Loris Z.com

Marisol 1 by ~Blisterlips on deviantART

bloodflowers by ~connelly on deviantART

Alan Moore, interviewed at infoshop news.

Before the usual excerpt: The little bit you’re going to read below is probably the most obvious part of the interview. In the rest of it, Moore talks very, very much about politics and anarchy, very little about comics (thank god). I can’t recommend it enough. It’s great. Now, the obligatory quote:

What had originally been a straightforward battle of ideas between anarchy and fascism had been turned into a kind of ham-fisted parable of 9-11 and the war against terror, in which the words anarchy and fascism appear nowhere. I mean, at the time I was thinking: look, if they wanted to protest about George Bush and the way that American society is going since 9-11—which would completely understandable—then why don’t they do what I did back in the 1980s when I didn’t like the way that England was going under Margaret Thatcher, which is to do a story in my own country, that was clearly about events that were happening right then in my own country, and kind of make it obvious that that’s what you’re talking about. It struck me that for Hollywood to make V for Vendetta, it was a way for thwarted and impotent American liberals to feel that they were making some kind of statement about how pissed off they were with the current situation without really risking anything. It’s all set in England, which I think that probably, in most American eyes, is kind of a fairytale kingdom where we still perhaps still have giants. It doesn’t really exist; it might as well be in the Land of Oz for most Americans. So you can get set your political parable in this fantasy environment called England, and then you can vent your spleen against George Bush and the neo- conservatives. Those were my feelings, and I must admit those are completely based upon not having seen the film even once, but having read a certain amount of the screenplay. That was enough.

It still means that I’ll be literally strapped to my chair until monday. Can’t complain, no.

I’ve just decided that I won’t leave the house for the weekend. A little bit of relief, since I have a little more time to finish everything

Professor Steven Shaviro writes about David Fincher’s film. I agree with many of his points. The only thing is, I thought the movie could have been a good 30 minutes shorter. Recommended, none the less.

A little excerpt:

Despite what I might have expected from the director of Seven, Zodiac is not interested at all in the inner motivations of the serial killer, nor even in the spectacle of gore that his acts created. Even the murders we see on-screen are oblique and deadpan; we have little sympathy for the victims, but also no sense of identification or complicity with the masked killer — the Zodiac killer is no Michael Myers. The movie has no shock effects, and no unplumbed depths. What you see is what you get, without any residue of mystery or suggestiveness or (even) danger. This is a world that is cooly and carefully visualized, and that doesn’t seem to have anything lurking in the shadows, anything beyond the literal givenness of what is visualized. This makes Zodiac almost the exact polar opposite of, say, Dario Argento’s films, with their baroque flourishes and arcane visual conceptions.

FM, originally uploaded by ernest.borg9.

(via Paul Pope)