The book is only around 165 pages along with an appendix with the private fragments/notes of Lincoln, the book focusing on twelve. The pages have a lot of photos and background material. There is not too much focus specifically on analyzing the material. I'm not really sure how much it all adds though it's an interesting idea. Given all the Lincoln books, that's something.
One thing about Lincoln. Some call him out as a racist or something, but the key thing for him was to call out the basic evil of slavery. That seemed to be the particularly horrible thing for him about the Kansas-Nebraska Act. And, Douglas' "don't care" position on slavery. Realistically, slavery would not be spread much after that law, but the problem was the message sent. It was sort of a new beginning on some level for slavery. Lincoln also said he was concerned about slavery going national. But, the evils of slavery itself is what stands out. And, that was a big deal.
Paul: After that, I skimmed through a short book that argues Paul is a positive figure, using Greek and Roman sources to compare his message to the existing culture. It's by Sarah Ruden, the translator of various works, including a new translation of the gospels.
I think it's a good approach though the Greek and Roman sources got tiresome after a while. Plus, she assumes Acts of Apostles is truly bibliographical without the degree of grain of salt that warrants. Finally, since I was skimming a collection of early Christian fathers writings (Didache included), her saying there was no good evidence of her getting to Spain without commenting on the implication of the early Clement (c. 95) suggesting that annoyed. She's not really a biblical scholar though.
And, the author does a half-way good job to show Paul is better than his reputation, basically coming off as reformer. One way to go about this is to show the evils he was addressing and using the Greek to mean something narrower than the translations often seem to cover. So, "fornication" is more like "sex with prostitutes," who are regularly abused. The verses on homosexuality is abusive anal rape. He wasn't against parties, to cite one words, but reckless revels. And, he had a pretty evenhanded view of marriage. Plus, his Christianity has a positive redemptive view.
I think Ruden over does it some. She notes "fornication" is really too broad, but then basically shows that Paul actually does speak against all sex outside of marriage. He rather people remain celibate really. Not just giving people a choice, which she highlights as a positive given the stress of a fixed view of marriage responsibility. It's marriage or celibacy. And, yes, you can separate if the marriage doesn't work out. But, you can't re-marry. That isn't that idea.
Finally, I'm not sure how limited (putting aside a realistic view of homosexuality in that age) all those prohibitions truly are overall. They are rather absolute sounding. Ruden cites a Paul verse about following the government's will and suggests he is specifically concerned about the military, which she spins as basically the best part of the government. This is the sort of trying hard. Paul's one epistle about a slave does comes off well, but really it's just one letter. The book as a whole in less than two hundred pages and a lot of Greek/Roman citations. Incomplete.
(I have since the NYPL re-opened later last year have only picked up reserves. Limited browsing began in May. There was a small new book collection near the reserves and I picked one up. This is the first time I did that since March, 2020. The small library right near me is still closed.)
====
Television: I continue to watch some Friends, including some of the 10th season, which I have criticized. Still don't like some of the plot material, but there are some nice moments. It is the one DVD set, aside from one season with a documentary, where we actually hear from the cast. It would have been nice if "Ross," who directed something like ten episodes provided commentary to at least one of them. Be interesting.
Note: Below is an extended soft porn review. Maybe, it will get some hits.
Late Nite: Swipe Right for Sex is a new entry among the "After Hours" entries on demand for Showtime. It actually starts with a bit of plot -- a couple breaks up when the guy is upset that his girlfriend wants to move in. Each tries the dating app, which starts with the guy's friend writing his profile for him with information that doesn't match. The woman is a better fit for him, leading to some causal sex.
This is again dealt with at least a minimal degree of actual acting/writing. The main woman and the first actress for sex also are not fake looking types, and from what I can tell the hook-up is not filled with tattoos like is common these days. Obviously, they are still porn actresses, but as with a minimal amount of plot/credible dialogue, I personally like them to not look totally fake (boobs, tattoos, seriously tanned etc.)
Thee second match-up had a creepy looking bald headed dude with tattoos and the lead's slutty friend, who still looked pretty normal if somewhat more tanned. The third match-up had a more fake looking big boobed "model" -- see below -- who was completely tanned but she was okay basically without tattoos. Both had some dialogue lead-ins, including bad dates for the woman and a more intellectual date this time for the guy. The film offers a bit of comic relief -- I appreciate it making a bit of an effort.
With a few minutes of pre-sex stuff each time, the first three sex scenes took until post an hour into the movie. We are talking long if not showing much, this being soft porn. A lot of woman moaning. A lot of focus on the boobs and chest. The first one had a lot of pounding noises, so one wonders if (as there sometimes is) there is a harder cut. A little of the sex goes a long way, though creativity in these movies isn't that often seen.
(One threesome in the "Double Booked" film was pretty creative there as was some scenes in a film involving a sex story based radio show set-up. The "Sex Life Crisis" lesbian one also had a bit of creativity in a scene or two. Others probably can come to mind. But, the current batch of Showtime films here don't really.)
Plus, the film started with a long disclaimer, which was both interesting and a bit amusing. First, it contains adult language and content. Well, that's a surprise. It is not suitable for anyone under 18. Hey, now. No absolutes. It may not be suitable even for all adults. All "models" (is that the term now?) are over 18 and consented. It is a "visual production" that is fantasy and not to be taken seriously. So, not a serious work of art?
All references to family relationships are purely fictional. That was interesting. And, "there is no actual relation of any kind between performers in this film." That's a curious phrasing. Plus, It is meant for fantasy purposes only. Long disclaimer! I have checked out various of these films, at least to watch a bit, and most don't have a disclaimer. In the past, a few might have a brief one about people being over 18 or something. Nothing like that.
(The only reference to a family relationship in this cut at least is an early reference to the lead woman's friend having sex with two members of the same family. It was a brief reference and no actual visual. Maybe, the disclaimer is a standard one for the films of this production company.)
Back to the plot. Turns out the guy was too into the sex and agreed in the heat of the moment when the woman said they should move in together. Plot twist! And, it turns out the woman is a tad unhinged (is the Fatal Attraction allusion something people these days would catch? but again, I appreciate the attempt). Would be the one with the most fake looking tits and everything. Ha. So, the guy goes to hide out in his ex's place, she noting the irony about the guy not wanting to move in doing that.
Soon they are having sex. She's big boobed but again free of tattoos and is the lightest of the bunch skin tone-wise. There seems to be a bit more kissing but then the standard things. Moaning. There is eventually among some of the rubbing (it's somewhat unclear where the penetration is supposed to be in some of these scenes) an fairly extended show of some pubic hair. Which for me personally is appreciated.
I think the first and last sex scenes are the best, each women attractive in their own ways. The first has one sorta blah tattoo on her arm but nice long black hair and cute little tits. Some long shots showed she was a bit too skinny but her arms suggests she works out some. The last had tits a bit too big but again her skin tone, lack of visual tattoos, pubic hair, long dirty blonde hair and cute voice all were draws. The last sex scene is somewhat more interesting. It too could have been shorter.
The movie ends with the woman saying he can keep his toothbrush in the guest bathroom. One wonders what happens to the slightly unhinged woman who we last saw at his place. Maybe, like the first woman, he will pass her off to his friend. Anyway, decent movie. Not too much, but some plot. Credible acting. Mixture of women, not providing an overdose of boobs and tattoos. LONG if somewhat boring sex scenes.
[I found some video of the film online and like other films there are more explicit cuts with penetration. The soft porn cuts of these films are sorta boring and of course don't show penis. I found one video online with about thirty minutes of the film and there was penetration with use of a condom.]
Other Films: I saw (on DVD) the Alfred Hitchcock film 39 Steps, with an actor in multiple films I have seen (he was also the lead in Goodbye, Mr. Chips). It was an enjoyable film as a whole with a neat reveal (if not too surprising). Good pacing and some very good scenes, including with supporting players such as a young wife of an older cynical evangelical farmer.
It is somewhat unbelievable someone who apparently is just some innocent every man was able to hold his own so much, but dramatic license and all that. Also, an early use of a helicopter or something; not quite the crop plane in the Cary Grant movie, but some might have thought about that. But, this was a mid-1930s film, so long before that.
---
I saw the beginning of The Phantom President (1932), also on DVD, which had a "look alike" plot involving a too serious presidential candidate being replaced with a look alike medicine man (we see his show, including a bit involving him in black face); both are played by the showman George Cohan.
He's a logical age as a candidate, but is rather old for his love interest played by Claudette Colbert (about twenty years younger, made more apparent since Cohan looks like a stolid 50s business man). Jimmy Durante plays the showman's partner. The beginning has some charm and good wordplay, but got a bit bored with it so turned it off once the campaign began.
---
The Svengoolie film tonight is Curse of the Cobra, which I liked ("fun") when I saw it five years ago.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your .02!