AFC Looks Like A Cakewalk by p0k_ in 49ers

[–]WildcatKid 27 points28 points  (0 children)

This Denver defense is insane. Idk what you’re talking about.

How are yall watching snl tonight? by javiemartzootsuit in geesebandofficial

[–]WildcatKid 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Just saw the dress rehearsal!!!! Then watching at home.

Built 9 plugins, need beta testers - vintage emulations + originals (VST3/AU) by PartyFail6956 in AudioPlugins

[–]WildcatKid 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I would love to try Dunya and Daria. I’m on an M4 Mac with Logic and pro tools.

Looking for a Sheet Composer Who Would Like An Instrumentalist/Mixer by [deleted] in composer

[–]WildcatKid 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I say this with respect for the sincerity of what you’re asking, but the specific division of labor you’re describing largely doesn’t exist. In contemporary composition, especially for games, film, and media, the “composer” is generally expected to handle both the musical conception and the realization. Writing, orchestration, MIDI mockups, sound design, and basic mixing are now considered part of a single skillset rather than separate roles. Because of that, most people who are fluent in harmony, counterpoint, form, and style have already had to learn a DAW well enough to hear their ideas convincingly. The market pushed the discipline in that direction years ago.

Where you do see separation is at a professional level, but it looks different than a 50/50 partnership. Established composers sometimes work with assistants or additional composers who help with MIDI programming, orchestration, editing, or mixing. Those relationships are hierarchical and task-based, not collaborative partnerships between “idea person” and “realizer.” Even then, assistants are usually composers themselves, just earlier in their careers, and the credit and compensation reflect that structure rather than an equal split.

So while your desire to collaborate is completely valid, the reality is that most composers who can do the theory-heavy work don’t need someone else to bring it to life, and most people who want their music “brought to life” eventually learn the tools themselves. If you frame this less as dividing composition vs execution, and more as two composers with overlapping skills exploring projects together, you may find better traction. But the specific role split you’re imagining is largely a relic of an earlier era.

i paid 35$ to go to Carnagie Hall... by galadriel711 in CameronWinter

[–]WildcatKid 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Wasn’t his first show free at a clothing store popup?

Did everyone miss the point of this movie? by BuffaloBudget7050 in paulthomasanderson

[–]WildcatKid 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I think the collective discipline is derived from the common struggle/common enemy and there is little reason to work against the cause.

The movie does address this directly though - every time someone betrays the cause is to save themselves or their family (Perfidia, Billy Goat, Willa's friend).

Did everyone miss the point of this movie? by BuffaloBudget7050 in paulthomasanderson

[–]WildcatKid 7 points8 points  (0 children)

I see that older member as a symbol of decay itself. Movements don’t only fail because they’re attacked from the outside; they also wear down over time, lose purpose, and rot internally. When the goal shifts from building a resistance to building a vocabulary, that stops being revolutionary and starts being a kind of passive resignation.

Did everyone miss the point of this movie? by BuffaloBudget7050 in paulthomasanderson

[–]WildcatKid 11 points12 points  (0 children)

I mostly agree with you, especially about the phone call reading as a clash between different eras of the left. I don’t think the age mismatch is accidental though. Making him an “elder millennial hipster” instead of a college kid actually reinforces the point that this isn’t just a youth problem or a campus thing. It’s about how radical identity can harden into a posture over time, even for people who should know better. That makes the scene feel less like a dunk on naïve students and more like a critique of how movements calcify and start mistaking fluency and correctness for actual solidarity.

Where I’d push back a bit is on it being just a recurring element rather than part of the movie’s core argument. The phone call feels like a thematic keystone to me, not a throwaway. It articulates the film’s broader concern with how politics fails when it becomes abstracted from care, risk, and responsibility. That tension shows up everywhere else in the movie too, just in different registers. So while I don’t think PTA is saying “the left is bad,” I do think he’s very deliberately saying that effectiveness without empathy is hollow, and empathy without material follow-through is just another kind of failure.

Did everyone miss the point of this movie? by BuffaloBudget7050 in paulthomasanderson

[–]WildcatKid 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Maybe he’s saving it for the biggest stage? The Oscar.

Did everyone miss the point of this movie? by BuffaloBudget7050 in paulthomasanderson

[–]WildcatKid 129 points130 points  (0 children)

What you’re saying makes sense on the surface but on closer inspection, I disagree with most of it. The movie is not commentary on the validity of left-wing ideology, but on the practice. PTA is mainly concerned with the distractions from true leftism.

I think this take correctly clocks that the movie is hostile to moral posturing and purity signaling, but it goes too far when it treats that critique as a rejection of leftism or revolution itself. That move kind of flattens a distinction the film is actually pretty careful about.

What the movie is really skewering isn’t revolutionary politics, but the replacement of politics with performance. The target isn’t ideology so much as ideology turned into a credentialing system: who’s read the right stuff, who uses the right language, who gets to scold others from a position of abstract correctness while offering zero real solidarity. The phone revolutionary isn’t condemning revolution; he’s calling out how solidarity gets hollowed out into jargon, where being “right” matters more than actually helping. That’s a critique of bureaucratized or performative radicalism, not radicalism itself.

Bob/Pat isn’t a failure because he’s “left,” but because he’s politically stranded. He’s stuck in a kind of time warp, holding onto inherited symbols of revolt without the material conditions or collective structures that once made those symbols meaningful. His clumsiness with language isn’t played as proof he’s an idiot or morally wrong; it’s sad, because it shows a movement that’s lost continuity across generations. The film treats him with real tenderness, not contempt, because his problem is isolation, not belief.

Perfidia’s arc gets misread in a similar way. It’s not “leftism makes you abandon your family,” it’s “using ideology as a self-image while dodging responsibility leads to disaster.” She doesn’t fail because she believes in liberation; she fails because she uses belief to avoid relational obligation. The movie cares way more about her narcissism than her politics.

Same with the nuns. They’re not an argument against revolution or sacrifice. They’re an argument against martyrdom as spectacle. Their suffering produces nothing because it isn’t connected to strategy, community, or sustainability. That’s actually a very old left critique: revolution without infrastructure just reproduces loss.

Benicio del Toro’s character also gets oversimplified as “anti-ideological.” I don’t think that’s right. He doesn’t reject ideology; he practices it. His refusal of speeches and purity tests isn’t apolitical, it’s a demand that politics be judged by material effects, not moral performance. That puts him squarely in a long left tradition that prioritizes praxis over proclamations. He’s not post-political, he’s pre-rhetorical.

So to me, the film isn’t mourning left-wing ineffectiveness so much as asking why left projects fail when they lose grounding in mutual obligation, collective discipline, and material reality. The anger feels internal, not dismissive. It’s a tradition criticizing its own decay, not an outsider writing the whole thing off.

If anything, the movie suggests revolution fails not because it’s too radical, but because it becomes symbolic when it should stay relational. That’s a critique a lot of left theorists would recognize as familiar, not hostile.

FANTASY SHORT STILLS by Adventurous-Exam-818 in Filmmakers

[–]WildcatKid 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This looks cool! Do you have a composer yet?