Last night's film was the gobsmacking The Chess Player 1927, directed with insane gusto by Raymond 'Get those tracks built' Bernard. And what were we two maniacal cinephiles doing during this viewing? Well, obviously we were enjoying the hell out of it, but we were also shouting silly things at the screen, like the earnest academics we are.
Listed are some samples of our evening.
1) Here's Pierre 'I kill everyone I meet' Blanchar (far left) looking like the love child of Louise Brooks and Cillian Murphy if time machines had been invented.
2) Does my head look big in this hat?
3) Édith Jéhanne trumps Quentin Tarantino by 82 years by imagining a successful outcome for a failed battle which she also accompanies on the piano. This girl can multitask. *transfers to Scots* Think yer clever with yer re-writin history eh Quarantino? Well yer no!
4) A tale of two Baron Von Kempelens. Charles Dullin in the original and Conrad Veidt in the 1938 remake. Who would win in a fight?
At the end, I gave the film, and its Swedish poster, a standing ovation. It's all go in our house.
1 note · View note
Anyway it still really *feels* like there's a better metric for chess than elo because I don't really care about winning, I care about playing satisfying games. I really like good moves and good sequences of moves because they're aesthetically pleasing to me. Unfortunately the obvious response is that it's not clear what a 'good move' actually means beyond being the kind of move that increases your chances of winning. And that definitely is well measured by like... How often you win. Still, this doesn't capture the intuition.
It's like tumblr posts. You can make a post that gets a bunch of notes, but unless it gets engagement then it's still not a good post. It's not satisfying to me in some way. In fact, it often happens to be the case that the more notes a post gets the less engagement I feel like it has and the worse it is to me. *But*! You can't have engagement without notes. So measuring the notes doesn't seem totally pointless. It's more like it's bimodally bad, 0 notes is bad and 10,000 notes is bad but there is a sweet spot with a couple of hundred notes that's good.
29 notes · View notes
Okie so since I did that tag game to list my wips. My newer concept has risen to the forefront of my mind again. And I read what exists of the outline (essentially a point-form version of the dream that inspired it, plus some further development ideas) and wow it's so cool. Can I say that about my own idea?
So I'm gonna ramble~~~
The chess analogy! It goes further than just the hierarchy of power.
So like the idea is all these magical beings/people have different levels of power, and they all "play" for either the white or black "teams". Basically, they pledge allegiance to a Queen and serve their usually political goals (the Queens are the power players. Kings exist and are technically more powerful, but they are also vulnerable, so they sit back and watch or delegate.)
Humans are not part of the game, but there are human hunters who seek to eliminate the magical beings since the magical "game" often puts humans/humanity in danger.
The lowest level is Pawns, who each only have one relatively basic, not very strong ability. One that only affects themself (invisibility, mild levitation, strength, etc). They are the most common, and their life span is canonically "however long it takes to serve their purpose".
Then the power levels/types move up from there, classed by the different chess pieces, the stronger the power, the less common the type is (not necessarily strictly linked to the utility in irl chess though lmao, I don't know chess well enough for that yet). Like, there are quite a few Knights, who have offensive abilities, Rooks usually protect and accompany the Kings and have protective/defensive abilities. Bishops are quite powerful and have a range of abilities, but there aren't very many of them. The Queens and Kings are obviously the most rare and powerful, and in each region/"playing field" there are only 2 of each, one white, one black. (Not gender-based, any gender could be in the role of Queen or King)
But there's still a level above that.
No one knows who the Player is, they don't show themself, but everything the Queens and Kings have their teams do is what they believe will serve this mysterious Player.
The story explores the power of choice and belief. To a certain extent, belief shapes power, and, of course, there is always a choice of what to do with power.
1 note · View note
new thought: blue thinking he’s dead (when he falls off the ladder) and was flirting with you in an attempt to make you (a “reaper”) fall in love and THUS let him go back to the land of the living. 🤔 (of course no matter what he was thinking, he was still alive but yknow... 🤔🤔🤔)
Blue: I challenge you to a date! If I win your heart, you won’t reap my soul. If I fail to sway you, I’ll say goodbye to my brother and go willingly.
Player: First of all, I don’t think that’s how that works.
Blue: FINE. I won’t say goodbye. Happy?
Player: Second of all. Dude. I’m not a reaper.
Blue: So you’re not here to usher me into the afterlife?
Blue: ... can I still have that date?
374 notes · View notes