I'm Acolyte posting again, but I keep seeing people who find it hard to reason with Mae and Osha having the same hairstyle as a realistic aspect of their world and culture. They claim it's an unrealistic plot device to explain Osha being mistaken, that the galaxy is too big, and there must be others who look similar, but there's a reason behind everything, and it works just fine in the story.
Osha and Mae come from a distinct culture that neither wants to let go of, and this is reflected in the styling of their hair. Much like with the real-life cultures they were based on: clay-rolled locs from ethnic groups in Ethiopia, where many people within a community have their hair the same way for generations. Osha and Mae are the only two survivors of the Brendok coven, which was already made distinct from whatever group they originated from. Their hair is a marker, but it's not the only reason they are mistaken for each other.
(hair pictures and racial commentary under the cut)
On one hand, there is a sociopolitical parallel here about how Black people are OFTEN accused of and arrested for crimes they do not commit, simply based on someone thinking the individuals look alike—racial profiling. In the story, this is basically what is happening to Osha, which is not made easier because she is a literal twin.
Yes, they both have locs, but they are not styled exactly the same. Some Black people in real life change their hairstyle often, while many others don't. As I said, culture plays a big part in this. But Mae having long locs while Osha's are short furthers my point about the profiling. Yes, the Jedi could assume she cut them to cover for it, but the witness identifies her too fast for that to even be a concern for him. He is more upset that his shop is ruined. So he sets aside a detail that would support Osha's innocence, but it is a detail that also sets up the twin swap later in the story. And of course, she's a twin, so her having the same face takes precedence over the rest.
Still, there is also the added context that the witness, the noodle shop owner, saw a woman in her 20s kill. A. Jedi. Master. What else? She was using the force. That narrows it down even more. Jedi responding to the crime scene know this and would conclude Osha, an ex-jedi with connections to Indara, most closely fits the description. She is high on the list of people to interrogate. If there even was a list.
So what do the Jedi do? Find Osha quickly because they keep tabs on her, bring the witness to identify her, and when he recognizes her face and calls it out immediately, they arrest her. No one knows Mae exists, and Osha doesn't know she is alive. The investigation stops there. The end. To the prison ship she goes.
Remember that when all the Jedi + Osha go to Olega, the little girl who helps Mae break into the temple accuses Osha just the same.
We, the viewers, know Osha did not commit the crime, but the story is already showing how easy it is when you have seen the exact same face. It sets up the later reveal that Osha and Mae were born as one and have the exact same symbionts, something that would differ among natural-born twins.
To be honest, the show doesn't tell us how many ppl they question. There could have been others, maybe even changlings. But why waste time when you know? Why waste time if you've done DNA or fingerprints and it just so happens to incriminate the living twin/same person (symbionts) of the assassin who committed the crime, who doesn't exist on record?
TLDR: Osha and Mae having the same hair and getting mistaken for each other is effective in the story because 1) their hair is part of their culture and they are the only survivors of said culture. 2) Osha is an ex-jedi with a skillset close enough to match that of Mae's and the Jedi know that. 3) They're twins with the same symbionts so DNA would make them appear as the same person. 4) Racial profiling in a galaxy far, far away. Thanks for reading!
An unrecognisable Robert Pattinson (Cosmopolis, Remember Me) quite literally leads the way in this gripping drama directed by the Safdie brothers. Good Time (2017) explores the relationship between Connie (Pattinson) and his mentally handicapped brother Nick (played by co-director Benny Safdie). Connie ‘rescues’ his brother from a counselling session, in which he’s hinted to have physically harmed his grandmother, after which the two set out to rob a bank. It, however, soon turns out they are in over their heads as Nick gets arrested and Connie is left to contrive another rescue mission (this time from jail). From there it goes from bad to worse and all eyes are on Connie, not only to see what he does next, but also to see if he will manage to keep it together. As Connie’s quest starts to come undone at the seams, the audience cannot help but wonder whether it is just Nick who’s dealing with mental issues or if his wild eyes are fired by more than his noble motivation to free his helpless brother.
Good Time’s soundtrack is a hypnotising, electro-based echo to an already disconcerting mise en scène. Its tempo is matched by the rhythm of the edit, along with the additional rising tension as a result of all the handheld shots. With each shot, cinematographer Sean Price Williams balances just the right amount of chaos with the actors’ outstanding performances, without it all being too much for the viewer to handle. Good Time was shot on film which allowed Williams to overexpose the image but keep the settings dark and eerie. This results in a graininess to the image, which is combined with neon lighting, a different colour in almost every corner of the frame, making for a very grimy, Blade Runner-y look. All of this; the handheld, the grittiness, the electro sounds; would make for a rather over-the-top perception of Connie’s already anarchic reality, if it wasn’t for the cast’s incredibly human performances.
In each close up, Pattinson’s intense stare captivates the audience. From the moment things turn south, the film is held on this edge of something that is hard to describe: it is a mix of despair, recklessness and anxious determination, which Pattinson embodies brilliantly in every scene. Connie’s plans to get his brother out seem to go out of focus at some point, causing the audience to grip the sides of their seats, while Connie himself never breaks a sweat. Or so it seems, as Pattinson, seemingly effortlessly, captures the many layers of his character in a display of conserved chaos. Like watching a car crash, the audience literally cannot look away, nor help to slightly root for Connie, the neurotic cause of most, if not all, his brother’s misfortune.
Apart from opening up discussion about mental health and its surrounding stigma, Good Time also includes subtle hints to other significant issues in today’s society. In line with last week’s review of ‘race-centred’ thriller Get Out, the Safdie brothers have planted similarly significant but more subtle hints to the questionable correlation between skin colour and crime (or, more poignantly, prejudice). This clearly demonstrates the Safdie brothers’s range and awareness, an awareness that makes me eager to see what they will come up with in the future. There is more to say, however, about the brothers’ slightly underrepresented voice: Good Time’s chaotically untangling narrative sadly diverts the viewer’s attention too much to really be able to fathom the directors’ true viewpoint. Some would say that it’s too ‘stance-less’ when it comes to the injustices tied with the execution of the law, but what the film might lack in angle, it makes up for in mindful nuance and, simply put, brilliant filmmaking.
Jemele Hill reacts to viral comments from David French about racism in America and how adopting his daughter from Ethiopia shifted his perspective.
Why does it take a personal experience for some to recognize systemic racism, especially when growing up in the Deep South? Jemele breaks down the deeper issue. The lack of education around Black history, limited cultural curiosity, and how societal bubbles continue to fuel ignorance about racism today.
A great listen if you have the time approx. 20 minutes a little less.
Review: Invisible Man (This slow, long read had meaning in the end)
Review: Invisible Man (This slow, long read had meaning in the end)
By Ralph Ellison
Rating: :) :) :)
Goodreads Rating: 3.83
Genre: Racial Commentary Fiction written pre-civil rights movement
Publication Date: 1952
Format Read: Physical copy from school
Challenges met: Read Harder Challenge
Goodreads Summary: First published in 1952 and immediately hailed as a masterpiece, Invisible Man is one of those rare novels that have changed the shape of American…
He whipped cold sweat from his face, thinking, What does she know of humiliation? She's never been down South. Now the humiliation would come. When you must have them judge you, knowing that they never accept your mistakes as your own but hold it against your whole race--that was humiliation.
