The Danish director and screenwriter Lars von Trier destroys the Earth in the opening moments of his drama-psychological thriller film, Melancholia. The destruction of the Earth, in exquisite slow motion, comes at the very end of a series of gorgeous, hyper slo-mo shots that recall the opening of Antichrist. These shots are moments of time in the end of our world, physically and emotionally. Many of the shots are representations of the emotional states of the characters later in the film, while some are heightened versions of the reality of Earth’s end. All are stunning and deserve to be seen on the biggest screen imaginable.

 

The film is split into two parts, Justine and Claire. The first part is about the wedding reception of Justine, played with raw vulnerability by the mesmerizing Kirsten Dunst. The reception is ruined as Justine’s clinical depression slowly destroys her over the course of the evening.

 

 Dunst truly is very incredible here and von Trier’s script gives her so much to work with. It is the most heartbreaking depiction of severe depression I have ever seen, but it doesn’t end there; von Trier is just as interested in how others deal with the depression. And so we have her new husband, played by a highly generic Alexander Skarsgård, trying to buy her joy by showing her the plot of beautiful land he has purchased. We see her father (a great, great performance by John Hurt) ignoring her pain. We see her boss totally oblivious to what she’s going through and trying to force her to work on her wedding night. Her brother-in-law tries to bargain with her, offering her an expensive party in exchange for happiness. Her nasty mother is a vision from the future warning her what she will become.

And then there’s Claire, her sister, played by the beautiful Charlotte Gainsbourg. She tries so hard to work around Justine’s depression, but in the end she is worn down by it. ‘Sometimes I hate you so much,’ she spits at her sister, frustrated at the way the mental illness keeps them so apart. It’s saddening and it’s honest; while the two actresses don’t look at all like they’re related, they play off of each other with subtle grace. A real relationship like this is rocky and filled with love and hate, and the two stars are perfect.

 

Justine’s section is surprisingly funny. von Trier finds several moments of comedy, black and otherwise, and weaves it through the reception. He has a wry, detached view of the silliness of the rituals of marriage and of how seriously everyone takes having a good time.

That first part hurtles to a universe destruction of a very personal kind. The last part gets much more literal. Where Justine suffers from extreme depression, Claire suffers from anxiety and the sudden appearance of a new blue planet, Melancholia, which is on a ‘fly-by’ path with Earth, doesn’t help. Justine has collapsed into a complete, debilitating depression while Claire freaks out about the possibility of Melancholia and Earth colliding. Meanwhile her husband is a scientific rationalist and is ecstatic about the approach of the new planet and he fully believes the scientists who say Melancholia will harmlessly pass us by.

 

The two parts of the film feel distinct. Justine's filled with shaky close-ups whilst Claire has an icy blueness to it; what’s interesting is that these styles feel like they should be transposed. But that would be obvious, and the jittery camerawork in Justine gives an energy to that half, while the composed coldness of Claire makes Gainsbourg’s slow panic meltdown feel all the stronger.
Gainsbourg is amazing in the film, but she ends up overshadowed by the truly bravura performance from Dunst. There’s a lot of snark towards Dunst out there, but the truth is that when challenged and in the right material she is capable of amazing things. She delivers amazing things in this film, living Justine’s pain while also letting us understand why the people in her life love her. She makes Justine’s emotional agony very real, but also digestible. Dunst isn’t doing emotional porn here - which maybe could cost her come Oscar time, when a big, melodramatic scene is worth more than two hours of subtle, subdued and honest acting.

 

That science fiction seriousness is a nice touch (I really think von Trier handles the parceling of information about Melancholia about perfectly, making it feel concrete w/o bending the narrative over to fit things in), but the real honesty of the film is emotional. von Trier’s empathy towards these sisters is deep, but he doesn’t let that cloud his film with sentimentality. His treatment of depression is honest and thoughtful and fair. Melancholia is a very beautiful film tinged with sadness, but it left me feeling extremely exhilarated about the state of the art of cinema and science fiction.

References:

http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117945258/
http://ibyen.dk/film/anmeldelser/ECE1286284/dom-trier-har-skabt-et-aestetisk-originalt-overfloedighedshorn/
http://cineuropa.org/newsdetail.aspx?documentID=148856http://www.festival-cannes.com/assets/Image/Direct/042199.pdf
http://www.dfi.dk/Nyheder/NyhederFraDFI/2010/Stoette-til-Caroline-Mathildes-aar-og-Melancholia.aspx
http://www.dfi.dk/Service/English/News-and-publications/FILM-Magazine/Artikler-fra-tidsskriftet-FILM/72/The-Only-Redeeming-Factor-is-the-World-Ending.aspx

You’ve probably seen the craze for learning code. But what exactly is coding? Coding is what makes it possible for us to create computer websites, apps and softwares. Your browser, your OS, the apps on your phone, Facebook, and this blog– they’re all made with code.

Learning coding empowers you to do a lot of stuff you would not otherwise be able to do. These things include crafting your own website, becoming a coder or even starting a technology business. Most importantly, you’ll be able to understand the technology shaping your world very well.
You have certainly heard or read somewhere that everyone needs to learn coding, right? Well, people say that for a reason! Whether you’re looking for a career in the industry, starting a new hobby or just wanting to understand technology, you can benefit from learning coding.
Here are some of the things that learning coding can empower you to do:

Make Your Own Website:

If you own a business, a website is a must. If you don’t, you still may want a personal blog or portfolio site to sell your products or skills to employers. Your ability to create and maintain a website is severely limited unless you learn HTML and CSS code, the code that all websites run on. 

Become a Career Coder:

Looking for a career change? The humble computer programmer is quite possibly one of the most underrated professions out there. The demand for coders far exceeds the supply, so you’ll have no troubles finding a job. In fact, it’s projected to grow at a rate of 30% between 2010 and 2020. That’s twice as fast as most other jobs.

Understand How Computers Work:

This is the biggest benefit of all, and the one that will apply to you no matter who you are or why you’re interested in learning code. After all, you use the Internet, mobile phones, computers and software in your daily life. Isn’t it kinda strange that you do not fully understand how these technologies work?

Understanding how software and coding works is definitely valuable for anyone, in any walk of life. On the next posts, you’ll get a glimpse into how coding really works.

What does Bobo mean? The term is short for bourgeois and bohemian, two social castes no one ever expected to find mixed up together.

Bobo takes over where the old "gauche caviar," or caviar socialist, left off. Less political and more materialistic, French Bobos tend to design their lifestyles in a mix that includes the rarest luxuries, middle-class classics, senior citizen string-collecting strategies and student-style cheap n' chic. 

 

 

Just because Bobos are quite wealthy doesn't mean they have to wear cashmere. And when they haven't a fortune to spend, Bobos will invest in the very latest technology or an exotic trip and feel privileged despite a shoestring budget. Bobos basically have what money can not buy: almost total freedom of choice. 

Bobo sightings began in the French press in the early 00s, but almost all the reports failed to acknowledge that the term doesn't have its origins in France. It comes from a book by David Brooks called "Bobos in Paradise: The New Upper Class and How They Got There".

Brooks's definition of the group as "highly educated folk who have one foot in the bohemian world of creativity and another foot in the bourgeois realm of ambition and worldly success" outlines the happy state of contradiction Bobos enjoy on both sides of the Atlantic.

I personally consider Bobos as a 'godsend' for fashion. The French aren't technically the world's most dedicated consumers, but French Bobos seem more eager than most to pick up on the latest trends, be it the "trottinette" (scooter), cashmere teddy bears, Prada Sport sneakers or anything on the ground floor of Colette in Paris. 

Behind Paris's Bobo phenomenon is a long-standing desire by the French not to be pigeonholed as straightforward fashion consumers. It's intriguing to see that citizens of the country that serves as the platform for so much fashion innovation are so finicky when it comes to new trends. 

While Italians, Americans or Japanese are capable of putting themselves out head first into the fairly new, the French — and particularly 'Les parisiens' — prefer to wait securely in the lines that run around the Hermes store during its sales. There they are sure to find the clothes that give them that timeless look so celebrated all over the globe. 

French Bobos break the mold a little bit. Mixing old-school with the latest Fendi and perhaps something trendy from the up-to-the-minute and inexpensive Parisian label Paul & Joe, young Parisian women are looking fresher than ever before. But, rest assured, faithfully over their shoulder is an Hermes Birkin bag, or another equally timeless item.

The 1980s: A marvelous time filled w/ mainstream cinema that patronized such off-the-wall ideas as the possibility that skateboarding might help fight crime, that high school-aged kids are pretty worthy of the epic adventure treatment and even that aliens are somehow our friends. That era might be over, but it has not been forgotten, especially at Brooklyn’s own BAMcinématek, which is kicking off a massive new screening series that seeks to spotlight the independent films of the neglected decade between the golden age of the seventies' New Hollywood and the indie boom of the nineties

As a child of the 00s, previous decades seem almost mythical to me. I have only experienced the aftermath and the reputation that they have been granted. Because of this I like to think that I have much less nostalgia towards anything before the 80s. Here's a list of my top 5 favourite 80's films:

Seventeen (1983):

Formose documentary in the vein of Frederick Weisman or the Maysles Brothers. Makes you feel the time, viscerally, and teaches us about who we are and like a portal into the past, we can still learn a lot. Nicely done, Joel Demott, much appreciate you recording that small time in history. 

Koyaanisqatsi (1982): 

This film is absolutely a breathtaking visual essay and a piece of film history. In spite the lack of dialogue, plot or other common elements it's still enthralling. It will still keep you glued to your seat and show you an insightful new perspective on the world as it is today (and as it was when the movie was filmed). A great film that everyone should watch (along with Samsara) and a surprisingly good piece to leave on in the background.

Sid and Nancy (1986):

I think Sid & Nancy might just be the best rock-based biographical film yet done. Better than Oliver Stone's The Doors, better than last year's dismal Brian Jones flick whose name isn't worthy of being repeated here. The reason Sid & Nancy rises above the rest can be summed up in one word: talent. Sid & Nancy is the result of a passionate filmmaker getting near-perfect performances from his well-chosen cast, of welding great music and attention-grabbing scenery to a modern tragedy that touches many emotions. The result is a five-star film.

Scarface (1983):

This remake of the 1932 classic has become a virtual synonym for over-the-top violence, profanity and amorality. This reputation isn't entirely undeserved. Still, those who see only the mahyem are missing a very sad, gripping, and dead-on-the-money tale of ambition and hubris. Al Pacino is at his absolute best, and is supported by a phenomenal cast. You probably won't find parts of this movie easy to watch (the chainsaw-in-the-shower scene is as much a part of movie folklore as "Here's lookin' at you, Kid), but it's a work of genius for both director DePalma and much of the cast.

And finally, Breakfast Club (1985):

The Breakfast Club is  defintely one of the greatest representations of emotions portrayed through images and music that I have ever seen. Five people from completely different angles are able to break down the walls of popularity, prejudice, and judgment, and come together as friends. If all films were made like this, the world would be in better condition than it is today.

 

 

 

Minimalism is considered one of the crowning architectural achievements of the XXth century. Spare and streamlined whilst still being inviting, minimalism is charming in almost any space. With less clutter to wade through and mentally process, the innate beauty of each piece of furniture or art in the home really starts to stand out.

Is this kind of design devoid of character and fun and life? Some might think so, but I get a strange satisfaction, a fulfillment, at looking around and seeing a home free of clutter. It’s calming, and liberating, and just pretty nice.

Less stressful. Clutter is a form of visual distraction, and everything in our vision pulls at our attention at least a little. The less clutter, the less visual stress we've got. A minimalist home is very calming.

Easier to clean. It’s hard to clean a whole bunch of objects, or to sweep or vacuum around a lot of furniture. The more stuff you own, the more you have to keep clean, and the more complicated it is to clean around the stuff. Think about how easy it is to clean an empty space compared to one with 50 objects in it. That’s an extreme example, of course, as I wouldn’t recommend you have an empty room, but it’s just to illustrate the difference.

More and more appealing. Just think about photos of houses that are excessively cluttered, and photos of minimalist homes. The ones with almost nothing in them except some beautiful furniture, some nice artwork, and a very few pretty decorations, are the ones that appeal to most of us. You could make your home more appealing by making it more minimalist.

What does a minimalist home look like?

This would vary, of course, depending on your taste and how extreme of a minimalist you want to be. Here are some characteristics of a minimalist home:

Minimal furniture. A minimalist room would only contain a few essential pieces of furniture. A living room, for example, might only have a couch, another chair or love seat, a coffee table, a minimalist entertainment stand, a television, and a couple of lamps. It could even contain less. A bedroom might have a simple bed, a dresser, and perhaps a night stand or book shelf.

Accent decorations. A home completely clear of things would be a bit boring, actually. So instead of having a coffee table completely free of any objects, you could have a simple vase with a few flowers, for example. Or a clear desk might just have a family photo. An otherwise empty wall might have a tasteful piece of art.

Quality over quantity. Instead of having a lot of stuff in your home, a minimalist would choose just a few really good things he loves and uses often. A really nice table, for example, is better than 5 pieces of press-board furniture.

The 60's was a decade which broke loads of fashion traditions and featured a number of diverse trends, such as PVC clothes, mini skirts, tie-dye and batik fabrics, but let's not forget that it was also an age for the rise of the pants suit for women.

 

Before men started putting on the crotch-covering leggings we now call trousers, everybody wore skirts .And why not? Skirts are far simpler to construct and facilitate more cooling air flow to the nether regions, which would’ve been an absolute godsend in the pre-air conditioning era. But then, thanks to the rise of horseback infantries, trousers became the below-the-belt manly uniform of the masculine masses.

Women, meanwhile, continued wearing skirts, and not just simple wrap-around numbers. We’re talking heavy, multi-layered, floor-length ensembles often further supported and puffed out with the assistance of cage crinoline and petticoats or other clunky foundation garments, depending on the era.

Trousers for ladies were trickled into high fashion in 1911 by French designer Paul Poiret, who had earlier done women a solid by introducing corset-free styles. His harem pant, as seen on Downton Abbey, made the cover of Vogue in 1913.Oh! And speaking of Vogue, billowy slacks were becoming more commonplace in its pages by the 1930s, as well as on the pages of celebrity trades that showcased some Hollywood A-listers including Marlene Dietrich and K. Hepburn wearing them on and off screen. For the average well-heeled woman, however, pants couldn’t simply be tossed on effortlessly.

During WWII, American women wore pants in the workplace, dresses and skirts were still the go-to for properly going out in public, and Dior’s post-War New Look, swung the pendulum even farther away from the pant for a period. Really, as Worn Through underscores, it wasn’t until the sexual revolution and second-wave feminism in the late 1960s and 1970s that women started wearing trousers en masse and whenever they wished — for the most part. It wasn’t until 1993, for instance, that Sen. Barbara Mikulski and Carol Moseley-Braun became the first woman senators to rock pantsuits on Senate floor, forcing the Senate to lift its ban on lady trousers. Hence, while women’s adoption of pants wasn’t fueled by militarism as it was with men, the choice to eschew a skirt was no less an epic struggle.

In the mid-1990's, the controversial Heroin Chic look caused huge outrage and drew much criticism and scorn, accusing famous androgynous supermodels such as Kate Moss, Jodie Kidd and Jaime King, and films like Trainspotting and Permanent Midnight of heroin use glamorization. Even former US president Bill Clinton condemned the look by saying:

Fashion photos in the last few years have made heroin addiction seem glamorous and sexy and cool.

The apathetic grunge-inspired trend which was characterized by pale skin, dark circles underneath the eyes, dark red lipstick and angular bone structure has stepped onto the fashion scene as a reaction against the healthy and vibrant look whittled by elusive models like Cindy Crawford and Claudia Schiffer at the beginning of the decade.

 Kate Moss for Vogue Italia by Peter Lindbergh.

A whole new generation steps onto the underground scene, mostly self-taught photographers who were very bored out of their minds with idealized models that look like people from another planet. The fashion industry was dying for something different and embraced the trend with a completely different end of the spectrum. All manner of editorials at the time flirted with the vision of decay, self-destruction and addiction and indulging in it in a wonderful and somewhat distorted way.