In the comments following this, on the proposed reality show Zoe Meets The Murgatroyds, Nikw211 replied,

Among the gems to savour are the endless factional disputes over exactly how capitalism should be toppled, feats of farcical mismanagement, an earnest exposition on “penile imperialism,” and interviews with former self-styled radicals, now sitting by private swimming pools, fretting about fridge ownership, or planning to work on llama farms.

For those with an interest in history, or indeed obliviousness, the three episodes are linked below.

Property is Theft.

The questionable pleasures of communal living. Specifically, a squatted street in Brixton. Contains scenes of waiting for utopia to materialise. And biohazard crockery. Oh, and the primal screaming commune at number 12.

Angry Wimmin.

In which, we’re told that lesbianism is an ideological duty, and that any woman can be a lesbian if she just tries hard enough, is mentored, and embraces the right kind of politics. A claim that has a somewhat self-serving quality, given the people making it.

A Lot of Balls.

The tale of a bewilderingly inept attempt in 1987 to launch a radical left wing tabloid, fuelled by the fever-dreams of Cambridge Marxists. The project was, unsurprisingly, a disaster, with its failure a direct result of ideological pretension. As illustrated by the scene in which, with the paper’s first edition about to go to press, most of the staff is out of the office on a deafness awareness day.

Consider this an open thread. Share ye links and bicker.

Further to this Rachel Zegler interview clip, recently doing the rounds, some thoughts from another “actress/activist”:

Indeed, the other sex often seems replaceable — if you're a young, single, childless, careerist. https://t.co/sx86se38yL

— Geoffrey Miller (@primalpoly) August 13, 2023

Ms Belcamino is “an American actress, musician, writer, and social media personality based in New York City. She is best known for her political commentary and viral dances on Twitter.”

She has a degree in mental health counselling.

Update, via the comments:

Regarding this:

Mags asks,

Readers are invited to ponder the conceit that a massively expensive film based on a classic tale for children should exist chiefly to “empower our movement,” i.e., to affirm the politics of mouthy, ungifted actresses. Rather than, say, to entertain children.

Still, I suppose it’s to be expected that obnoxious, narcissistic women should want to re-write a tale that, in its various original forms, is pretty much a warning against female narcissism and spite.

Update 2:

Min points us to this video by The Critical Drinker, titled, “How To Destroy Your Own Movie.”

It is, it has to be said, a strange way to promote an upcoming remake of a children’s classic – to wheel out an actress who boasts of having “hated” the original film, made by the same studio, and who disdains much of the story on which it’s based. And who does so seemingly on-message. Especially when the future of Disney, its very existence, is looking uncertain.

And as The Drinker and others have noted, the glib and joyless ‘strong female character’ trope now sounds much more hackneyed and cringeworthy than a tale in which unlikely friends are made and love is found, and in which a malevolent, magic-wielding queen is chased by dwarves and an entire forest of critters, before being crushed under a giant boulder, rightly, and then devoured by vultures.

The merits of the remake remain to be seen, of course – though given the star’s pronouncements, and Disney’s current trajectory, hopes of a triumph, a film that will be remembered fondly for the better part of a century, seem misplaced. The 1937 animated version may, however, reward rewatching. Seen as a child, the Evil Queen’s comeuppance – very much deserved – is quite something. Not least the vultures’ look of delight as they circle down towards her crushed remains. A pointed, lingering shot that slowly fades to black – now securely lodged in the memory.

Also, open thread.

From the comments, where a question is asked – and promptly answered:

Nope. https://t.co/FVOon2TJ4A

— The Critical Drinker (@TheCriticalDri2) July 20, 2023

Regarding which, John D replies,

Ah, but then those of a progressive inclination couldn’t piggy-back their Current Year politics onto someone else’s work, established over many decades. Plus, there’s lots of self-congratulatory subverting to be done. All that signalling about how antiquated and tiresome it is to have a white, male hero being daring and heroic. Because hey, nobody wants that.

The Screen Rant article, by Shaurya Thapa, is, it has to be said, not entirely persuasive. There’s some obligatory wittering about things from the past being “problematic” – among which, the fact that a film series about an iconic male character has always featured said male character:

Which does seem a bit like complaining that every season of the detective series Bosch features, among other things, a white, male detective named Harry Bosch.

But this is, we’re told, “the perfect time for a female Bond.”

A woman named James.

We’re also told, “A gendered spin on the character can open up more potential for exploring Bond’s individuality.” And this exploration of the character’s individuality will apparently be achieved by erasing a rather fundamental aspect of the character – his maleness – and replacing him with an entirely different person of a different sex.

Readers are invited to ponder whether similar transitions might enrich the character of, say, Miss Marple, who, via similar logic, could be depicted as male, and as always having been male. Thereby exploring her individuality. Answers on a postcard, please.

The recent, sex-swapped iteration of Doctor Who is invoked as a “positive example” on this front, as if Jodie Whittaker’s brief, unloved manifestation had been a rip-roaring success – despite the terrible writing and wildly unpopular retconning, both loudly derided by fans, and despite the subsequent, rapid death-spiral of viewing figures. Because boring and alienating much of your audience, and shrinking it dramatically, is a political triumph. A breath of “new life.”

Onwards and upwards!

Mr Thapa, by the way, has written over a thousand articles for Screen Rant. He claims many areas of expertise, and many “domains of knowledge,” including fact-checking. He also boasts of his “academic background,” details of which are, sadly, not divulged.

For devotees of the farcical and grotesque, a spot of history:

In the following video, quoted above, Professor James O’Flannery concludes his lively, somewhat unorthodox three-part lecture series on the Chinese Revolution. Or, to borrow one of his chapter headings, Our Turn Fuck Up World.

Needless to say, given the subject matter, some dark turns are taken. Notable moments include an explanation of the inevitability of sociopathy in communism; the pivotal role of hysterically self-righteous adolescents; and a lesson in demented street signage. Readers may also detect some, shall we say, contemporary resonance. And do watch to the end.

Parts one and two.

The professor’s lectures on the French and Russian Revolutions, the latter in three parts, are also recommended.

How drunk you should be while watching them is entirely your own business.

Little things. For instance,

Below the fold, you’ll find a short film by Rob Montz about Amy Wax, quoted above, a professor of law at the University of Pennsylvania.

Professor Wax has been mentioned here once or twice before. Generally regarding her observations of everyday phenomena that are seemingly unmentionable, at least on campus, and the performative indignation and outright hysteria that reliably ensues. As when students, supposedly adult intellectuals, claimed that the professor’s mere presence on campus was “physically and emotionally harming all of us,” with the law school’s Dean, Theodore Ruger, another supposed adult, invoking the “lasting trauma” of hearing her speak.

Notable moments in the film include Professor Glenn Loury summarising the inevitable consequences of “affirmative action” and wildly varying standards of admission – which, it seems, mustn’t be acknowledged realistically – and Professor Wax’s comment about the race-grifting “equity” establishment, and its opposite – gratitude.