#only if Meryl is in full character as Miranda priestly | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

phoebosacerales · 3 years

Text

Corvus Wears Prada

Ravens work too hard. Imagine going around the world to deliver messages and secrets to Odin's ears. Apollo's crow is no different. Apollo was in love with Coronis, but he knew the girl was interested in a mortal. He left his raven to watch her, but when the bird reported back about the betrayal it witnessed, Apollo was fuming with fury and cursed the raven. The once silver hue bird, was now turned black.

The god's wrath is due to different reasons depending on the version you’re hearing. For some, Apollo first sent his sister Artemis to kill Coronis, but he felt deep regret and struck the bird for telling him the truth.

For some, he was furious because the crow didn’t try to stop the betrayal and peck the traitor's eyes. For others, he already knew, after all, he is the god of divination and knowledge, but he still took out his anger on the poor raven, just because he didn’t want to hear the story. From then on, the crow becomes the Dionysian creature we see in his other myth about the Crater. Full of regret, Apollo attemps to cure Coronis, but it’s too late, and from that Aesculapius is born.

On another occasion, Apollo was giving a feast for Zeus and he sent the raven with a cup (Crater) to fetch water. On his way, the raven, who was a procatinating creature, distracted himself with a fig tree and stayed there to watch the fruits become ripe. When he finally realized he was late, he decided to come up with a lie. He found a snake (Hydra) in the river and took it to Apollo to say it was all her fault. Apollo was not fooled. Furious that he had waited so long, he cursed the raven with a unending terrible thirst, by placing him in the sky next to the Crater constellation, and the Hydra, preventing him from satiating.

Anne Hathaway was born with the Moon in the star for the wing of the Corvus (Algorab) in the 11th house. Many of her roles are as a raven-like character, but at age 22, profection activated her Moon and she filmed "Devil Wears Prada". It’s comical how the movie seems like a modern parody of the dynamic between Apollo and his raven.

Andy wants dignity, she wants to work without her boss's glare, but she hides in the shadows and makes sure to remain indifferent towards the solar work of appearances. Runway works with an Apollonian logic that doesn't interest her and she just tries her best to deliever the messages. But it's almost like she does the raven's inverse path by gradually giving in to this world, trying to perform impossible heroin labour, like one who carries a cup of water whilst being just a bird.

Runway is the Sun’s path according to Nigel, who describes the magazine as the "beacon of hope" for a boy pretending to go to football practice. Meryl Streep has a Leo ascendant and as the Apollo in this story, she takes the character's narrative for herself, being the great conductor for the filming process, inspiring command, adoration and despair.

Miranda has a very solar name which means “the one to be admired”. Everyone is one of her ravens and they burn by standing too close: Nigel was the first. In Andy’s case, like the crow when he got burned, she blushes when she realizes that betrayal is not new to Miranda. There’s no need for the raven to rush to tell the news. And in the end, only Apollo can do his job of bringing light every day. The raven is Apollo himself and the most difficult thing is to face yourself after finding yourself alone. Andy is looking into a mirror in front of Miranda Priestly's ego. It might be better not to obey anymore and just loiter at fig trees.

#astrology #traditional astrology #astrology readings #devil wears prada #fixed stars #corvus #apollo #anne hathaway #meryl streep #libra moon #myposts #libra #algorab

20 notes · View notes

adamwatchesmovies · 5 years

Text

The Devil Wears Prada (2006)

Wow. Sometimes you look at your first opinions on a movie and there’s no other word for it, you were wrong. I can’t believe I didn’t like The Devil Wears Prada upon my first viewing. It’s a brilliant film with memorable characters, a full spectrum of emotions, and performances so good you forget you’re watching actors.

Andy Sachs (Anne Hathaway) wants to be a journalist but needs experience first. She lands a job at Runway magazine, as Miranda Priestly’s (Meryl Streep) second assistant. The woman has no idea what she has gotten herself into, as the magazine editor proves herself to be unbearably fussy, demanding and cruel. To survive, she'll have to conform like her co-worker Emily (Emily Blunt) but when she does, she risks losing her soul.

Repeatedly, no matter what you believe about the fashion industry, The Devil Wears Prada will make you reconsider it. When the film starts, what do you see? A good-looking, but not particularly well-dressed woman walk into an office and get a job at a place where no one acts like normal people. You look at her co-workers and you can’t help but roll your eyes. $600 for a pair of shoes? That’s ridiculous! You start making a list of people you hate as Andy suffers through outrageous demands, each of which directly or indirectly cements Miranda as evil, a blight upon humanity. Suddenly, the film does the unexpected. As though reading your mind, it’ll say “Oh, so you think the fashion industry is a waste of time, do ya?” and prove you wrong. Dead wrong. Now, it seems Miranda makes a good point about all of these different fabrics and designs and it's Andy who needs to learn something.

Then, like a mischievous spirit whose allegiance is only to discord, director David Frankel (working from a screenplay by Aline Brosh McKenna itself based on the book by Lauren Weisberger) once again pull out a new trick and show you the evil of judging people by their looks. You’re like a ping pong ball being batted back and forth between two opposite viewpoints. You’re at the mercy of the film, but it’s a ride you’re willing getting onto and every minute is a blast.

I look back at my first impressions of the film and I spit in disgust. The casting, for example, is excellent. Meryl Streep is diabolical, but you can't take your eyes off her. I’ve hated serial killers in gory horror films less than her. She’s somewhat alluring in the way she manages to keep everyone under control, and remains passive-aggressive every minute of her miserable life. You feel like Andy. You want to hate Priestly, and you do, but you can’t commit to getting so angry that you walk away. Streep steals the show, but Anne Hathaway is also excellent. She goes through many changes, all of which are believable. You sympathize for her when she’s scoffing at her coworkers and as she slowly gets seduced by their world, so do you.

It’s a film that has it’s cake and eats it too. The Devil Wears Prada is an exposé of everything that’s soul-consuming and tyrannical about fashion magazines and also makes you understand what its appeal is. If your mouth doesn’t water when you see the lavish outfits on display here, then your taste in clothes sucks. I don’t know if I’d call the film a comedy, or a journey through Dante’s Inferno that you pray the heroine will survive. Maybe it’s both. I dismissed The Devil Wears Prada the first time I saw it but now, my mind has been cleared and I kinda loved it. If you approved it the first time, feel free to say “I told you so”. If you didn’t, give it another shot. (Full-screen version on DVD, May 31, 2016)

21 notes · View notes

funnyteeshoponline · 3 years

Text

Gigi Pumpkin Halloween Shirt

The hardest scene Gigi Pumpkin Halloween Shirt . I have filmed has to be the Mean Girls Christmas talent show. I filmed the entire 6:40 seconds and played every character while lighting and filming all by myself. I always love the process though, because it is such hard work, but when it is done I am so happy with the outcome! The Devil Wears Prada cerulean scene is also one that was very difficult, as Meryl Streep is an icon and Miranda Priestly is so precise in her facial expression as well as her body language, that was so fun to take on! How many takes does it usually take you to get it right? It definitely varies with each scene. I have found myself being a perfectionist, so I truly do not stop filming until I am happy with that take. Sometimes I even will stop and come back to a scene a different day if I am not fully in it. I always like to remind myself that I make these because it brings joy to not only me but others as well. So having fun is the most important part!Gigi Pumpkin Halloween Shirt, hoodie, sweater, longsleeve and ladies t-shirt

Classic Women's

Long Sleeved

Unisex Sweatshirt

Unisex Hoodie

Classic Men's The latest addition to Benefit’s lineup of game-changing brow products is finally here — and it’s everything you’d expect from the San Francisco brow experts Gigi Pumpkin Halloween Shirt . Say hello to POWmade, a wonderfully creamy pomade that glides on smoothly to create sculpted, defined brows. Inside each pot you’ll find a built-in ridged ledge to scrape off excess product, allowing for a more precise and controlled application. Better yet, the waterproof, transfer-proof formula stays put for 36 hours, so your look won’t budge or smudge until you wash it off. Pair it with the brand’s new Dual-Ended Angled Eyebrow Brush to create a variety of looks, from feathered and fluffy to full and dramatic. Give your skin an energy boost with the Laneige’s latest drop, the Perfect Renew Serum. Dubbed a “pro-aging” serum, the lightweight formula is the result of 20 years of research history and addresses five signs of early aging — declining firmness, the appearance of fine lines, changes in skin texture, loss of radiance, and lack of hydration — after only a week of use. How does it work, exactly? It combines the brand’s signature Glyco-Miracle formula, composed of wild butterfly ginger and an elasticity-boosting tri-peptide complex, along with acai berry and acerola extracts (which, FYI, have a four times stronger antioxidant effect than vitamin C). You’ll be granted the smooth, bouncy complexion that has become synonymous with the K-beauty brand. You Can See More Product: https://eternalshirt.com/product-category/trending/ Read the full article

0 notes

besshirtstore · 3 years

Text

Gigi Pumpkin Halloween Shirt

Classic Women's

Long Sleeved

Unisex Sweatshirt

Unisex Hoodie

0 notes

whynottshirt · 3 years

Text

Gigi Pumpkin Halloween Shirt

Classic Women's

Long Sleeved

Unisex Sweatshirt

Unisex Hoodie

0 notes

usatshirtsonline · 3 years

Text

Gigi Pumpkin Halloween Shirt

Classic Women's

Long Sleeved

Unisex Sweatshirt

Unisex Hoodie

0 notes

shirttrendshoponline · 3 years

Text

Gigi Pumpkin Halloween Shirt

Classic Women's

Long Sleeved

Unisex Sweatshirt

Unisex Hoodie

0 notes

confrontingbabble-on · 7 years

Photo

“Why do we respond to fictional characters, whether they dwell in the pages of a well-loved book or on one of our many screens, as though they were real people? The short answer is empathy.

In our brains, empathy lives in a little lobe called the right supramarginal gyrus. When we interact with other humans, we use ourselves as something of an emotional yardstick to try to figure out how they’re feeling. We read their body language, tone of voice, facial expressions and use our own internal experience as a gauge to guide our interactions with them. What’s interesting is that in studies where this part of the brain was disrupted, participants reported finding it increasingly difficult to not project their own emotional states onto others. This, of course, is something that we all do to some degree, particularly if we’re stressed or trying to make decisions more quickly than our gyrus can handle.

Now, when we empathize with someone who is physically in front of us, we have the potential for a tactile experience — hugging them, squeezing their hand reassuringly — that bolsters our emotional response. On some level, empathy is a conscious process — and there are ways to improve our ability to empathize with others. But at a neurobiological level, there are certain functions that either exist or don’t in each one of us. Sociopaths, presumably, have a lower functioning gyrus. Empaths, on the other hand, have a higher functioning one.

One thing that helps us empathize with family and friends, no matter what our baseline capabilities to do so are, is trying to fill in the details of what we don’t know about their situation. Interestingly enough, this is also more or less what we do with fictional characters; in fact, it’s sometimes easier to empathize with them because we are often given, expositionally, far more detailed and intimate knowledge of a character than we would ever know about someone in our real lives. And, as in life, it’s our nature to fill in the blanks when we’re presented with a character that we haven’t gotten to know very well yet.

Fanfiction is one way that we do this on a community level. Headcanons, a term in fandom that refers to what an individual believes to be true about a character, even though it’s not “canon”, are another way that we flesh out the details of these character’s lives as we attempt to understand and, ultimately, feel for them on some level.

On a neurobiological level, our experience of consuming fiction is actually very real. Measurably so. When we read about the scent of coffee, for instance, the olfactory center of our brain lights up. We can’t really smell it, but we’re familiar with the scent and we can conjure it up. Especially if the language is rich and helps us recreate the experience. Metaphors can be helpful in giving us a vibrant, multi-sensory experience when we’re reading, similes help a wider range of readers experience the same emotion, based on our own internal experiences.

The biggest philosophical dilemma we face is defining what it means to be real.

On a somewhat basal level, “we” are real and fictional characters are “unreal”; at most they are representations or amalgams of real people, but they themselves do not possess any actual solitary identity in life. They are not flesh and blood. We cannot engage with them on that touchable level we could with, say, a friend who we are comforting. In film and television, we can often extend our feelings for characters to the actors who portray them which is innocuous at best but potentially quite unnerving for the actors at worst. Still, trying to define a character’s relative “realness” is often a testament to how they’re written and how they’re played by the actor.

Literary theorists struggle to accept that a character can be real, because taken out of the context of their universe (whether in book, television or film) they aren’t able to stand up on their own. Of course, one could argue that there are some literary characters who are so timeless, so placeless, that this argument would be rendered invalid. Books and film have often taken a stab at their own high-budget versions of fanfiction, taking well-loved characters (that are likely in the public domain) and plopping them into alternate universes. Think Once Upon a Time.

Whether or not characters are ontologically “real”, our familiarity with them renders them very emotionally potent; a kind of emotional truth that we experience at a biochemical level quite the same as we would with strangers whom we get to know over the course of a season — or years, for the loyalist of fans.

Our interpretation of the actors that portray the characters, or even the writer who penned them, may not always be that misguided. Actors are often typecast. Writers often insert elements of their own personality into a character or two, even subconsciously. Our relationship to the characters, then, does stem from relating to the actor humans who bring them to life in our imagination. It’s all based on real emotions. Real experiences.

Some philosophers have proposed that the emotional response we have to fictional characters can’t be real because it’s not directed at real people. It’s “irrational, incoherent, and inconsistent” to think we can direct real emotions at unreal objects, argues Colin Radford.

To further elaborate, he asks us to consider how our emotional response to a horrible event would change if we later found out it was false. While we believe it to be true, we respond empathetically — however, if we believe an account to be false, or if we know it to be, we cannot rationally empathize. When we read a book or watch a film, however, we are knowingly partaking in something false, yet somehow are still greatly moved by it.

Another philosopher, Kendall Walton, wonders if what we experience watching a horror movie, for example, is not real fear — but quasi-fear. These almost-but-not-quite-emotions are not based on belief, but make-belief. Children playing a game of make-believe with their father, in which he pretends to be a monster chasing them, will playfully run and hide from him but not hesitate to run back to him when the game is over. These quasi-emotions account for our enjoyment of being spooked during a scary movie, or our desire to have a good cry watching something like Steel Magnolias for the umpteenth time. Further, it’s not as though just any movie or book can give us those fun (or awful) heebie jeebies or make you cry big man-tears.

While we may choose, however, to engage with fiction we do not appear to be in control of our emotional responses to it — quasi or not. And even still, how is it then that we can go full-well into a movie, or pick up a book we’ve read a million times, not only knowing the emotional climax is coming but knowing full well it’s not “real” — yet we still find ourselves tearing up? Oh, what a tangled web we weave.

We would do well to remember why we read or watch films in the first place; isn’t it to experience that which we have not experienced in our real lives? Understand other people’s lives, inner and external? Isn’t a mark of good characterization how “real” they feel to us?

We’ve all heard anecdotes about actors who play medical professionals on television finding themselves in situations where actual medical care needs to be rendered — and they have to remind those around them that they are not, in fact, a doctor. They just play one on TV.

It’s the purpose of the creators of such characters that we suspend our belief in order to see the actor as the character; we look at the skill of artists like Meryl Streep who seamlessly become the character, where we don’t have to put much effort in at all to convince ourselves that it’s Miranda Priestly and not just Meryl Streep with a great haircut. But how do we “decide” on an unconscious level that it’s not Meryl Streep on our TV?

Philosopher Tamar Gendler posits that we have two competing levels of consciousness — belief and alief. The former being what governs our intellectual knowledge that yes, fiction is not fact. Where the latter, what she calls “alief” is our brain’s ability to suspend our belief that fiction is not “real” — which is what makes watching movies enjoyable. We can get “lost” in them, but as soon as the credits roll and we return to our day to day life, we know it was just Meryl Streep with a superb haircut.

This system of alief, however, is a process that becomes increasingly more well developed as we grow up. This is why children are even more enraptured by stories than we are. If you’ve ever taken a young child to a live theater performance, you’re probably familiar with the struggle of having to explain to them that the actor playing the character was only pretending to be hurt.

Psychologists have also been interested in what they call “experience-taking”, wherein we subconsciously take on traits, attitudes and behaviors of our favorite characters. Our faves (problematic or no) are often such because we strongly identify with them. In one study, psychologists found that participants had a much harder time “experience-taking” when they were reading in front of a mirror; presumably because they were constantly reminded of their own self-concept. Thus, “experience-taking” can only happen when an individual can suppress their own identity and “lose themselves” in the book or the film.

“Experience-taking” is different from putting yourself in someone else’s shoes, which is more “perspective-taking” —like when we were discussing empathy earlier. The act of taking on experience, traits or attributes is very powerful; since it happens on an unconscious level, over time positive change can develop for the individual: increased confidence, motivation and a greater level of comfort socially, for one.

If you Google “why do we get attached to fictional characters?” 2,800,000 results are returned. Some of them are articles like this, asking questions about the psychology, the philosophy, of how we relate to our favorite characters. Others, however, are a slew of message board posts and blogs where people wonder rather frightfully if they are “sick” for developing very real emotional responses to characters that they know, intellectually, are not real.

What we look for when it comes to relating to characters isn’t necessarily the same as what we would admire about them. In fact, when it comes to really distilling down to what makes us really, really, really love a character, it’s not so much that we think of them as our fictional counterpart, but that we’d like to be friends with them.

At the root, our attraction to fictional characters may not be that we identify with them that much at all — but rather, we just really enjoy spending time with them. Whether it be in the pages of a book, a new season of TV or a feature length film, for a few hours at least we’re lost in their world.

And maybe the mark of a truly memorable fictional character is how often we take them with us when we head back to reality.”

http://www.themarysue.com/the-psychology-of-fandom/

#atheist #agnostic #secular humanist #skeptic #Religion #Christianity #religious insanity

16 notes · View notes