Movie Plankton ll

January 14, 2012 § 87 Comments

Duty dictates that I take the children to see War Horse – we’re going this afternoon but according to the Guardian it’s pap.  Its treacly, Spielbergian view of the world was an opportunity missed, apparently.  But I dare say I’ll manage to enjoy it at some level because I’ll be seeing it through the children’s eyes and they will like it, which means I will too, for them.

Shame is more my bag.  Haven’t seen it yet but definitely will.  I know some people like to go to horror movies to be made to feel scared.  That is not me at all.  I loathe horror films every bit as much as I loathe sci-fi/fantasy/magical realism.  Bored rigid by all that shit.  I like to go to grown-up films in which reality features, none of that supernatural bollocks; in which adults sit around in cafes or offices or apartments talking and being anxious and talking more and brooding – French films, obviously, are the past masters at this.  The aim is to be made to feel depressed, but also to feel one is not the only person feeling it, as well as to raise the odd wry smile despite the bleakness, and to wind up with the sort of happy ending which just about stops you from wanting to slit your wrists in the foyer on the hushed way out.  The kind of arthouse films I like are usually too arsey to go in for obvious happy endings, but they frequently manage to pull off a happy ending lite, or a happy ending that’s so subtle it makes you feel kind of sophisticated and superior for getting it and knowing you are above sinking in to the full-on, wallowing saccahrine schmaltz of lesser, more popular films, if you get my meaning.  It’s the difference between a bucket of sugared popcorn at the Odeon and a (dark, cherry) bar of Green & Blacks at the Gate.

Sometimes, I come out of my kind of movie feeling marginally better off than the characters.  Often, I come out feeling more than marginally worse.

I’ll let you know how I feel I fare compared to Joey (the protagonist horse) who changes hands all the time, is shot at, shelled, loses friends, gets tetanus, and nearly dies on countless different occasions and in several different ways, but escapes it in the end, I think, just; and Brandon, the New York sex addict whose life is spiraling completely out of control and is miserable as sin.

I’ll give you a clue.  Resounding silence – wholly predictably – from Long Shot.

Perhaps it’s time I invested in the DVD of Bridesmaids.


§ 87 Responses to Movie Plankton ll

  • fi says:

    If you haven’t seen Bridesmaids yet then you simply must. Not only is it funny but it reveals the wide range of relationships that women have with each other, particularly when they’re competing with each other and putting digs in in that way that men are oblivious too. On the surface they like each other – but they don’t really. And it also shows how women support each other. Hilarious too. Don’t be judgemental about Bridesmaids – I really only watch independent cinema myself too – but this was brilliant. Haven’t yet met a woman who didn’t like it, regardless of age.

    • fi says:

      I meant to ask what happened after long shot sent you that email that you and your friend pored over and decided you no longer liked him? Did you ignore it or did you respond then as that was several weeks ago. I think your response to that email from him (or lack of response) may well influence how he responds to your email now. If I’d sent an email that was ignored for weeks on end, by the time a bloke got round to responding I’d ignore him simply because I thought him arrogant (assuming he’d get back to me if nothing better came along, which is the case for you) and ill mannered. That’s without reading about himself on your blog which he must now do as from what you say it sounds like everyone in your circle now knows you write it.

      • The Plankton says:

        Good question. I sent him back, all those weeks ago, a short, perfectly friendly, but kind of sign off one-liner email, and didn’t expect a response, and didn’t get one. So now I have REALLY stuck my neck out by sending him another one. But it was so NOT desperate or come-hither. It was just along the lines of, I met a nice friend of yours the other day; hope you had a good Christmas; let me know when are you next around as it might be fun to get together. Hardly prostrating myself, at least I like to think not! As for all my circle knowing about the blog: a handful merely, certainly no more, and DEFINITELY not LS, God forbid! Px

      • zoe says:

        Fascinating, P. For someone not short on perceptiveness, it seems to me that you have misread Fi’s point. If I were an analyst, I would be wanting to probe that particular blind spot! Your concern seems only to be that you might be misperceived as throwing yourself at LS – “prostrating” yourself. This does not seem to be rising above a fixation on finding the right calibration of playing hard to get. He wrote a long email with effort and, perhaps, hope. Fi is concerned that your failure to respond in kind would have been perceived as rejection or arrogance or worse. And, if this indeed is the case, a “hope you had a good xmas” formal cheer may not be guaranteed to repair the matter no matter how much you think it constitutes “REALLY” sticking your neck out.

      • The Plankton says:

        Dear Zoe, Whoops, I see what you mean! I had never looked at it like that. A shrink would probably make lots of that. Ah, well, I’ve sent the latest now and if he replies, then perhaps I should turn up the heat. If he replies being the operative phrase! But thanks for the insight. Px

    • The Plankton says:

      No, no, I have already seen it, in fact, and loved it! It was great. xx

      • fi says:

        Sorry for misunderstanding – thought you meant you hadn’t seen it. 🙂

        P.s. Maybe its just me that says “Now you mustn’t let on I told you this but….”

  • rosie says:

    Zoe, how right you are. As someone who suffered terrible shyness with the opposite sex in my younger days I can see exactly what you mean. I passed up who knows how many opportunities by playing hard to get because of a pathological fear of rejection and coming across as desperate. To the point where a bloke could be standing on the other side of a room eyeballing me and I’d turn away, only to be devastated when I turned round again and he’d gone, or worse, done an about-face himself. Duh!

    Bridesmaids… oh dear, I hated it! All that unremitting kookiness drove me mad. But nothing’s as bad as He’s Just Not That Into You. Still feel embarrassed that I went to see it and wish I’d walked out, like the (young) guy sitting next to me. Sometimes I think women are their own worst enemies.

    • june says:

      O dear Rosie that sounds like me i was same as you when i was young with men, the swinging 60s free love and all that, not in my small town, well im sure some were getting it but i certainly wasnt. Other girls always seemed so relaxed with boys, but not me if one looked at me id run a mile, god knows why i was like it, only child, came from a family of women, well apart from my dad who was lovely, but he treated me to quote my cousin like “a little princess” perhaps that was why i dont know, but i dont think ive ever had proper relationships with men. I can never feel totally relaxed with them even now, o im ok with friends partners etc.but actually with men i dont know no.

      Sometimes i think im incapable of real relationship with one and even now though i think i really would like to experience one before i get too old, i think when it came to it, would i,or would i freeze up again,like i always have. Maybe the dream is easier than the reality and perhaps my dear dad is the only man i will ever love and who will love me. Now i am facing up to this,hard as it is and in the cold light of a january day, it seems likely.

  • Steve H says:

    Will be interested to hear your thoughts about War Horse P.

    Went to see it yesterday and I’m afraid The Guardian is spot on. The landscapes were too perfect, too “chocolate box” with just the right shaft of sunlight falling on people’s faces.And the charactere were one dimensional.

    It made a determined effort to pull the heartstrings and I’ll ‘fess up did succeed with me once. Judging by the sniffing all around , some spent much of the film in tears!

    The film only really came alive when the horse went to war and even then veered off into secenes with an adorable little girl. Too saccharine by far.

    Bridesmaids on the other hand? I loved!

    Sorry to come over all “Barry Norman” 😉

    • The Plankton says:

      No apologies needed. I was the one who came over all Barry Norman this morning! Px

      • fi says:

        Personally I don’t think there’s anything wrong with Being A Bit Barry

      • fi says:

        Now Claudia on the other hand…that woman is SO irritating. X

      • Jo says:

        Hi P.
        See the stage version. It’s absolutely staggering. (New London Theatre).
        Spielberg saw it here first and when I heard he wanted to make it as a movie I KNEW – feared – it would get the Spielberg saccarine (?) treatment. Bears little relation to the power and imagination of the theatre version.

  • Lydia says:

    I never play hard to get if I like someone as I don’t play games. I just say what I mean. That might put some men off who like the thrill of the chase though.

    My younger children liked the play War Horse. I don’t think any of them have seen the film yet.

    • Brigitte says:

      Hi Lydia,

      I also don’t believe in playing hard to get if you are looking for a meaningful relationship. I believe such games attract players. I, too, have been straightforward all of my dating life and have most likely scared a few men away. I have almost zero tolerance for such games – *almost*, as I am now conducting a little experiment with my latest interest at the gym. I have been slightly more aloof and absent from my regular workout schedule and he seems to be making more of an effort to look for me and say hi. As I am not necessarily looking for love, I hopeful this little game will result in a first date. Then maybe something more will develop.

      • The Plankton says:

        Dear Brigitte, I hope it will too. Please let us know how you fare with him! Best of luck. Px

      • Twinkletoes says:

        Brigitte, I have a theory that the ones who were scared off by a woman being straightforward, are the ones who were game players? It’s been my experience once or twice.

      • Brigitte says:


        I think you’re spot on (I’m rather liking these British sayings – “nail on the head” wasn’t quite “spot on”). He’s the only prospect on the horizon, so a player it is for me for lack of anything else. I’ll be safe if I don’t fall for him and I won’t if he doesn’t go the extra mile to be a gentleman (which I doubt very much he is – nice enough, maybe, but no gentleman).

      • Yoga Gurl says:

        From my experience, being very straightforward in terms of romance can be too much…in the beginning. Because I think the beginning of romance was meant for flirtatation, “what ifs”, the not knowing, the “what are they feeling and thinking”, etc.

        It was meant that way, IMO. We are not supposed to know what the other is feeling or where it will go because each partner is figuring it out as they get to know the other.

        Not saying one shouldn’t be forthright if asked out (I think if a man asks you out and you want to go, be enthusiastic and kind about it). I just don’t think “telling all” is the way to go.

        The “games” of romance can actually be quite fun when we accept it as a game (isn’t much of life a game?) and just try to enjoy it for what it is. A time to get to know each other, feel the butterflies inside and where it will go. My motto in the beginning, be conscious but also be light, be fun.

        Just from my experience which has taught me tons…both good and bad.

  • MissBates says:

    No planktonhood comments, today, just movie reviews: Didn’t bother to see “War Horse” flick for the same reasons you state; it was terrific on stage but didn’t want to ruin it by seeing a syrupy Spielberg version. “Shame,” despite a star turn by Michael Fassbender’s penis, wasn’t really that great a movie — *whispers* — rather dull, in fact. Lots&lots&lots&lots of scenes of him running, endlessly, through the streets of NYC. (Perhaps in that sense worthy as a travelogue….) “The Artist” was a delight — grinned throughout. “A Dangerous Method” (Mr. Fassbender again — this time as Carl Jung) was an interesting account of the rupture in Freud/Jung’s relationship, not even ruined by Keira Knightley (she of the 300 teeth), who I usually deem unwatchable. “Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy” only barely comprehensible but fabulous nonetheless. Even the uber-politically-liberal NYC audience was hugely entertained by “Iron Lady,” which got a huge laugh at some of Thatcher’s withering comments, circa 1985, about the prospect of a unified European currency. “We Have to Talk About Kevin” was riveting, although I needed a stiff drink afterwards.

    • Steve H says:

      I’m even MORE sure that we’re meant to be together now Miss Bates 😉 – As your reaction to “We have to talk about Kevin” was exactly the same as mine.

      One of those films that define the term “thought provoking”.

  • Margaux says:

    Yes, another one interested in your response to War Horse.The National Theatre production is so superb – not least because of the astoundingly lifelike puppetry of the life sized horses – that I can’t imagine what seeing this story with ‘real’ horses would be like.

    It’s almost missing the point. The story itself is a valid one. Anything that teaches children ( and reminds us) of the senseless waste of war is worth making. Not sure if Spielberg is the man though?

    The trailer does make it look almost too perfect, I agree- I saw it last night when I went to a movie too.
    (If you don’t like horror films – do not go and see The Iron Lady!
    …and I don’t mean the dementia! 😉 )

    • MissBates says:

      Hi Margaux — I saw that wonderful production at Lincoln Center in NY — (it may even still be playing now that I think of it) and I agree that the “puppet” horses are incredibly well done.

      I’m not opposed to Spielberg in general, and he CAN do “serious” (Schindler’s List comes to mind), but the trailers I’ve seen of the War Horse movie simply did not appeal.

      • Margaux says:

        Shame on me, MissBates – I’d forgotten Schindler’s List – & ofcourse, there was Saving Private Ryan. I guess I was thinking it just looked too Hollywood glossy from the trailers…

  • rantywoman says:

    In addition to Bridesmaids, you must also see Young Adult. Much darker but very interesting.

    I too love realistic, talky movies. Some from past years: My Dinner With Andre, Two Girls And a Guy, What Happened Was…, Walking and Talking, Vicki Cristina Barcelona. And of course almost anything by Eric Rohmer– Full Moon in Paris, The Green Ray, A Tale of Winter, etc.

  • rantywoman says:

    Oh and I fear that by not liking science fiction and fantasy, we are making our dating pool even smaller. It seems there are a lot of nerdy men out there who are into that genre, and they probably make decent, loyal partners. But I couldn’t be less interested in that stuff. I’ve never seen an episode of Star Trek in my life.

    • Lydia says:

      Ah yet another unmined seam for us all.We have my hadron collider fanatics, We obviously already have plane and train spotters and bikers, then the vast number of sports many men like and now we have sc fi. Another one would be computer gaming….

      Laughing as I type as none of this sounds very appealling. One imagines they all have beards and bad hygiene.

      • Joules says:

        I do like a bit of Sci Fi but I am a scientist type myself. However do not get me started with those emotionally stunted assholes who spend hours on their computer games and then complain that you don’t have enough time for them when you are trying to balance career and home. Sorry – would rather stay a plankton for life than take up with a computer playing child in an adult body again. Waste of time. Touched a nerve.

      • Yoga Gurl says:

        Let me tell you, there are so many men who are into cycling!

        Cycling/biking groups are a great way to meet men! At least in my experience here in CA. I am in my 40’s…I joined three groups…road and mountain…lots of men of all ages in both. Plenty of nice athletic women, too.

        Men really are the majority in mountain biking. I do the easy stuff! But everytime I go…men all around me! And they are nice, helpful and fun. I enjoy them even though I am not looking for a man. Many diverse ages with the mountain biking, too.

    • Yoga Gurl says:

      I was never into the genre until I met my geek bf. Then one day I started noticing sci fi more and starting getting really engrossed in a couple of films. I saw the fun, intrigue and intelligence in it. I am not even a big movie person.
      So give yourself a chance. You might like one or two.

  • june says:

    Plankton there is no end to your talents, now a film critic as well!

    Bridesmaids was hilarious, saw it with a crowd of female friends and we all enjoyed it, said lots about womens relationships and how men dont always get them.

    Did you see One Day,i saw it twice, couldnt quite take Anne Hathaway as a working class yorkshire girl, somehow she seemed more at home in Devil Wore Prada, but apart from that enjoyed it. Did make you think how life is chance and how you can miss out so easily,rather apt for us planktons.

  • rosie says:

    I’m taking my niece to see War Horse next week and I can already see which one of us is going to end up the biggest blubbing wreck, saccharine or not. My friend went to see the play and said most of the (Southbank!) audience were in tears.

    I’m not into sci-fi (never even see Star Wars) but I do love a good fantasy. Time Bandits is utterly brilliant and – I’m not sure you’d classify it as fantasy – Orlando, with Tilda Swinton. Love French films too (apart from the wanky, pretentious ending of Hidden) where nothing really happens but you’re sucked in nonetheless.

    I also like to be scared shitless by a good horror film – the psychological stuff, not gorefests – now and again. The Exorcist is the most terrifying thing I’ve ever seen, so much so that I thought I thought I was possessed and had to sleep with the light on for the next six months. I still can’t listen to the title music without feeling spooked.

    Peter Bradshaw eat your heart out!

  • rosie says:

    … just to say, in case anyone thinks I’m a pleb, I know Orlando was a book first!

  • MissBates says:

    And how could I forget: “My Week with Marilyn” — a piece of fluff, but worth seeing for: (1) Kenneth Branagh’s perfect lisp-y impersonation of Laurence Olivier; and (2) Julia Ormond as a 40-year-old Vivien Leigh, who delivers a devastating comment about HER incipient planktonhood. You will know which line I’m referring to when you hear it . . .

  • tvmunson says:

    Art films fall into 2 categories:1) ones with occasional nudity presenting pretty young women like those one actually sees in real life (as opposed to Hollywood, where they are impossibly beautiful and/or surgically enhanced in a way that detracts rather than adds to their charm) and 2) ones without it. I comprehend neither, so the nod goes to nudity and we can thus dispense with the latter category summarily. As to the former, when I read a review or press someone into telling me what, at its core, the movie is about, I am usually confronted with the word “existentialism”.This is a word I have heard my entire adult life, and each time I must look up its definition, which I then can then apply, and then forget, until the next time I heard it. I’m afraid now hearing it evokes the same response in me that “culture” did with Joseph Goebbels-I “reach for my revolver”. (We are armed in the U.S., particularly where I live. While I am aware this is alarming to Brits, we here view it sanguinely, there being such a surfeit of people deserving to be shot. I’m kidding.)

    As near as I can tell, “existentialism” in the art film world has something to do with cafes, languid cigarette smoke often re-inhaled through the nose which if you are young, pretty and female looks charming and if you are not looks, well, weird, Vespas, dreary back alleys of gloomy dark cities, intense, elliptical conversation that appear to be addressing issues in the premises but because we have heard the word “existentialism” attached to the film it is now hovering around in the background like a solicitous butler and so we are cued to delve for “further meaning” (revolver!-no, make it a shotgun), and one sits in bovine-like detachment appearing to absorb this derivative crap hoping that it is indeed the art film with nudity, and maybe sex. Voila! (many of these film are French-I’ll attend to them another time)-it is our lucky day-er, film.

    Now we come to the core, and, at least for me, the issue. Because you see in so many of these films the pretty, petite (usually-“La Dolce Vita” apparently was the swan song for the voluptuous types) young thing is prone on the bed during sex, and her expression, pained, near agony, whilst receiving jack hammer thrusts pounding her face first into the mattress, which she is biting,makes me ask the ultimate, existential question: “Is the auteur indicating to use that she is experiencing emphatic ‘doggy-style’ sex, or does he intend to inform us that she is in fact getting it anal?”

    Where I view these films one can purchase wine (thank God; not an existential expression I am informed) and it is further the fashion to sit through the entire credits once they roll. I do not know what the latter practice is intending to convey but since this is an art film theater it can be presumed, irrebuttably, that it is the viewer’s sense of smug superiority, half-baked sophomoric cookie-cutter bargain basement sociology streamed through a thimble-eyed unironic humorless turgid less-than-meets-more-than as in the less sense of humor and humanity I have the more I must insist you recognize it in me and flatter me thus we bask in the glow of our intolerant sense of our own tolerance.

    Perhaps I am being unkind. Perhaps their delay can be explained by the fact that the audience is indeed pondering the existential question. The males are thinking “Could I, should I, will I get anal?” And the females are likewise thinking “Can I, must I, will I give anal?” (the American expression, a soul term, is “give up the back” FYI). I’d like to think that’s what it is.

    But I don’t really think so. I think the presumption stands. As I walk up the aisle, the credits rolling, saying au revoir to my fellow audience members, I hum this little tune, an homage to the word “existentialism”:
    (to the tune of “It’s One of Those Songs)

    It’s one of those words
    You hear now and then
    You don’t know just where and
    You don’t know just when
    It’s one of those words that
    You think you’ve forgot
    But it’s one of those words

    It’s one of those words we’re
    not sure what it means
    obscure and pretentious
    it’s not what it seems
    it’s one of those that we
    all like to say
    but it’s one I wish would just
    GO AWAY!

  • Margaux says:

    TV – please don’t take this personally but I am starting to think ‘Whose Blog Is It Anyway’ ?

    • Jo says:

      Yes Margaux. I said something of that ilk, yesterday. My words were; ‘forgive me tvmunson. But ‘though some erudite points are made, you don’t half go on! It can take ages to read through your ‘comments’ (commentary?) sometimes’.

  • tvmunson says:

    Ms. P’s; she’s said nothing to me and I’ve posted several like this. Should she say something, I shall desist. In the meantime, might I suggest that if you feel I am overly prolix, you simply not read me? You will note after all my remarks are headed by my nom d’ blog, and furthermore a cursory scroll down the site should inform you that there are rather a lot of words in my comments and should you be disinclined to read them you should avail yourself of this amply indicated opportunity.

    BTW on one or 2 occasions I most certainly DID take some remarks personally and my vehement responses, very very nasty I assure you to the point of cruelty (not very difficult; I have a keen appreciation of who reads here-you practically drape you dirty linen all over the place) and it was my full on intent to inspire in the object of my venomous attack a desire to slit her own throat. Ms. P deleted those comments, as I assume she would do these if she felt they were impermissibly hoarding this valuable blog space.

    So might I suggest you attend to you affairs and I mine. If you ignore me, then for you indeed this shall remain entirely Ms. P’s site along with the other insightful commentators such as you. Those who wish to read me, shall; those who wish to avoid me, can. That being the case I see no need for you and I to have any further correspondence.

    • Jo says:

      Blimey tv. A bit OTT your response to Margaux methinks.
      What she said was fine. Doesn’t warrant such an over sensitive, rather ridiculous riposte.

    • Elle says:

      tvmunson, if you don’t want to see the dirty linen then don’t snoop at the content of people’s washing lines! When I was at boarding school a very strange man used to come through the woods to a line where we hung our washing and “amuse himself” with our laundry. So we had to stop putting our washing up there and the man was reported to the police.

      Seriously, this blog used to be a place where women of a certain age could moan a bit and feel safe doing so. Unfortunately it doesn’t feel so safe these days and I fear that people may be lurking somewhere in the ether and laughing at our shared sorrows. At least tvmunson has the courage to comment here along with some other men.

      Life deals everybody different cards. It is easy to use other people’s misfortunes to retaliate for real or imagined slights. Before doing this perhaps we should stop for a moment and imagine what life might be like for these people. This may require a stretch of the imagination for those who have had better fortune than others but that makes it all the more necessary.

      • tvmunson says:

        My reference to “dirty linen” was in regard to my own admittedly nasty and overwrought response when I did take something personally as I way of showing that I did not take the instant one that way. But if you have to keep explaining yourself it is obvious that either 1) you cannot or 2) your reader will not (as in, has no intention of understanding). I will accept that it in the premises it is (1) because ultimately it comes to the same place.

      • tvmunson says:

        I do not care about your dirty linen but it provided me with PLENTY of ammunition when I tore into one of your ilk with such vehemence and condign vituperation that Ms. P deleted it, perhaps not before my target read it.

    • tvmunson says:

      You read about as carefully as I type and edit. I wish there was an edit button because I get so wound up I post before I’ve completed the latter. Do not mistake my errors for lack of intelligence, but lack of diligence.

      • Elle says:

        tvmunsen, apologies for any misunderstanding. I see the post where you state that you have several online personas (January 16 2012 at 1.43pm) now. That’s fine but it wasn’t there when I wrote my piece questioning that. There is a time lapse between when we post and when our piece appears on the site. Only we can see it and Plankton in Chief has to approve it before everybody else can.

  • Margaux says:

    That’s just it, Tv – I have always been interested in what you have to say – not just here but over on the PrivateMan’s blog also. Interestingly, your writing style is somewhat different over there -(what a colourful description of British men !) – but here you are more considered.

    I guess what I was trying to say is, I am mindful of blog courtesy that’s all. But, as you say, P hasn’t remarked upon it so who I am to do so.

    I am glad that P deleted your – as you put it – more nasty, venomous posts here though. This is no place for trying to induce any ‘throat slitting’. It’s just not that kind of blog.

    • fi says:

      What a gracious response.

      • tvmunson says:


        If you think I’m “colorful” over at tpm, read me at; the most recent one (2 male faces at top-forget what it’s called) at comment # 502. Be forewarned-it is ADULT.

        I thought described British men here? Damn. In a nutshell, do not like but respect them. Love you British lasses though so I must get better at this blog thing.

        Yes I quite learned my lesson (that sounded British what?) re meanness. Ever blog (except privateman God bless him) I’ve been on has required adjustments for me. I am an “edge” writer; I want to push every blog to its limits. But until this most recent post I did not understand; I suppose it’s obvious to you gals that this has somewhat the quality of a support group and I intend no condescension. I am ribald, nasty-but not cruel. Men require the obvious; this quality is even more pronounced in an American one. I have many “voices”;now that I am properly informed,I shall find the right one for here.

        BTW Margaux Hemingway was from Idaho where I lived and I served her father beers. Very sad denouement that (Brit!).

        BTW II cannot guarantee I won’t “go off” on a topic, but if I approach this assignment properly you will all allow me 1 or 2 for the good of the order.

      • Elle says:

        Tvmunsen comes across here as being happily married for 25 years, he cares deeply for his wife and is gentlemanly and Godfearing. A perfect husband by all accounts and his wife is truly blessed. He regularly refers to the book of Common Prayer on this blog.

        He is completely different on but we all have different personas for different situations. Few of us are Jekyll and Hyde but we’re not sweetness and light all the time.

        Even so I would rather not see Tvmunsen’s remarks on because I tend to steer clear of sites with adult content. My question is this, can anybody tell me what a happily married God fearing man is doing on Or indeed No God fearing men I know (I grew up in a religious family) would openly condone sites that use vulgar language and denigrate 50% of the human race in the crudest of ways. After all, that’s 50% of humanity which is God’s creation. Or would they? Most religious men I know don’t spend much time on the internet, they’re too busy with their gardens and their families. The closest many of them get to the internet is when they’re with their grandchildren.

        How does Tvmunsen find time to spend with his good wife in between writing hellfire and brimstone (adult or not) posts on the internet? Does he deliver blistering sermons from the pulpit of his church about the evils of internet use on Sundays? Maybe he rages about how it pollutes the minds of young men and turns young women away from the hearth and the home. Perhaps he uses this very blog to warn young women of what might happen to them if they turn away from the hearth and the home!

        Indeed, they might meet some nasty men who aren’t what they say they are online. Nasty men who want to use them, don’t want to marry them and will waste their precious few minutes of youth and viability.

      • tvmunson says:

        Elle 1/17
        Is British optometry as bad as its dentistry? It’s Munson; every one of you has got it wrong.

        I have NEVER claimed ot be religious. Is overearding common to all Brits or just the ones who write here?

        Many writers at hooking up are married including its editor. I have told them there, as here, that I am near 60 and married over 30 years. I use my real name. Show me an instance of me even coming close to importuning anyone there or here. I have no intenton of meeting anyone online, above all and most especially you.

        You can’t but that is not your point. Hacing concluded I am some sort of Emer Gantry hypocrite you cast calumny after calumny on me; I assume the readership will implore me not to take it personally. But I do take it very personally.

        My wife Susan and I spend many happy moments together, including last night’s vist to the gym. Go read her remarks about it on facebook.

        I do not beleive in God.I was raised with religion, rejected it very early. My references are more cultural, but I do retain some eessnce of spirituality and as a human being with some recognition of his limtis cannot entirely preclude the possiblity of some form of divinity..Does that make me a hypocirte? BTW my life is as un-religious as I, but she has conformed to the vows in the Book alluded to better than several of her “Christian” contemporaries.

        Gentleman? Never claimed to be. Is it the sort of thing one claims?

        So enjoy your little fantasy of me as Elmer Gantry. Were I to climb the pulpit, I would tell the congregation to go home, leave all religion, lest they turn out to be a thimble-eyed, spiteful crone such as you.

        ms p
        If you leave her remarks about me up, then it is only fair I get to have my say about her. That of course assumes a level playing field vis-a-vis men/women; we shall see.

      • tvmunson says:

        BTW married 30 1/2 years togther 33 1/2; you read about as carefully as you think.

      • tvmunson says:

        BTW Readership

        Go over to and under the title “Eat, Pray” read my comments # 237 and #284. The former is my explication of the case of Parker v Parker, a Florida decision that the “manos” were using to indict the American legal system and which I painstakingly deconstrutcted over there for the good of the readership, disporving those idiots.. # 284 is my defense of the legal system, what it stands for.

        I also wrote inter alia 2 ver long comments entitled “On Infidelity” addresssing the young readers their view that there was permissible, or at least “winkable” infidelity. You’ll find me unequivocal. I’m sorry I don’t have #s. I think it is still in the “Eat, Pray” one though.Read that (written 3 weeks ago) and ask yourselves “Is this a man looking to ‘get some’ online?”

        I quoted my marriage vows that I wrote too; 2 women said they were keeping them for their wedding.

        I have written about comon law marriage, equitable distribution law, community preperty law, Uniform Child Custody Act, Uniform Parentage Act, No Fault Divorce Act (California version) and various others. Ms. Walsh is considering making me “of counsel” to the site. Every other week or so I have to explain the difference between “joint custody” and “actual physical custody” because they get those conflated, not just ethe “bad faith” types but also people who do nto knwo what they are talking about; I do and disabuse them in no uncertain terms.

        The title of Susan’s article concerns the movie “Eat, Pray”. It involves a woman who for apparently (at least to Susan -Walsh, the editor) divorces for no real reason. I went into a lenghty comment pointing out over 30 years ago in “Kramer v Kramer” Meryl Streep does exactly that. I also used it to show some of the differences in the law since then. For example, recall in “Kramer” Meryl just flat disappears then remerges and, because of the “tender years doctrine”, is able to gain custody of her son with no more than a “fair thee well” to dustin. I explained the abolishment of this doctrine, its replacement with the “best interests of the child” standard , the adoption of and subsequent modification of it by the various states, and its relationship to “joint custody” and ” actual physical custody”. Again, this was done in an attempt to counter the malcontents and disabuse the misinformed.

        All of this you can confim if you care to. Or you can continue to believe I am a lecherous old man seeking nubile young company.

        BTW theprivateman’s last post concerned MLK and his “I Have a Dream” speech, qouted in its entirety.. Read it-and my response.

        Finally, do any of you have the slightest idea how large the U.S. is? I live in Idaho; it is as large as England.(BTW you can confirm, to the extent possible, my status; my first name is Thomas and my bar license is #2748). originates in Boston. Between su is a vast continent. Most of the writers are anonymous. So the idea-oh sod it. (Brit!)
        If you want ot believe elle do so.Go read me on infidelity first though so you’ll be able to imagine a sufficeintly egregious hypocrite, one worthy of your full enmity.

      • tvmunson says:

        My articles “ON INFIDELITY” parts I and II are found at the “Eat, Pray” article at comments # 897 and 978 respectively. #835 contains anothe rlegal discussion; there are many others throughout.

      • fi says:

        Touchy, impolite, superior, a pain in the arse, ill-mannered, aggressive, self-important, pompous, overbearing, dislikes being challenged or disagreed with, and most unforgivably, displays no hint of wit or humour. Surely I’m not the only one that couldn’t care less what he has to pronounce? He seems to think that because he has a wife who likes him all these failings are negated – in fact he’s proud of them and describes it as pushing the blog “to the edge” and being “ribald” when actually he’s just like a surly and rude teenager that the grown ups humour. Well maybe his wife likes him in spite of this, or maybe he behaves better around her, or actually maybe what his wife thinks of him is totally irrelevant. And of course it could simply be that she’s waiting for him to peg it so she can get a break from him going on at her. He probably follows her from room to room contradicting her and talking over her and she’s learned that the best way to get him to shut up is simply to agree with him, little realising that she was feeding his enormous ego and sense of entitlement.

      • Elle says:

        Fi, I agree. There is no point interacting with somebody who is entirely devoid of humour. Perhaps he is different at home, indeed, he could be a meek devoted slave who snorts the crumbs off the carpet to save wear and tear on the vacuum cleaner!

        And to the person who called me a crone, thank you for the compliment. In the pagan community a crone is revered. Not that I’m pagan, or particularly religious for that matter.

  • Margaux says:

    Maybe we really are 2 nations divided by a common language, tv? 😉

    Funnily enough I was entertained by your Privateman post (ref: comment #502) on finding new words for oral,anal & fellatio – and lillify is certainly an improvement! (Not so sure about chouder though). Explicit discussion does not shock me nor I suspect the majority of the readership here.

    However, with ref to your description of British men on that blog – nasty name calling does shock me and you are capable of being more erudite than that. Interestingly, I’ve yet to find one wearing a “tutu with an umbrella up his arse” ( to truncate your sentence) – but maybe you have?

    To me, “nasty” and “cruel” are very close cousins. One man’s ‘edge’ can be another man or woman’s insult. Perhaps we are just ‘less in your face’ over here.
    The joy of it is not just P’s great writing – but also the diverse commentators it attracts. I don’t think any of us are here to try and push limits.As I said before, it’s just not that kind of blog.

    Btw- what’s your problem with British men anyway? – just curious.

    PS. Loved Margaux Hemingway . Yes- very sad.

    • tvmunson says:

      I forgot about that one. I had a later post that said your British man is your most formidable adversary once he sorts the situation out and concludes there is no other way but direct resolution. Then it is to the end.

      • tvmunson says:

        Go read “ON INFIDELITY” parts I and II at “Eat, Pray” comments numbers # 897 and 978. Read them; there are a few followups too, esp. between me and Susan. You can also read my legal discussion; #237 and #284 are 2 but there are many others. But read what I say about infidelity and then come back here and address Elle’s impugning of me. If you can honestly say you don’t think I mean what I say I’ll accept it. BTW written weeks before my contretemps here with elle.

  • Jo says:

    Oh god tvmunson. I’m sorry. You write so much . So looooooong. So much about you. And your wife. And your other blogs. And your oversensitivities.9Ok it was tvmunsen by whoever wrote that. But what the heck. We all get each other’s names very slightly wrong sometimes. But never feel up in arms about it. (It was only an ‘e’ instead of an ‘o’ for god’s sake. No need for over sensitive comment.). And us ‘gals’. And your references and theories and… al.
    You’ll doubtless stone me. But you bore me to death.
    I love P’s writing and blog. But this is fast becoming all about you and saturated by you. Saturated. It’s like a takeover.

  • Jo says:

    Meant. ‘Ok. It was tvmunsen’ etc etc. Don’t know how that 9 crept in.

  • Jo says:

    Fi. I have just noticed your last comment after I had already written mine.
    As you can see, I had also written pretty similarly about tvmunson.
    Prepare for the onslaught………..

  • Jo says:

    BTW Fi. You made me howl with laughter. Thank you.

  • Margaux says:

    Forgive me Tv -but this blog is starting to take on a different complexion since you arrived.

    As I have said before – it is not some politicised feminist diatribe expounding the ‘Eat Pray Love ‘ lifestyle ( I had no idea there was an ‘EPL lifestyle’ or that it was perceived as such until I ventured over to the Privateman blog) .

    It’s a personal blog written by an interesting and entertaining author. No gender politics, ‘features on hooking up smart’, no red & blue pills…just a personal blog that has rightly attracted many followers and thrown up many personal discussions. Not quite in the same category as the sites & blogs you frequent.

    You know – if one raises one’s head above the parapet of the internet then one must expect to be challenged, responded to, and yes, wrongly perceived sometimes ( if that’s how you are feeling) . It’s the nature of the beast.

    You tell us you have a great marriage – something many here aspire to. You sound like you’ve had a fantastic career. You love your country.

    Yet….you seem so angry. All the time….

  • tvmunson says:

    Sorry fi-my eyes are giving out. Lack of shagging leads to deadly testosterone build up-first thing ot go is the eyes!

  • fi says:

    This what tv said on private man today about women- “….But these bitches go off. Fuck them. And if one of you is reading this fuck you. I mean go in the kitchen right now and find a suitable implement and impale yourself with it imagining it is the Bishop’s swollen choad or whatever else you need to get a “nut”. Because my dear that is the only way you’ll be getting it, at least on this side of the dirt, and the next time you “get it” it will be an earthworm that has penetrated the collapsed coffin you lie in and has thus entered your putrefactionous nether regions, long since unidentifiable, more muck than flesh as your corporality mulches into the good solid earth and the lucky worm has his fill of what’s left of your miserable revolting cunt.

    Sorry guys; those plankton bitches have really pissed me off. I’m going to call them potato chip women (Brits call them “crisps”): their flimsy, brittle, devoid of nutrients, all due to their status as the very fucking bottom of the SMP only it appears even the bottom feeders don’t want them, they cannot even being tolerated in a mercy fuck, and so they pour forth at the slightest suggestion of anything that they imagine doesn’t fit their paradigm (hard to say what that is). Would that I were a voodoo shaman and could cast a spell over them and while they were under it take some horsehair thread and sew up their twats in the manner of the mouths of shrunken heads, the perforation holes visible right next to the lips (theirs being vertical as opposed to horizontal as on the skulls) with the extra thread hanging down like a tampon string, only black, not green, and thus finish with my hand what nature and (apparenlty) the social milieu has failed to do-put an end to their dreary relentless search for dick on their own terms which the have about as much power to dictate as Hitler would have dictating terms to the Allies on April 20, 1945 (his birthday)”. He really is repulsive. Not witty, or clever, just repulsive.

    • fi says:

      Am I the only woman who is getting tired of reading this frankly creepy man’s diatribe against women?

      • fi says:

        And I’m not sure why you give him a platform on your blog. Although he reins himself in here, to a degree, in his offensiveness, its clear from his contributions elsewhere, and it sometimes leaks through here, what he thinks of us. He’s changed the tone of this blog from a friendly one, to one that’s combative, when he’s not boring everyone with his droning on. I don’t understand why you give him a platform.

      • The Plankton says:

        Me? I try not to censor, but do recognise there may be a need… Px

      • Jo says:

        Nope Fi. I’m with you all the way.
        I have been an advocate for free speech. (Re: Lydia).
        But enough is surely enough….

  • Margaux says:

    *Psycho alert* !!!
    I’m with Fi & Jo on this.
    Forget the attempts at trying to be civilsed here – it masks something far more sinister…..

    • fi says:

      Yep. Its not so much the vulgarity and crudeness I object to – that’s the similarity to an attention seeking teenager – it’s his daydreams of, and delight in, the debasement and degredation of women that makes my skin crawl. His wife must be very odd indeed as she must sense that about him regardless of how well he hides it.

  • Margaux says:

    Anyone seen the movie ‘Falling Down’ ?

    I think D-fens may be alive and well… ( or perhaps not quite so ‘well’ )

  • […] tvmunson, an incredibly prolific commenter on many, many blogs. He’s at Hooking Up Smart, The Plankton, and some other Manosphere or Manosphere-connected blogs. His comments can be incendiary and calls […]

  • […] tvmunson, an incredibly prolific commenter on many, many blogs. He’s at Hooking Up Smart, The Plankton, and some other Manosphere or Manosphere-connected blogs. His comments can be incendiary and calls […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

What’s this?

You are currently reading Movie Plankton ll at The Plankton.


%d bloggers like this: