the inevitable third part hitting the mark.

Mx Tynehorne鈥檚 link roundup, volume XXVIII

60% or so of uploads of 鈥淭ainted Love鈥 on Youtube have the 馃憦锔忦煈忥笍 muffled to a damp squib, and it鈥檚 always a game of Russian roulette trying to listen to it. A very, very mild game of Russian roulette. Belarusian roulette, maybe.

Mx Tynehorne鈥檚 link roundup, volume XXVII

I started watching Star Trek: The Next Generation recently 鈥 starting at season three, of course, as i was repeatedly advised 鈥 and i鈥檓 positively kicking myself for not doing it earlier. This is bloody good television (except Wesley, but i imagine they give up and throw him out the airlock at some point), and only now do i realise how often i have stood on the shoulders of giants without even knowing it鈥

(Data鈥檚 the best character. Obviously. He鈥檚 literally me鈩.)

In praise of mustelids

An old etching of a European otter

Hail, the mustelid! Greatest family of the animal kingdom, nay, the eukaryote demesne. They are nigh universally cute 鈥 a charming sausage shape 鈥 and often small, but unlike their tam猫d brers and sisters in Canid忙 and Felid忙, they have never succumbed to human domestication and demeaning.1

Indeed, they are deceptively mighty for their size; the least weasel, an accurate name if there ever was one, proudly squeaks as the smallest carnivore on land, and with its mighty jaw can take down a rabbit ten times its greater, or even, should you believe the ancient Greeks, a basilisk. (So goes it for the otter, too: a lutra lutra might never look like it has a single thought running through its head, but show it to a streamful of fish, and you will witness a bloodbath that would make Tamerlane blush.)

I might myself take a broader view of the term and insert an O in that mustelid, bringing us up to the dynasty Musteloidea, where not only weasels, martens, and otters roam, but the mischievous American raccoon, the adorable red panda, and the e鈥檈r-defensive skunk. But the title says 鈥渕ustelids鈥, and i am not one to argue with my fifteen-minutes-ago self, so in our little kindred we shall remain.

A last thing to note before we return to pathetic Pr墨m膩t膿s, the greatest thing in all the family, the peak of all the realm of life, the chief reason among chief reasons that mustelids are the best:

They all sound like squeaky toys.

Stuff i watched recently

A still from 鈥淧oor Things鈥
Poor Things (2023)
  • Some Like It Hot (1959). My pick for family movie night. I鈥檝e been accused of being a bit of a 鈥渕iserabilist鈥 (i鈥檓 sorry, but Synecdoche, New York bangs, and i have no regrets on making them watch it), so i thought i鈥檇 kick the year off with something a bit funny, a bit light-hearted, and a bit gay, and cor, was this an absolute classic! A comedy from the fifties about two men cross-dressing to infiltrate a women鈥檚 jazz band should be positively radioactive, but this misses all the potential pipelines of 鈥渨ell, you know, back in the day鈥︹ sewage and instead hits a gold-mine of timeless commentary on gender relations. I鈥檓 on Team Daphne 鈥 he鈥檚 so much more confident in being a woman than Josephine and does not deserve that terrible toad man. (And, having seen both this and Rear Window, i can finally weigh in: Grace Kelly is a thousand times prettier than Marilyn Monroe. Sorry.) An instant 10/10.
  • 鈥淣o枚ne knows who created skull trumpet (until now)鈥. Had to click this as soon as it appeared on my feed. There鈥檚 really something beautiful about the amateurism of the early web, how a woman with no formal training in graphic design or anything of the sort could make all these wonderful, whimsical images, and have one of them persist into the present day. Rest in peace, Cathy Jarboe, you beautiful diamond, you. 6陆/10.
  • The Master (2012). Mama鈥檚 pick for family movie night. Philip Seymour Hoffman is incredible in this as an L. Ron Hubbard鈥搒tyle cult leader, to the extent that you often find yourself agreeing with him 鈥 i totally get why people join these sort of things now. Joaquin Phoenix, on the other hand鈥 man, i hate to say it, but i might be falling off the Phoenix train? He鈥檚 always doing that same snivelling Joker thing, even when it鈥檚 totally inappropriate like in Napoleon, and it鈥檚 getting kind of old. Joaquin Phoenix Play A Character With Social Skills Challenge (Impossible). Paul Thomas Anderson directs the shit out of this. 6/10.
  • The Hudsucker Proxy (1994). Rewatched with mama.1 Loved it even more than the first time, especially Jennifer Jason Leigh鈥檚 character. Just a terribly good-natured film that only sits in obscurity because of its obsequious title. It鈥檚 a shame Tim Robbins disappeared after this 鈥 i looked up his filmography and he seems to have been in bomb after bomb (Green Lantern, Mission to Mars鈥). 9/10.
  • Poor Things (2023, but didn鈥檛 come out until 2024 here). Watched at the Tyneside. I鈥檇 been eagerly awaiting this since i saw the bonkers trailer back in September, and it didn鈥檛 disappoint. There was a moment 15% of the way through where i thought i might walk out, but good lord, did it ever win me back over! Bella Scissorhands goes on a steampunk adventure across Europe filled with childlike whimsy, discovers herself, has lots of sex, and winds up Mark Ruffalo. Everyone is absolutely brilliant in this 鈥 special commendation to Willem Dafoe as a Scottish mad scientist. Already the strong front-runner for my favourite of the year. 9/10.

Mx Tynehorne鈥檚 link roundup, volume XXVI

A collage of two film stills 鈥 in one, an astronaut exits a capsule illuminated by Neptune鈥檚 deep blue; in the other, a rover rides around the vivid crimson hills of Mars
If Neptune isn鈥檛 really that blue, can we at least put it in the club with Mars, where we just pretend it鈥檚 that bright because it looks cooler in movies? (Top: Ad Astra; bottom: The Martian)