Best David Fincher Movies

1. Zodiac

Fincher’s best film also feels the most like a window into his mind, an obsessive movie about obsessives. Opening with a series of murders by the Zodiac killer, who haunted the San Francisco Bay Area in the late ’60s and early ’70s, Fincher vividly captures the uneasy tenor of a city that was held captive by a psychopath’s cryptic threats and deadly actions. But that’s only the beginning of a case that would go cold for everyone but the men who devote every spare minute of their lives to it. Played by Jake Gyllenhaal, Robert Downey Jr., and Mark Ruffalo in performances of steady deterioration, they follow every bread crumb through dead-ends and red herrings, so transfixed by the process that they don’t realize the extent to which it’s ruined them. It’s these men — the evidence collectors, the archive trollers, the puzzle solvers — that are aligned most closely with Fincher, keeping up their pursuit for the Zodiac as much to scratch an intellectual itch as to find justice for his victims. In fact, the film itself is a gripping reinvestigation of sorts, with Fincher validating and dismissing theories on the near-unsolvable case, and, as ever, fussing over every detail that goes into the hunt.

2. Se7en

After the false start of Alien 3, Fincher set the table for his entire career with his next project, a serial-killer thriller that’s so unrelentingly grim and unsettling that it’s a small miracle mainstream audiences went along with it. The premise is pure hokum, with two detectives following the trial of a serial murderer inspired by the Seven Deadly Sins, but Fincher takes it seriously enough to develop deeper themes about sin and evil and whether the world itself can be redeemed. Morgan Freeman and Brad Pitt play off each other nicely as a measured, seen-it-all detective and his new brash, emotional young partner, and Gwyneth Paltrow is affecting as Pitt’s lonely wife, who reluctantly supports his transfer to a more dangerous beat. The final “sin” is a gut punch that Fincher times out for maximum impact, and the conclusion he reaches is bleak and uncompromising while simultaneously full of genuine feeling for the lonely, dedicated humans beating back the darkness.

3. The Social Network

In the eight years since The Social Network was released, the diminished public image of Silicon Valley, epitomized by the fake news and data breaches of Facebook in particular, has only further validated Fincher’s portrait of founder Mark Zuckerberg as a bloodless creature of ambition. Fincher and screenwriter Aaron Sorkin understand Facebook as coded by Zuckerberg’s DNA, in essence the social network of a sociopath — wholly reflective of his ambition, arrogance, neediness, and petty disregard for other people. Sorkin’s hypercaffeinated voice tends to overwhelm less assertive filmmakers, but his dialogue has never found a more suitable vessel than Zuckerberg, and Fincher counterbalances all the talkiness with moments of pure cinema. The unsettling ambience of Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross’s Oscar-winning score sets the surprisingly portentous tone, and Jesse Eisenberg’s performance is blessedly free of ingratiation — he doesn’t care if the audience likes him, because Zuckerberg doesn’t seem to care, either. The sequence where Zuckerberg slaps together Facemash in a fit of juvenile brilliance from his Harvard dormitory is a thrilling synthesis of campus life and one man’s half-inspired/half-pathetic effort to bottle it in pixels. The Social Network respects his vision and hustle, but keenly recognizes the flaws that are now readily apparent.

4. Gone Girl

After The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, it fell to Fincher once again to adapt the literary phenomenon of the moment, in this case Gillian Flynn’s delectably batshit thriller about a woman’s disappearance and the cracks it reveals in her marriage. This is Fincher’s idea of a love story, much more so than gauzy convention of The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, and within this public game of cat and mouse between husband (Ben Affleck) and wife (Rosamund Pike), the film finds a perverse sort of equilibrium. It helps, too, that Fincher is a master of the twist: From page to screen, the big revelations from Flynn’s book could have easily sunk into “oh, come on now” territory, but Fincher plants them elegantly within the flow of the narrative, which weaves through different time periods to tell the complete story of a wounded relationship. He squares his particular sensibility with the lurid social commentary of Flynn’s book, carving out a pop provocation that entered the culture like a shiv.

5. Fight Club

Adapted from Chuck Palahniuk’s short novel about young men finding an outlet for their inchoate anger and frustration, Fight Club will be a rich text for cultural anthropologists of the future, who might wonder why privileged white guys were feeling so aggrieved at the turn of the millennium (and beyond). The film has become an inadvertent touchstone for disaffected Gen-Xers, but it’s also remarkably perceptive about what happens when bruised masculinity manifests itself in violent rebellion. The movie’s first half is like a two-fisted Office Space, perfectly articulating the soul-withering drudgery of a white-collar office drone who longs to break free of his ready-to-assemble, Ikea-box lifestyle. The anarchy that breaks out in the second is harder to track, but Fincher remains plugged in to the potent fantasy of razing the system and hoping something new will rise from the ashes.

All about Horoscope

A horoscope (also known as a natal chart, astrological chart, astro-chart, celestial map, sky-map, star-chart, cosmogram, vitasphere, radical chart, radix, chart wheel, or simply chart) is an astrological chart or diagram that depicts the positions of the Sun, Moon, planets, astrological aspects, and sensitive angles at the time of an event, such as a birth.

Photo by RODNAE Productions on Pexels.com

Horoscope comes from the Greek words ra and scopos, which mean “time” and “observer” (horoskopos, pl. horoskopoi, or “hour marker(s)”). It is utilised as a means of divination for occurrences related to the time period it symbolises, and it is the foundation of astrology’s horoscopic traditions.

The horoscope depicts the skies as a stylised map over a certain area at a specific time. In most cases, the viewpoint is geocentric (heliocentric astrology being one exception).

The chart includes the positions of the actual planets (including the Sun and Moon), as well as entirely calculated features such the lunar nodes, house cusps (including the midheaven and ascendant), zodiac signs, fixed stars, and the lots.

Aspects are angular relationships between planets and other points that are commonly determined. 

The vernal point (the first day of spring in the northern hemisphere) is defined by the tropical zodiac as the first degree of Aries, although the sidereal zodiac permits it to process.

Many individuals are perplexed by the distinction between the sidereal and tropical zodiac signs.

t is worth pointing out that the sidereal signs and the tropical signs are both geometrical conventions of 30° each, whereas the zodiacal constellations are pictorial representations of mythological figures projected onto the celestial sphere based on patterns of visible star groupings, none of which occupy precisely 30° of the ecliptic.

So constellations and signs are not the same, although for historical reasons they might have the same names

An astrologer must first determine the exact time and location of the subject’s birth, or the start of an event, in order to generate a horoscope.

At the same time, the local standard time (adjusted for daylight saving time or wartime) is transformed into Greenwich Mean Time or Universal Time. To be able to calculate, the astrologer must translate this to the local sidereal time at birth.

Photo by RODNAE Productions on Pexels.com

The astrologer will then examine an ephemeris, a set of tables that displays the positions of the Sun, Moon, and planets for a given year, date, and sidereal time in relation to the northern hemisphere vernal equinox or fixed stars for a given year, date, and sidereal time (depending on which astrological system is being used).

The horoscope is divided into 12 sectors that circle the ecliptic, beginning with the ascendant or rising sign on the eastern horizon.

The houses are the 12 sectors, and there are several techniques for computing these divisions. Since the 19th century, tables of dwellings have been issued to make this otherwise difficult work easier.

Horoscopes and the zodiac sign have always been popular, and they continue to be so today. From celebrities to the ordinary population, there are a large number of devoted fans.

It can be tough to accept that astrology is not based on scientific facts and is a pseudoscience when there are so many believers and perhaps a personal connection to the horoscope or the zodiac.

Reference

http://www.wikipedia.com

http://www.timesofindia.com

http://www.elle.com

ZODIAC SHAMING

BY: VAIBHAVI MENON

If you’re the type of person who thinks astrology is garbage, this entire line of thinking is your personal hell. It’s bad enough that people believe their personalities are based on the planetary alignment at the time of their birth. Now they’re casting off whole groups of people based on that same deranged paradigm? If you’re the type of person who thinks astrology is garbage, this entire line of thinking is your personal hell. It’s bad enough that people believe their personalities are based on the planetary alignment at the time of their birth. Now they’re casting off whole groups of people based on that same deranged paradigm? In China, zodiac discrimination is a well-documented problem. A 2017 study found that 4.3 percent of college students surveyed reported suffering employment-based discrimination because of their astrological sign (Western and/or Chinese). Constellation-based recruitment has its own entry in Baidu Baiku, otherwise known as Chinese Wikipedia. Close to 30 percent of Americans now believe in astrology, a number that’s been rising steadily. Who knows how long it’ll take before zodiac discrimination becomes an institutionalized problem here?

Not all forms of labelling or grouping are bad. You can still use the zodiac to make judgements about people, R but they should be holistic, non-prescriptive observations — ones that take people’s whole selves into account. Instead of writing people off because they’re Scorpios or Geminis. People are their sign, but they’re also far more than their sign. Behavior exists on a spectrum. Just because Virgos are thought of as anal doesn’t mean they all want a vacuum cleaner for Christmas. Writing anyone off without taking time to know them isn’t just unethical, it’s a boring way to live. Obviously discrimination based on, say, racial lines, is far more pronounced in society, not to mention negative. Most astrology signs don’t outright call people stupid or lazy, though they do imply weaknesses and temperent as well as strengths. But both are arbitrary categorizations for personality that utterly lack evidence or rationale. If you believe in astrology, and truly believe that the month someone was born in determines their personality, you are prejudging people based on when their birthday is. And as ridiculous as that sounds, there are still people who pay money to see their horoscopes and make life decisions based on them, including having their perspective and behavior toward others adjust based on each person’s signs. The basic premise of astrology is that people who were born at certain times and places share distinguishing personality characteristics. Libras, for example, are said to be diplomatic, refined, idealistic, and sociable; Capricorns are responsible, disciplined, hard-working, demanding, and so on. Tens of millions of people know something about their sun signs and read their daily horoscopes. There are some interesting parallels between racism and astrology. For one thing, in both cases a person is being judged by factors beyond their control. Just as a person has no control over his or her race or skin color, they also have no control over when and where they were born. In both cases, there is a framework of belief that says, “Without even meeting or knowing you, I believe something about you:   I can expect this particular sort of behavior or traits (sneakiness, laziness, arrogance, etc.) from members of this particular group of people (Jews, blacks, Aries, etc.)” When an astrologer meets a person and finds out that person’s astrological sign, she will bring to that experience a pre-existing list of assumptions (prejudices) about that person’s behavior, personality, and character. In both cases, the prejudices will cause people to seek out and confirm their expectations. Racists will look for examples of anti-social behaviors in the groups they dislike, and astrologers will look for the personality traits that they believe the person will exhibit. Since people have complex personalities (all of us are lazy some of the time, caring at other times, etc.), both racists and astrologers will find evidence to confirm their beliefs.

What is trying to be conveyed here is that zodiac signs or anything else that can be used as a form of discrimination should be avoided. No one deserves to be treated in this manner for these reasons. It definitely shouldn’t be acceptable.