vox--2020-10-15--What a second Trump term could mean for LGBTQ people

While President Trump doesn ’ t often comment publicly on queer or transgender issues , his administration has been anything but LGBTQ-friendly .
Vice President Mike Pence has a long record of anti-LGBTQ lawmaking and rhetoric , and LGBTQ advocates have already called the Republican Party platform — a holdover from 2016 , as the GOP did not write one for 2020 — one of the most anti-LGBTQ in the party ’ s history .
A second Trump term could further turn the clock back for LGBTQ people .
Trans people have been a target of the Trump administration from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ took office in 2017 , the administration rolled back an Obama-era memo directing schools to protect trans students from discrimination .
That July , Trump announced his decision to ban trans people from serving in the military .
In May 2018 , the administration went after trans prisoners , too , deciding that , in most cases , trans people should be housed according to their assigned sex at birth .
This summer , the Department of Housing and Urban Development proposed a rule that would allow homeless shelters that receive federal funding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ birth-assigned sex .
Queer people have also been under attack .
Though marriage equality is the law of the land , the White House has taken steps to limit or undo gay rights in several key policy areas such as lobbying to give religious adoption agencies the right to refuse same-sex couples .
Most critical , perhaps , was the administration ’ s attack on the Affordable Care Act ’ s LGBTQ nondiscrimination protections in a rule released on June 12 .
Though it has been put on hold due to a federal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doctors and insurance companies to refuse care to LGBTQ people .
Meanwhile , Trump has nominated three conservative Supreme Court justices during his presidency , but in a surprising turn of events , a recent major LGBTQ victory threw the administration for a loop : The Supreme Court decided in June that LGBTQ people are protected on the basis of sex under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act .
The decision in Bostock v. Clayton County means that queer and trans people can not be fired for being LGBTQ , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for expanding rights into other issue areas such as education and health care .
Still , this likely won ’ t stop conservatives from trying to whittle away and build in carveouts to the legal protections LGBTQ people currently have .
It would be similar to the approach taken by religious conservatives with regard to Roe v. Wade — passing anti-abortion legislation at the state level in the hope that related cases work their way back to the Supreme Court , especially now that it looks like Trump pick Amy Coney Barrett is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ activists , conservatives will likely try to attack across three different fronts in their efforts to chip away at LGBTQ rights : by continuing to reshape the courts , by attacking health care access , and by continuing to limit immigration and asylum by LGBTQ people fleeing violence in other countries .
The courts are key to queer and trans rights If elected president , former Vice President Joe Biden has promised to immediately reverse the military ban and reissue an Obama-era guideline allowing trans students to use the correct bathroom .
This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ban cases and change the complexion of the bathroom cases .
However , a second Trump term would mean more anti-LGBTQ federal judges appointed , a Supreme Court justice ( maybe even two ) , and an escalation in the legal arguments against trans rights , legal advocates say .
The bulk of Trump ’ s anti-LGBTQ actions have come through administrative rules , most of which have been challenged in federal court .
Because of this , Trump ’ s control over federal policy has been solidified by appointing conservative judges .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ 792 active federal judges were appointed by Trump — that ’ s a quarter of the federal judiciary — according to Pew Research data .
Many of them were either previously anti-LGBTQ activists or who openly express anti-LGBTQ sentiments .
Several have already had an impact on pending legal battles .
Earlier this year , Fifth Circuit Judge Kyle Duncan infamously ruled that it is necessary for a court to misgender a trans plaintiff whose case he was overseeing , a decision not in line with precedents in other federal courts .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cases snaking their way through the federal court system that could end badly for LGBTQ people if put in front of a Trump-appointed judge .
These include several lawsuits against the transgender military ban , student suits seeking access to school bathrooms according to their gender identity , and California v. Texas , which is set to decide whether religious entities can legally deny adoption services to gay parents .
It will be heard by the court on November 4 , just a day after Election Day .
These cases could eventually land @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which is its own issue , now that Republicans in the Senate are all but set to confirm conservative Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Court upon Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg ’ s death .
“ Certainly , at least one more Supreme Court appointment would inflict devastating damage on the transgender community that would last for decades to come , ” Shannon Minter , an attorney at the National Center for Lesbian Rights , told Vox in August .
“ It would be something close to closing the courtroom doors on our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to somewhat relitigate and chip away at even landmark decisions is through a change in legal strategy .
Throughout its first term , the Trump administration argued in court that trans people are not and should not be protected under current sex discrimination laws .
This was the basis for several administrative rules rolling back the rights of trans people in health care , in homeless shelters , and in education .
However , Bostock turned that argument on its head .
According to Chase Strangio , an attorney at the American Civil @ @ @ @ @ @ @ begun to argue more explicitly that federal sex discrimination law protects cis people from sharing spaces with trans people .
It ’ s a similar tack to the fringe argument that anti-LGBTQ legal groups have long tried — that cis people have a constitutional right not to share locker rooms , bathrooms , and other gendered spaces with trans people .
For example , in a statement to the court in a case challenging Connecticut ’ s school sports transgender inclusion policy earlier this year , the administration argued that trans people are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protects people on the basis of sex in education .
In a more recent post-Bostock filing in a nearly identical case challenging Idaho ’ s ban on trans girls participating in girls ’ school sports , the administration took a different angle , arguing that Title IX entitles cisgender people protection from sharing spaces and activities with trans people .
That policy shift , Strangio told Vox , would be a scary portent for a second Trump term .
Because everything is interconnected , the key to making Trump ’ s strategy work @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be more Trump appointees to the already Trump-stacked federal judiciary .
The lower court judges would have significant power to shape LGBTQ cases as they move through the federal court system .
“ My greatest fear is for a judicial action that locates [ anti-trans ] rights in the Constitution that we couldn ’ t undo with a new president in the future , ” said Strangio .
“ You get some horrible constitutional ruling that then authorizes discrimination in a host of contexts because trans people are so abhorrent that you have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with them.
” Health care is likely the next big fight for LGBTQ people Even before the pandemic , health care was going to loom large over this election cycle .
Republicans in Congress have repeatedly tried to repeal the Affordable Care Act during Trump ’ s term .
The administration even submitted a brief to the Supreme Court recently arguing that the law should be thrown out .
The ACA was a landmark piece of health care legislation for Americans — particularly so for LGBTQ people .
Under an HHS rule established @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the bill banned health care discrimination against LGBTQ people , but just as key for queer communities were protections for coverage of preexisting conditions .
Before the law was passed , anyone diagnosed with gender dysphoria or HIV/AIDS could legally be excluded from health insurance coverage , and transition care could be legally excluded from any insurance plans .
“ I can ’ t think of a more important issue for transgender people than access to health care , because if we ’ re not able to access transition-related care , it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , authentic life , ” said Minter .
Should the administration succeed at the Supreme Court in California v. Texas , slated to be heard this fall , people could again be subject to wholesale exclusion from insurance coverage .
But even if the law is preserved in some form , the administration has already worked to limit LGBTQ access to health care .
In mid-June , just days before the Bostock decision came down , the administration finalized a rule clarifying that LGBTQ people are not entitled to sex-based protections under the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rule saying the opposite .
The rule , as written , would allow insurance companies to once again have blanket exclusions on coverage of transition-related procedures and they could once again deny coverage of health care that doesn ’ t comport to a person ’ s legal gender , meaning a trans man could be denied coverage for gynecological care .
The rule would also have had a significant impact on lesbian , gay , and bisexual cisgender people in the US by allowing doctors , health care providers , and insurance companies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ queer people .
“ We know LGBTQ people face discrimination in health care , ” David Stacy , who leads the federal policy team at the Human Rights Campaign , told Vox .
“ It can be overt discrimination , but it can also be more subtle discrimination.
” In August , however , a federal judge issued a stay on the rule ’ s implementation while the case is litigated , saying that the rule likely violates Bostock and that HHS failed to reconsider this after the Supreme Court ’ s decision @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are still potential avenues a second-term Trump administration could take to attack trans health care access in particular .
Minter suggested that , depending on the makeup of Congress , the administration could take steps to ban transition-related care from Medicaid coverage , try to reinstate a Medicare exclusion that existed prior to 2016 , or even try to institute a Food and Drug Administration ban on puberty blockers for trans adolescents .
The administration could also use executive action to end transition care offered through Veterans Affairs .
“ They ’ ll @ @ @ @ @ @ @ care for trans people any way they can , ” said Minter .
“ They can do a lot of damage on the health care front .
It would be , in my opinion , probably the single most devastating impact on the trans community.
” LGBTQ issues like health care and the military ban frequently take center stage when discussing the administration ’ s record , but perhaps nothing is as life and death for queer and trans people as immigration and asylum policies .
In late 2018 , 31-year-old trans woman @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Salvador , fearing for her life .
She reportedly made her way to the US with a migrant caravan and attempted to apply for asylum , only to be denied and deported back to her home country .
In late January 2019 , she was murdered by three police officers .
It ’ s a problem that will likely only worsen in a Trump second term .
“ The rules of asylum are completely changing , ” Bamby Salcedo , founder of the Trans Latina Coalition , told Vox .
“ Through that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being excluded .
This is something that will definitely impact trans women.
” Over the last three and a half years , the Trump administration has made it increasingly difficult for those fleeing gender-based violence to obtain asylum in the United States .
In November 2018 , Trump tightened immigration rules which restricted asylum to anyone who first passed through Mexico to arrive at the US southern border .
And this June , the Department of Homeland Security proposed a new rule that would allow immigration officials to dismiss asylum seekers ’ applications @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
As explained by Vox ’ s Nicole Narea , the proposed rule is part of a larger election-year push against immigration in general .
Using the pandemic as an excuse , Trump has closed the border with Mexico , started quickly deporting asylum seekers who show up at the southern border , and issued a temporary ban on issuing new green cards .
All of these restrictions come at a real cost for trans people , especially trans women , in Central America .
There is an epidemic of violence against trans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but it is acutely felt in Central America .
According to a report by Trans Murder Monitoring , at least 258 trans or gender-diverse people were murdered in Latin America between October 2018 and September 2019 .
“ The new asylum regulations that Trump has already proposed , if they were finalized , it will be devastating for LGBT asylum seekers .
And they ’ ll effectively just shut the door to asylum , ” said Minter .
The public comment period ended on July 15 and the rule could be finalized before @ @ @ @ @ @ @ retake the Senate and White House , they ’ ll be able to override any administration rules issued within 60 legislative days of the new Congress taking office via the Congressional Review Act .
Salcedo said that the possibility that Biden could win the presidency gives her hope — not just for the immigration and asylum system , but that other trans-related policies could improve in short order .
“ I am hopeful that , you know , the new administration will revert all of those policies that have attempted to come into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I ’ m hopeful that there ’ s tangible and institutional changes that are going to happen .
And I firmly believe that that could become a reality.
” In the spring , we launched a program asking readers for financial contributions to help keep Vox free for everyone , and last week , we set a goal of reaching 20,000 contributors .
Well , you helped us blow past that .
Today , we are extending that goal to 25,000 .
Millions turn to Vox each month to understand an increasingly chaotic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the USPS to the coronavirus crisis to what is , quite possibly , the most consequential presidential election of our lifetimes .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work — and helping everyone make sense of an increasingly chaotic world .
Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

While President Trump doesn’t often comment publicly on queer or transgender issues, his administration has been anything but LGBTQ-friendly. Vice President Mike Pence has a long record of anti-LGBTQ lawmaking and rhetoric, and LGBTQ advocates have already called the Republican Party platform — a holdover from 2016, as the GOP did not write one for 2020 — one of the most anti-LGBTQ in the party’s history. A second Trump term could further turn the clock back for LGBTQ people.
Trans people have been a target of the Trump administration from the get-go. Almost immediately after Trump took office in 2017, the administration rolled back an Obama-era memo directing schools to protect trans students from discrimination. That July, Trump announced his decision to ban trans people from serving in the military. In May 2018, the administration went after trans prisoners, too, deciding that, in most cases, trans people should be housed according to their assigned sex at birth. This summer, the Department of Housing and Urban Development proposed a rule that would allow homeless shelters that receive federal funding to house trans people according to their birth-assigned sex.
Queer people have also been under attack. Though marriage equality is the law of the land, the White House has taken steps to limit or undo gay rights in several key policy areas such as lobbying to give religious adoption agencies the right to refuse same-sex couples. Most critical, perhaps, was the administration’s attack on the Affordable Care Act’s LGBTQ nondiscrimination protections in a rule released on June 12. Though it has been put on hold due to a federal court stay, the rule would allow doctors and insurance companies to refuse care to LGBTQ people.
Meanwhile, Trump has nominated three conservative Supreme Court justices during his presidency, but in a surprising turn of events, a recent major LGBTQ victory threw the administration for a loop: The Supreme Court decided in June that LGBTQ people are protected on the basis of sex under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The decision in Bostock v. Clayton County means that queer and trans people cannot be fired for being LGBTQ, and the ruling could end up as precedent for expanding rights into other issue areas such as education and health care.
Still, this likely won’t stop conservatives from trying to whittle away and build in carveouts to the legal protections LGBTQ people currently have. It would be similar to the approach taken by religious conservatives with regard to Roe v. Wade — passing anti-abortion legislation at the state level in the hope that related cases work their way back to the Supreme Court, especially now that it looks like Trump pick Amy Coney Barrett is about to be confirmed.
According to activists, conservatives will likely try to attack across three different fronts in their efforts to chip away at LGBTQ rights: by continuing to reshape the courts, by attacking health care access, and by continuing to limit immigration and asylum by LGBTQ people fleeing violence in other countries.
The courts are key to queer and trans rights
If elected president, former Vice President Joe Biden has promised to immediately reverse the military ban and reissue an Obama-era guideline allowing trans students to use the correct bathroom. This would effectively end litigation in the military ban cases and change the complexion of the bathroom cases.
However, a second Trump term would mean more anti-LGBTQ federal judges appointed, a Supreme Court justice (maybe even two), and an escalation in the legal arguments against trans rights, legal advocates say.
The bulk of Trump’s anti-LGBTQ actions have come through administrative rules, most of which have been challenged in federal court. Because of this, Trump’s control over federal policy has been solidified by appointing conservative judges. As of July, 194 of the 792 active federal judges were appointed by Trump — that’s a quarter of the federal judiciary — according to Pew Research data. Many of them were either previously anti-LGBTQ activists or who openly express anti-LGBTQ sentiments.
Several have already had an impact on pending legal battles. Earlier this year, Fifth Circuit Judge Kyle Duncan infamously ruled that it is necessary for a court to misgender a trans plaintiff whose case he was overseeing, a decision not in line with precedents in other federal courts.
And right now, there are several legal cases snaking their way through the federal court system that could end badly for LGBTQ people if put in front of a Trump-appointed judge. These include several lawsuits against the transgender military ban, student suits seeking access to school bathrooms according to their gender identity, and California v. Texas, which is set to decide whether religious entities can legally deny adoption services to gay parents. It will be heard by the court on November 4, just a day after Election Day.
These cases could eventually land in front of the Supreme Court, which is its own issue, now that Republicans in the Senate are all but set to confirm conservative Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Court upon Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death.
“Certainly, at least one more Supreme Court appointment would inflict devastating damage on the transgender community that would last for decades to come,” Shannon Minter, an attorney at the National Center for Lesbian Rights, told Vox in August. “It would be something close to closing the courtroom doors on our foreseeable future.”
One way for conservatives to somewhat relitigate and chip away at even landmark decisions is through a change in legal strategy. Throughout its first term, the Trump administration argued in court that trans people are not and should not be protected under current sex discrimination laws. This was the basis for several administrative rules rolling back the rights of trans people in health care, in homeless shelters, and in education. However, Bostock turned that argument on its head.
According to Chase Strangio, an attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union, the administration has now begun to argue more explicitly that federal sex discrimination law protects cis people from sharing spaces with trans people. It’s a similar tack to the fringe argument that anti-LGBTQ legal groups have long tried — that cis people have a constitutional right not to share locker rooms, bathrooms, and other gendered spaces with trans people.
For example, in a statement to the court in a case challenging Connecticut’s school sports transgender inclusion policy earlier this year, the administration argued that trans people are not protected under Title IX, which protects people on the basis of sex in education. In a more recent post-Bostock filing in a nearly identical case challenging Idaho’s ban on trans girls participating in girls’ school sports, the administration took a different angle, arguing that Title IX entitles cisgender people protection from sharing spaces and activities with trans people. That policy shift, Strangio told Vox, would be a scary portent for a second Trump term.
Because everything is interconnected, the key to making Trump’s strategy work, say Minter and Strangio, would be more Trump appointees to the already Trump-stacked federal judiciary. The lower court judges would have significant power to shape LGBTQ cases as they move through the federal court system.
“My greatest fear is for a judicial action that locates [anti-trans] rights in the Constitution that we couldn’t undo with a new president in the future,” said Strangio. “You get some horrible constitutional ruling that then authorizes discrimination in a host of contexts because trans people are so abhorrent that you have a constitutional right not to share space with them.”
Health care is likely the next big fight for LGBTQ people
Even before the pandemic, health care was going to loom large over this election cycle. Republicans in Congress have repeatedly tried to repeal the Affordable Care Act during Trump’s term. The administration even submitted a brief to the Supreme Court recently arguing that the law should be thrown out.
The ACA was a landmark piece of health care legislation for Americans — particularly so for LGBTQ people. Under an HHS rule established by the Obama administration in 2016, the bill banned health care discrimination against LGBTQ people, but just as key for queer communities were protections for coverage of preexisting conditions. Before the law was passed, anyone diagnosed with gender dysphoria or HIV/AIDS could legally be excluded from health insurance coverage, and transition care could be legally excluded from any insurance plans.
“I can’t think of a more important issue for transgender people than access to health care, because if we’re not able to access transition-related care, it’s just impossible to have a meaningful, authentic life,” said Minter.
Should the administration succeed at the Supreme Court in California v. Texas, slated to be heard this fall, people could again be subject to wholesale exclusion from insurance coverage. But even if the law is preserved in some form, the administration has already worked to limit LGBTQ access to health care.
In mid-June, just days before the Bostock decision came down, the administration finalized a rule clarifying that LGBTQ people are not entitled to sex-based protections under the ACA, effectively rolling back the Obama-era rule saying the opposite. The rule, as written, would allow insurance companies to once again have blanket exclusions on coverage of transition-related procedures and they could once again deny coverage of health care that doesn’t comport to a person’s legal gender, meaning a trans man could be denied coverage for gynecological care.
The rule would also have had a significant impact on lesbian, gay, and bisexual cisgender people in the US by allowing doctors, health care providers, and insurance companies to deny care or coverage to cis queer people.
“We know LGBTQ people face discrimination in health care,” David Stacy, who leads the federal policy team at the Human Rights Campaign, told Vox. “It can be overt discrimination, but it can also be more subtle discrimination.”
In August, however, a federal judge issued a stay on the rule’s implementation while the case is litigated, saying that the rule likely violates Bostock and that HHS failed to reconsider this after the Supreme Court’s decision.
But despite the stay, there are still potential avenues a second-term Trump administration could take to attack trans health care access in particular. Minter suggested that, depending on the makeup of Congress, the administration could take steps to ban transition-related care from Medicaid coverage, try to reinstate a Medicare exclusion that existed prior to 2016, or even try to institute a Food and Drug Administration ban on puberty blockers for trans adolescents. The administration could also use executive action to end transition care offered through Veterans Affairs.
“They’ll try to cut off access to health care for trans people any way they can,” said Minter. “They can do a lot of damage on the health care front. It would be, in my opinion, probably the single most devastating impact on the trans community.”
Immigration rights are a life-and-death issue for LGBTQ people
LGBTQ issues like health care and the military ban frequently take center stage when discussing the administration’s record, but perhaps nothing is as life and death for queer and trans people as immigration and asylum policies.
In late 2018, 31-year-old trans woman Camila Díaz Córdova fled her native El Salvador, fearing for her life. She reportedly made her way to the US with a migrant caravan and attempted to apply for asylum, only to be denied and deported back to her home country. In late January 2019, she was murdered by three police officers.
It’s a problem that will likely only worsen in a Trump second term. “The rules of asylum are completely changing,” Bamby Salcedo, founder of the Trans Latina Coalition, told Vox. “Through that process, a lot of people are being excluded. This is something that will definitely impact trans women.”
Over the last three and a half years, the Trump administration has made it increasingly difficult for those fleeing gender-based violence to obtain asylum in the United States. In November 2018, Trump tightened immigration rules which restricted asylum to anyone who first passed through Mexico to arrive at the US southern border. And this June, the Department of Homeland Security proposed a new rule that would allow immigration officials to dismiss asylum seekers’ applications as “frivolous” without a hearing.
As explained by Vox’s Nicole Narea, the proposed rule is part of a larger election-year push against immigration in general. Using the pandemic as an excuse, Trump has closed the border with Mexico, started quickly deporting asylum seekers who show up at the southern border, and issued a temporary ban on issuing new green cards.
All of these restrictions come at a real cost for trans people, especially trans women, in Central America. There is an epidemic of violence against trans women of color throughout the Americas, but it is acutely felt in Central America. According to a report by Trans Murder Monitoring, at least 258 trans or gender-diverse people were murdered in Latin America between October 2018 and September 2019.
“The new asylum regulations that Trump has already proposed, if they were finalized, it will be devastating for LGBT asylum seekers. And they’ll effectively just shut the door to asylum,” said Minter.
The public comment period ended on July 15 and the rule could be finalized before Election Day. However, should Democrats retake the Senate and White House, they’ll be able to override any administration rules issued within 60 legislative days of the new Congress taking office via the Congressional Review Act.
Salcedo said that the possibility that Biden could win the presidency gives her hope — not just for the immigration and asylum system, but that other trans-related policies could improve in short order. “I am hopeful that, you know, the new administration will revert all of those policies that have attempted to come into effect,” she said. “I’m hopeful that there’s tangible and institutional changes that are going to happen. And I firmly believe that that could become a reality.”
New goal: 25,000
In the spring, we launched a program asking readers for financial contributions to help keep Vox free for everyone, and last week, we set a goal of reaching 20,000 contributors. Well, you helped us blow past that. Today, we are extending that goal to 25,000. Millions turn to Vox each month to understand an increasingly chaotic world — from what is happening with the USPS to the coronavirus crisis to what is, quite possibly, the most consequential presidential election of our lifetimes. Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers, your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work — and helping everyone make sense of an increasingly chaotic world. Contribute today from as little as $3.


A Trump second term

The 2020 presidential election is in part a referendum on President Donald Trump ’ s first term in office — as it is every time an incumbent runs for reelection .
Whether Trump wins reelection or is ousted after four years in office , though , could help determine how lasting the affect of his administration and policies is on American life .
During his first four years in office , much of the news and attention focused on the Trump Show : the slew of scandals that has accompanied the president ’ s time in office , his frequently @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and so on .
But more quietly , his administration has reshaped the government — from remaking the Supreme Court to rendering it all but impossible for people fleeing persecution to gain asylum in the United States .
On the campaign trail , Trump hasn ’ t talked much about his plans for a second term , focusing instead on the risks of a Biden administration .
But four more years in office would allow him to advance and consolidate the changes wrought since 2017 , and to push further ahead on @ @ @ @ @

The 2020 presidential election is in part a referendum on President Donald Trump’s first term in office — as it is every time an incumbent runs for reelection. Whether Trump wins reelection or is ousted after four years in office, though, could help determine how lasting the affect of his administration and policies is on American life.
During his first four years in office, much of the news and attention focused on the Trump Show: the slew of scandals that has accompanied the president’s time in office, his frequently offensive or outlandish tweets and public statements, and so on. But more quietly, his administration has reshaped the government — from remaking the Supreme Court to rendering it all but impossible for people fleeing persecution to gain asylum in the United States.
On the campaign trail, Trump hasn’t talked much about his plans for a second term, focusing instead on the risks of a Biden administration. But four more years in office would allow him to advance and consolidate the changes wrought since 2017, and to push further ahead on his own policy priorities.


vox--2020-10-16--In Netflix’s The Trial of the Chicago 7, Aaron Sorkin tackles an all-too-relevant court case

Any time a story from history is retold for the big screen ( or , these days , for the little screen ) , one fundamental question must be answered : Why now ?
Filmmakers don ’ t ( or shouldn ’ t ) revisit the past just because they think it ’ s kind of a cool story that will make bank at the box office .
Real people ’ s lives are being mined for material , after all .
So if you ’ re going to retell a historical tale , you need a reason : parallels @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , or a lesson of some kind .
We can ask this question of Aaron Sorkin ’ s The Trial of the Chicago 7 and find several obvious answers .
Sorkin — one of the few screenwriters whose name is a household brand unto itself — originally wrote the script back in 2007 , but the project got shelved during the 2007– ’ 08 writers ’ strike .
He picked it up again in 2018 with a presidential election in the middle distance , and it ’ s easy to understand why : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ drama based on the six-month trial of seven men accused of conspiring to cross state lines and incite riots at the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago .
And it rings all those “ now more than ever ” bells that Hollywood has loved to ring ( and ring and ring ) during the Trump era , albeit with a little more finesse than some .
Does The Trial of the Chicago 7 work as a film ?
Sometimes !
From his TV series The West Wing to movies like The Social Network @ @ @ @ @ @ @ associated with a few idiosyncrasies , two of which matter most here : a tight , wordy dialogue style ( often fired off while speakers hurry from one place to another ) , and grandstanding characters with progressive but rarely radical notions of American politics .
By those markers , The Trial of the Chicago 7 is identifiably Sorkin ’ s work , sometimes to its detriment , particularly as the movie rounds third base and heads for home plate .
But the movie is effective in spite of its foibles .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a complex story cleanly .
And even its missteps hint as to why Sorkin chose to return to this historical moment now .
Sorkin puts a Hollywood gloss on the story of the Chicago 7 .
It ’ s mostly successful .
The Chicago 7 , played in the movie by a uniformly outstanding cast , were Abbie Hoffman ( Sacha Baron Cohen ) , Jerry Rubin ( Jeremy Strong ) , David Dellinger ( John Carroll Lynch ) , Tom Hayden ( Eddie Redmayne ) , Rennie Davis ( Alex Sharp ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and Lee Weiner ( Noah Robbins ) .
All seven men were activists who used different tactics but shared the same goal : to end the war in Vietnam .
( I don ’ t know if Cohen and Strong are the best of the bunch , but their performances suggest they ’ re having an immense amount of fun ; Lynch is particularly good , as well , reminding me he ’ s one of the great unsung character actors of our time . )
Representing different organizations and not coordinating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Chicago in 1968 to participate in protests outside the DNC that would grab the attention of not so much the delegates as the entire country .
Denied permits by the city , their demonstrations ended with police beatings and bloodshed , which they contended were started by Chicago police .
The federal government charged the men with conspiracy and crossing state lines with intent to start a riot , and the trial began in September 1968 under Judge Julius Hoffman ( Frank Langella ) .
An eighth man , Bobby Seale ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ co-founder of the Black Panther Party , was also in Chicago to speak at a demonstration .
He was swept into their case , and famously petitioned the court to delay the trial so the attorney of his choosing could have gallbladder surgery .
After he was denied by Judge Hoffman , he petitioned to represent himself , which the judge also denied , and then continued to loudly protest this breach of his rights during the hearing .
Eventually , he was bound and gagged in the courtroom ; then he was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the other seven men as co-defendants .
The introductions of all of these men , and the first half of the film , are mainly devoted to showing their different styles of anti-war activism .
Hoffman and Rubin are the disruptive hippies ; Dellinger the peaceful grownup ; Hayden the principled statesman ; Davis the young radical ; and Froines and Weiner are just happy to find themselves in such august company .
What they all have in common is their intense hatred for the Vietnam War and the fact that they are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , is Black .
And we ’ re meant to understand that the judge ’ s actions toward him — which differ from the way he treats the seven white defendants — are part of the long-running American tradition of justice lifting her blindfold .
At the center of the trial is the men ’ s attorney William Kunstler ( Mark Rylance , tremendous as always ) and the government prosecutor Richard Schultz ( Joseph Gordon-Levitt ) .
The latter is a character who , by all accounts , has been substantially altered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him into an avatar for those in the audience inclined to cock an eyebrow at the defendants .
The historical record suggests Schultz was more of a hard-driving idealogue than the even-handed attorney we meet in The Trial of the Chicago 7 , who gets to play the part of , if not a hero , at least a Pretty Good Guy by the end .
Softening Schulz is one of a number of tweaks to the facts that Sorkin makes for the film , something he has done plenty of times in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which might be his best script , plays very fast and loose with characters and events alike .
Sorkin ’ s aim is to tell a good story , and reality does not always comply .
The fun of being a screenwriter is that you get to create reality .
There ’ s a reason we need these reminders of the past How you feel about Sorkin ’ s historical liberties will probably determine how you react to this film .
Not because anyone thinks The Trial of the Chicago 7 should have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been several about the same sequence of events , and you can stream them if you like — but because Sorkin takes those liberties to fit this tale to the contours of the classic Hollywood courtroom drama .
And classic Hollywood courtroom dramas have to end in triumph , the underdog winning out over those of whom society approves .
I was with the film right till the end , when it makes this heel turn , which I think is ineffective — or , at least , could have been more effective @ @ @ @ @ @ @ probably have involved hewing more closely to the facts .
Sorkin doesn ’ t change the outcome of the trial , but the way he moves pieces of history around is clearly bent toward turning The Trial of the Chicago 7 into a Hollywood tale of underdog courtroom triumph .
( I don ’ t want to spoil the movie ’ s beats , but I will say that Sorkin ’ s placement of events near its conclusion , combined with the requisite swelling triumphal music , shifts the tone of The Trial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of fairy tale that I ’ d hoped the movie would avoid . )
But the way he ends the film gives me the sense that Sorkin ’ s answer to the “ why now ?
” question would be simple : Because very little has changed .
The forces that tried to pin the Chicago 7 , not to mention Bobby Seale , to the wall are still active and powerful .
We hear a lot of the same rhetoric today .
And retelling the story has an effect — especially when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in it and send it to Netflix , where it ’ s bound to be seen by a lot of people .
Maybe Sorkin ’ s idea is to stir people to action .
But I think the movie answers the question of “ why now ” a little differently .
For people like me — a 30-something whose parents were still in grade school when this monumental trial went down — a glossy Hollywood movie like The Trial of the Chicago 7 , about things I can ’ t remember and that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , can do something truly useful .
Here ’ s why : In my adult lifetime , I ’ ve lived through 9/11 , various unending wars , a memorable uptick in blatant hate toward ethnic and religious minorities , mounting environmental insecurity , and multiple “ once-in-a-lifetime ” recessions .
That ’ s without even mentioning Donald Trump ’ s disastrous , norms-obliterating administration , which has had the additional effect of destroying the trust many Americans below the age of 40 once had in governmental , social , and religious institutions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ divide , more often than not , things seem pretty bleak .
I ’ ve responded by dipping back into history — specifically , by going back a half-century , to right around the late 1960s .
What I ’ ve found there is depressing , and a little comforting .
Depressing because much of what we hear in public discourse today about law and order , radicals , riots , policing , voter suppression , and all the rest is just ripped out of the past and barely even repackaged .
What @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t even a reboot ; it feels like a lazy rerun , sped up by 50 percent .
But comforting because it destroys the fanciful notion peddled by too many leaders that things were better not all that long ago .
Studying this history puts our current reality on a continuum with the past , rather than representing it as a uniquely terrible time in human history .
We know the world we are inheriting is a wreck ; it ’ s useful to understand exactly why , and to see which myths @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so .
And retellings like The Trial of the Chicago 7 are an invitation to imagine which threads of goodness we can hang onto .
Sorkin ’ s fairy-tale ending is , I think , a bit of a misstep , shifting the tone away from sobriety toward something significantly more self-congratulatory .
But one theme his chosen ending underlines is that , at least in his rendering , the fight over Vietnam and the fight over policing and the fight over who matters to the law is , ultimately , a fight @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who are lost in political fights are too often those who fell on battlefields or in parks or city streets , caught in a firestorm they didn ’ t start .
Honoring them is an act of revolution — and The Trial of the Chicago 7 argues that the fight to keep them from being lost in the first place has been going on a long , long time .
The Trial of the Chicago 7 is streaming on Netflix .
Help keep Vox free for all Millions turn to Vox each month @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the news , from the coronavirus crisis to a racial reckoning to what is , quite possibly , the most consequential presidential election of our lifetimes .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven @ @ @ @ @ @ @ make sense of an increasingly chaotic world : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

Any time a story from history is retold for the big screen (or, these days, for the little screen), one fundamental question must be answered: Why now?
Filmmakers don’t (or shouldn’t) revisit the past just because they think it’s kind of a cool story that will make bank at the box office. Real people’s lives are being mined for material, after all. So if you’re going to retell a historical tale, you need a reason: parallels to the present, or inspiring heroism, or a lesson of some kind.
We can ask this question of Aaron Sorkin’s The Trial of the Chicago 7 and find several obvious answers. Sorkin — one of the few screenwriters whose name is a household brand unto itself — originally wrote the script back in 2007, but the project got shelved during the 2007–’08 writers’ strike. He picked it up again in 2018 with a presidential election in the middle distance, and it’s easy to understand why: The film is a lightly fictionalized courtroom drama based on the six-month trial of seven men accused of conspiring to cross state lines and incite riots at the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago. And it rings all those “now more than ever” bells that Hollywood has loved to ring (and ring and ring) during the Trump era, albeit with a little more finesse than some.
Rating: 3.5 out of 5 vox-mark vox-mark vox-mark vox-mark vox-mark
Does The Trial of the Chicago 7 work as a film? Sometimes! From his TV series The West Wing to movies like The Social Network and Steve Jobs, Sorkin is indelibly associated with a few idiosyncrasies, two of which matter most here: a tight, wordy dialogue style (often fired off while speakers hurry from one place to another), and grandstanding characters with progressive but rarely radical notions of American politics. By those markers, The Trial of the Chicago 7 is identifiably Sorkin’s work, sometimes to its detriment, particularly as the movie rounds third base and heads for home plate.
But the movie is effective in spite of its foibles. It’s an ensemble piece that tells a complex story cleanly. And even its missteps hint as to why Sorkin chose to return to this historical moment now.
Sorkin puts a Hollywood gloss on the story of the Chicago 7. It’s mostly successful.
The Chicago 7, played in the movie by a uniformly outstanding cast, were Abbie Hoffman (Sacha Baron Cohen), Jerry Rubin (Jeremy Strong), David Dellinger (John Carroll Lynch), Tom Hayden (Eddie Redmayne), Rennie Davis (Alex Sharp), John Froines (Danny Flaherty), and Lee Weiner (Noah Robbins). All seven men were activists who used different tactics but shared the same goal: to end the war in Vietnam. (I don’t know if Cohen and Strong are the best of the bunch, but their performances suggest they’re having an immense amount of fun; Lynch is particularly good, as well, reminding me he’s one of the great unsung character actors of our time.)
Representing different organizations and not coordinating with one another, they all traveled to Chicago in 1968 to participate in protests outside the DNC that would grab the attention of not so much the delegates as the entire country. Denied permits by the city, their demonstrations ended with police beatings and bloodshed, which they contended were started by Chicago police. The federal government charged the men with conspiracy and crossing state lines with intent to start a riot, and the trial began in September 1969 under Judge Julius Hoffman (Frank Langella).
An eighth man, Bobby Seale (a stunning Yahya Abdul-Mateen II), co-founder of the Black Panther Party, was also in Chicago to speak at a demonstration. He was swept into their case, and famously petitioned the court to delay the trial so the attorney of his choosing could have gallbladder surgery. After he was denied by Judge Hoffman, he petitioned to represent himself, which the judge also denied, and then continued to loudly protest this breach of his rights during the hearing. Eventually, he was bound and gagged in the courtroom; then he was severed from the trial altogether, leaving the other seven men as co-defendants.
The introductions of all of these men, and the first half of the film, are mainly devoted to showing their different styles of anti-war activism. Hoffman and Rubin are the disruptive hippies; Dellinger the peaceful grownup; Hayden the principled statesman; Davis the young radical; and Froines and Weiner are just happy to find themselves in such august company. What they all have in common is their intense hatred for the Vietnam War and the fact that they are white.
Seale, in clear contrast, is Black. And we’re meant to understand that the judge’s actions toward him — which differ from the way he treats the seven white defendants — are part of the long-running American tradition of justice lifting her blindfold.
At the center of the trial is the men’s attorney William Kunstler (Mark Rylance, tremendous as always) and the government prosecutor Richard Schultz (Joseph Gordon-Levitt). The latter is a character who, by all accounts, has been substantially altered for this film, presumably to transform him into an avatar for those in the audience inclined to cock an eyebrow at the defendants. The historical record suggests Schultz was more of a hard-driving idealogue than the even-handed attorney we meet in The Trial of the Chicago 7, who gets to play the part of, if not a hero, at least a Pretty Good Guy by the end.
Softening Schulz is one of a number of tweaks to the facts that Sorkin makes for the film, something he has done plenty of times in the past; The Social Network, which might be his best script, plays very fast and loose with characters and events alike. Sorkin’s aim is to tell a good story, and reality does not always comply. The fun of being a screenwriter is that you get to create reality.
There’s a reason we need these reminders of the past
How you feel about Sorkin’s historical liberties will probably determine how you react to this film. Not because anyone thinks The Trial of the Chicago 7 should have been a documentary — there have already been several about the same sequence of events, and you can stream them if you like — but because Sorkin takes those liberties to fit this tale to the contours of the classic Hollywood courtroom drama. And classic Hollywood courtroom dramas have to end in triumph, the underdog winning out over those of whom society approves.
I was with the film right till the end, when it makes this heel turn, which I think is ineffective — or, at least, could have been more effective handled another way, one that would probably have involved hewing more closely to the facts. Sorkin doesn’t change the outcome of the trial, but the way he moves pieces of history around is clearly bent toward turning The Trial of the Chicago 7 into a Hollywood tale of underdog courtroom triumph. (I don’t want to spoil the movie’s beats, but I will say that Sorkin’s placement of events near its conclusion, combined with the requisite swelling triumphal music, shifts the tone of The Trial of the Chicago 7 into the kind of fairy tale that I’d hoped the movie would avoid.)
But the way he ends the film gives me the sense that Sorkin’s answer to the “why now?” question would be simple: Because very little has changed. The forces that tried to pin the Chicago 7, not to mention Bobby Seale, to the wall are still active and powerful. We hear a lot of the same rhetoric today. And retelling the story has an effect — especially when you put a bunch of movie stars in it and send it to Netflix, where it’s bound to be seen by a lot of people.
Maybe Sorkin’s idea is to stir people to action. But I think the movie answers the question of “why now” a little differently. For people like me — a 30-something whose parents were still in grade school when this monumental trial went down — a glossy Hollywood movie like The Trial of the Chicago 7, about things I can’t remember and that many people would like society to forget, can do something truly useful.
Here’s why: In my adult lifetime, I’ve lived through 9/11, various unending wars, a memorable uptick in blatant hate toward ethnic and religious minorities, mounting environmental insecurity, and multiple “once-in-a-lifetime” recessions. That’s without even mentioning Donald Trump’s disastrous, norms-obliterating administration, which has had the additional effect of destroying the trust many Americans below the age of 40 once had in governmental, social, and religious institutions. From my side of the age divide, more often than not, things seem pretty bleak.
I’ve responded by dipping back into history — specifically, by going back a half-century, to right around the late 1960s. What I’ve found there is depressing, and a little comforting. Depressing because much of what we hear in public discourse today about law and order, radicals, riots, policing, voter suppression, and all the rest is just ripped out of the past and barely even repackaged. What we see on the news isn’t even a reboot; it feels like a lazy rerun, sped up by 50 percent.
But comforting because it destroys the fanciful notion peddled by too many leaders that things were better not all that long ago. Studying this history puts our current reality on a continuum with the past, rather than representing it as a uniquely terrible time in human history. We know the world we are inheriting is a wreck; it’s useful to understand exactly why, and to see which myths we hear from grandstanding politicians made it so.
And retellings like The Trial of the Chicago 7 are an invitation to imagine which threads of goodness we can hang onto. Sorkin’s fairy-tale ending is, I think, a bit of a misstep, shifting the tone away from sobriety toward something significantly more self-congratulatory.
But one theme his chosen ending underlines is that, at least in his rendering, the fight over Vietnam and the fight over policing and the fight over who matters to the law is, ultimately, a fight about who is worth honoring. Those who are lost in political fights are too often those who fell on battlefields or in parks or city streets, caught in a firestorm they didn’t start. Honoring them is an act of revolution — and The Trial of the Chicago 7 argues that the fight to keep them from being lost in the first place has been going on a long, long time.
The Trial of the Chicago 7 is streaming on Netflix.
ntribute today from as little as $3.


vox--2020-10-16--10 psychological haunted-house movies — for when the ghost might be you

With the early-October arrival of The Haunting of Bly Manor to Netflix , a miniseries in the vein of 2018 ’ s hit The Haunting of Hill House , the haunted-house genre has gotten a timely boost .
While Bly Manor takes many liberties with its initial inspiration , Henry James ’ s classic gothic horror novella The Turn of the Screw , the series shares one of the book ’ s most common haunted-house tropes : The ghosts may or may not be a manifestation of what ’ s going on in your own head .
One of horror @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ability to viscerally capture , through images and sensory details , the experience of mental collapse or psychological dysfunction .
And one of the greatest things about a ” haunted ” house is that what haunts it might not be a ghost at all .
Sometimes it ’ s a person inside of the house who ’ s haunted , not a thing ( think Insidious ) .
Sometimes it ’ s an event that hasn ’ t happened yet — a premonition rather than an apparition ( think Eve ’ s Bayou @ @ @ @ @ @ @ manifestation of personal trauma and psychosis ( Martyrs or The Babadook ) or a manifestation of even larger cultural trauma ( Poltergeist or Pan ’ s Labyrinth ) .
And , of course , sometimes , the ghost is you , the viewer .
And that feels especially true in 2020 , when , thanks to the Covid-19 pandemic , many of us have probably deepened our relationships with our own homes over the past seven months .
As we look forward to what will certainly be a unique , very indoor Halloween @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be fun to take a look at haunted-house movies — and specifically the kind that play with the tension between the internal and the external , the supernatural and the psychological .
Many haunted-house movies work because the ghosts within them are real .
But sometimes , the ghosts aren ’ t real — or maybe they are real , but they ’ re also connected to the workings of the mind , rather than , say , a real demonic possession or an external supernatural event .
Or maybe it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
We invite you to try these psychological haunted-house recs if you ’ re in the mood for something a bit different .
We can ’ t promise you that all these hauntings will have a tidy ghost dispersal at the end — but they will leave you wondering if that noise you heard in the dark was all in your mind .
Our first pick for this list is cheating a bit , but hey , it ’ s our list .
Recently restored and having re-entered the critical consciousness , The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from legendary horror director James Whale ( Frankenstein ) .
Over the course of an evening , a crew of sophisticates up from the city find themselves stranded in a thunderstorm and forced to seek shelter in a strange Welsh farmhouse — which , of course , turns out to be harboring more than just mortal dinner guests .
Boris Karloff is hailed in the credits as “ KARLOFF !
” and billed as the star , even though he plays a sinister mute side character eerily similar to Torgo from Manos , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the ensemble cast , a cadre of British stage and film actors , including Charles Laughton , tiptoe around him to hilarious effect .
By turns catty and campy , The Old Dark House drips with cheeky nods to haunted houses and psychological horror tropes — despite not quite fitting into either genre .
“ Madness came , ” the 101-year-old patriarch tells the lovers at one point , referencing her bizarre , slightly murderous family .
“ We ’ re all touched with it.
” As a horror-comedy , The Old @ @ @ @ @ @ @ merry Edwardian farces and Clue-esque dinner parties .
But it retains the basic template for a true psychological horror : You ’ re never sure whether the house ’ s malevolence has infected the occupants , or whether their collective psychosis has imprinted itself on the house .
The Innocents dramatizes The Turn of the Screw in a way that ’ s frankly unforgettable and shocking , perhaps even more today than it was in 1961 .
You may recognize Deborah Kerr from her much more mild-mannered roles in other movies like The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Remember .
But Kerr ’ s performance here , as a disturbed governess who may or may not be projecting madness upon the children she ’ s caring for , is just shy of frenzied .
The Innocents is a must-see for anyone who loves gothic horror , stories of possession , or just stories with unreliable — and possibly deranged — narrators .
Robert Wise ’ s adaptation of Shirley Jackson ’ s The Haunting of Hill House remains one of the most famous examples of psychological horror because of its fantastic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wise uses a stable of filmmaking tricks — from jump cuts to canted angles and dreadful special effects — to vividly portray mental confusion and disorder , while the legendary stage actress Julie Harris slowly deteriorates in front of us .
As a bonus , if you liked the film , you can delve even deeper into a different level of haunting with the excellent standalone Netflix series The Haunting of Hill House .
The second film in the bloated Amityville franchise is a prequel , not a sequel , and it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the DeFeo family .
On one level , Amityville 2 is campy and overwrought , featuring Satanic panic , sibling incest , and every other over-the-top ’ 80s trope imaginable .
( As a bonus , it features one of my favorite lines in a horror movie : “ He did it to HURT GOD !
” ) On another level , it ’ s genuinely creepy .
Actor Jack Magner bears an eerie resemblance to family annihilator Ronnie DeFeo , who murdered his parents and siblings and later claimed to have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ killings .
Amityville 2 was panned on release but has risen in critical esteem over the years , perhaps because family annihilation is something we take more seriously — and subsequently fear more — than we did in 1982 .
Eve ’ s Bayou is an untraditional haunting .
Lovecraft Country ’ s Jurnee Smollett , at just 10 years old , turns in a stellar performance as Eve , a girl growing up in Creole Louisiana , surrounded by a tight-knit community and traces of witchcraft — both of which help her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of family secrets .
The supernatural is everywhere , but instead of battling ghosts , Eve struggles with her own second sight , including a premonition of tragedy that might be a manifestation of much darker family secrets , and childhood trauma yet to be exposed .
You ’ d never guess from her subtle , mature directing that Eve ’ s Bayou was filmmaker Kasi Lemmons ’ s feature debut .
And it ’ s a crime that , 23 years after its release , this sultry Southern Gothic melodrama isn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sam Neill are at their best in this zany , unhinged classic about a spaceship that becomes possessed by — well , you ’ ll see .
Many of the best space movies — including Alien , Tarkovsky ’ s Solaris , and 2001 : A Space Odyssey — all have an element of psychological horror : As the occupants of the lone spaceship drift deeper into the uncharted unknown , they grow more stir crazy , and they ’ re more likely to confront themselves , their demons , and their ghosts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , wraps it in barbed wire , and bludgeons you with it .
This film tortures its doomed spaceship crew with their own worst nightmares and many more unthinkable horrors , before finally revealing the secret of what their ship has become .
You may not think of a spaceship as a haunted house , but this ship will prove you wrong .
The Others suffered at the box office and with critics by being overshadowed and compared to better-known films with similar premises .
That ’ s a shame because the pleasures @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are manifold .
Take the sheer weirdness of its conceit : A pair of children who are allergic to light is permanently confined to their huge Edwardian mansion alongside their mother ( Nicole Kidman , who ’ s absolutely transfixing in her smothering obsession with her children ) .
Director Alejandro Amenábar layers on the creepiness as Kidman ’ s character starts hearing voices and seeing things , emphasizing her increasing psychosis with a hypnotic grace .
All the while , Amenábar blurs reality until even the film ’ s twists leave you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ relatively obscure Korean horror film spawned an utterly terrible US adaptation called The Uninvited that no one should watch .
The original film , however , teems with paradoxes , veering across timelines and shifting from soft and graceful to agitated , confused , and horrific .
Two sisters battle growing conflict with their stepmother and wrestle with an unspoken shared trauma , all within their family ’ s desolate country house , where ghosts and angry spirits manifest .
A Tale of Two Sisters turns around the riveting performances of Im Soo-jung @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It also makes outstanding use of editing , staging , and camera work to tell its story more through suggestion than dialogue .
The result is a wonderfully jarring , unforgettable portrait of family dysfunction , wrought with imagery you won ’ t soon forget .
Another debut film that ’ s almost too good to be true , The Orphanage is a masterful psychological portrait of grief , isolation , and loneliness , as well as a gorgeously wrought aesthetic achievement .
J .
A. Bayona ’ s fable of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tale of spiraling obsession and of the traces that remain in a house with a violent history — a violence that perhaps inevitably imprints itself on the present .
The film reconciles these two themes with a vision of great hope and optimism , but what remains with the viewer is the sheer harrowing despair of actress Belén Rueda as she allows her huge , empty house to swallow her and her grief whole .
I Am the Pretty Thing That Lives in the House ( 2016 ) Deliberate and methodical , I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the House unfolds at a snail ’ s pace in order to give viewers a full sense of its empty , titular house .
Lily ( Ruth Wilson ) is hired as caretaker to Paula , the house ’ s sole elderly inhabitant , and Wilson moves just as slowly and methodically within it as the camera does .
It ’ s as if she ’ s becoming gradually absorbed into the walls and the story of the house itself as she uncovers its past .
The whole atmosphere is inevitable and inexorable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ want to choose your own demise .
Help keep Vox free for all Millions turn to Vox each month to understand what ’ s happening in the news , from the coronavirus crisis to a racial reckoning to what is , quite possibly , the most consequential presidential election of our lifetimes .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone make sense of an increasingly chaotic world : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

With the recent arrival of The Haunting of Bly Manor to Netflix, a miniseries in the vein of 2018’s hit The Haunting of Hill House, the haunted-house genre has gotten a timely boost. While Bly Manor takes many liberties with its initial inspiration, Henry James’s classic gothic horror novella The Turn of the Screw, the series shares one of the book’s most common haunted-house tropes: The ghosts may or may not be a manifestation of what’s going on in your own head.
One of horror storytelling’s greatest strengths is its ability to viscerally capture, through images and sensory details, the experience of mental collapse or psychological dysfunction. And one of the greatest things about a ”haunted” house is that what haunts it might not be a ghost at all. Sometimes it’s a person inside of the house who’s haunted, not a thing (think Insidious). Sometimes it’s an event that hasn’t happened yet — a premonition rather than an apparition (think Eve’s Bayou). Sometimes it’s a manifestation of personal trauma and psychosis (Martyrs or The Babadook) or a manifestation of even larger cultural trauma (Poltergeist or Pan’s Labyrinth).
And, of course, sometimes, the ghost is you, the viewer. And that feels especially true in 2020, when, thanks to the Covid-19 pandemic, many of us have probably deepened our relationships with our own homes over the past seven months.
As we look forward to what will certainly be a unique, very indoor Halloween 2020, we thought it’d be fun to take a look at haunted-house movies — and specifically the kind that play with the tension between the internal and the external, the supernatural and the psychological. Many haunted-house movies work because the ghosts within them are real. But sometimes, the ghosts aren’t real — or maybe they are real, but they’re also connected to the workings of the mind, rather than, say, a real demonic possession or an external supernatural event. Or maybe it’s a bit of all of the above.
We invite you to try these psychological haunted-house recs if you’re in the mood for something a bit different. We can’t promise you that all these hauntings will have a tidy ghost dispersal at the end — but they will leave you wondering if that noise you heard in the dark was all in your mind.
The Old Dark House (1932)
Our first pick for this list is cheating a bit, but hey, it’s our list. Recently restored and having re-entered the critical consciousness, The Old Dark House is an early film from legendary horror director James Whale (Frankenstein). Over the course of an evening, a crew of sophisticates up from the city find themselves stranded in a thunderstorm and forced to seek shelter in a strange Welsh farmhouse — which, of course, turns out to be harboring more than just mortal dinner guests. Boris Karloff is hailed in the credits as “KARLOFF!” and billed as the star, even though he plays a sinister mute side character eerily similar to Torgo from Manos, The Hands of Fate. The rest of the ensemble cast, a cadre of British stage and film actors, including Charles Laughton, tiptoe around him to hilarious effect.
By turns catty and campy, The Old Dark House drips with cheeky nods to haunted houses and psychological horror tropes — despite not quite fitting into either genre. “Madness came,” the 101-year-old patriarch tells the lovers at one point, referencing her bizarre, slightly murderous family. “We’re all touched with it.” As a horror-comedy, The Old Dark House marries its gothic themes to merry Edwardian farces and Clue-esque dinner parties. But it retains the basic template for a true psychological horror: You’re never sure whether the house’s malevolence has infected the occupants, or whether their collective psychosis has imprinted itself on the house.
Where to watch: Amazon Prime, YouTube
The Innocents (1961)
The Innocents dramatizes The Turn of the Screw in a way that’s frankly unforgettable and shocking, perhaps even more today than it was in 1961. You may recognize Deborah Kerr from her much more mild-mannered roles in other movies like The King and I and An Affair to Remember. But Kerr’s performance here, as a disturbed governess who may or may not be projecting madness upon the children she’s caring for, is just shy of frenzied. The Innocents is a must-see for anyone who loves gothic horror, stories of possession, or just stories with unreliable — and possibly deranged — narrators.
Where to watch: Amazon Prime
The Haunting (1963)
Robert Wise’s adaptation of Shirley Jackson’s The Haunting of Hill House remains one of the most famous examples of psychological horror because of its fantastic acting and its dedication to ambiguity. Wise uses a stable of filmmaking tricks — from jump cuts to canted angles and dreadful special effects — to vividly portray mental confusion and disorder, while the legendary stage actress Julie Harris slowly deteriorates in front of us. As a bonus, if you liked the film, you can delve even deeper into a different level of haunting with the excellent standalone Netflix series The Haunting of Hill House.
Where to watch: Amazon Prime, YouTube
Amityville 2: The Possession (1982)
The second film in the bloated Amityville franchise is a prequel, not a sequel, and it’s based on the real-life 1974 annihilation of the DeFeo family. On one level, Amityville 2 is campy and overwrought, featuring Satanic panic, sibling incest, and every other over-the-top ’80s trope imaginable. (As a bonus, it features one of my favorite lines in a horror movie: “He did it to HURT GOD!”)
On another level, it’s genuinely creepy. Actor Jack Magner bears an eerie resemblance to family annihilator Ronnie DeFeo, who murdered his parents and siblings and later claimed to have heard voices urging him to commit the killings. Amityville 2 was panned on release but has risen in critical esteem over the years, perhaps because family annihilation is something we take more seriously — and subsequently fear more — than we did in 1982.
Where to watch: Amazon Prime, Shudder
Eve’s Bayou (1997)
Eve’s Bayou is an untraditional haunting. Lovecraft Country’s Jurnee Smollett, at just 10 years old, turns in a stellar performance as Eve, a girl growing up in Creole Louisiana, surrounded by a tight-knit community and traces of witchcraft — both of which help her navigate her way through a fraught web of family secrets. The supernatural is everywhere, but instead of battling ghosts, Eve struggles with her own second sight, including a premonition of tragedy that might be a manifestation of much darker family secrets, and childhood trauma yet to be exposed.
You’d never guess from her subtle, mature directing that Eve’s Bayou was filmmaker Kasi Lemmons’s feature debut. And it’s a crime that, 23 years after its release, this sultry Southern Gothic melodrama isn’t better known.
Where to watch: Amazon Prime, YouTube
Event Horizon (1997)
Laurence Fishburne and Sam Neill are at their best in this zany, unhinged classic about a spaceship that becomes possessed by — well, you’ll see.
Many of the best space movies — including Alien, Tarkovsky’s Solaris, and 2001: A Space Odyssey — all have an element of psychological horror: As the occupants of the lone spaceship drift deeper into the uncharted unknown, they grow more stir crazy, and they’re more likely to confront themselves, their demons, and their ghosts. Event Horizon takes that general premise, wraps it in barbed wire, and bludgeons you with it. This film tortures its doomed spaceship crew with their own worst nightmares and many more unthinkable horrors, before finally revealing the secret of what their ship has become. You may not think of a spaceship as a haunted house, but this ship will prove you wrong.
Where to watch: Amazon Prime, Hulu
The Others (1999)
The Others suffered at the box office and with critics by being overshadowed and compared to better-known films with similar premises. That’s a shame because the pleasures and chills of this supernatural gothic thriller are manifold. Take the sheer weirdness of its conceit: A pair of children who are allergic to light is permanently confined to their huge Edwardian mansion alongside their mother (Nicole Kidman, who’s absolutely transfixing in her smothering obsession with her children). Director Alejandro Amenábar layers on the creepiness as Kidman’s character starts hearing voices and seeing things, emphasizing her increasing psychosis with a hypnotic grace. All the while, Amenábar blurs reality until even the film’s twists leave you with more questions than answers.
Where to watch: Amazon Prime, HBO Max
A Tale of Two Sisters (2003)
This relatively obscure Korean horror film spawned an utterly terrible US adaptation called The Uninvited that no one should watch. The original film, however, teems with paradoxes, veering across timelines and shifting from soft and graceful to agitated, confused, and horrific. Two sisters battle growing conflict with their stepmother and wrestle with an unspoken shared trauma, all within their family’s desolate country house, where ghosts and angry spirits manifest.
A Tale of Two Sisters turns around the riveting performances of Im Soo-jung and Moon Geun-young as the titular siblings. It also makes outstanding use of editing, staging, and camera work to tell its story more through suggestion than dialogue. The result is a wonderfully jarring, unforgettable portrait of family dysfunction, wrought with imagery you won’t soon forget.
Where to watch: Amazon Prime, Shudder
The Orphanage / El Orfanato (2007)
Another debut film that’s almost too good to be true, The Orphanage is a masterful psychological portrait of grief, isolation, and loneliness, as well as a gorgeously wrought aesthetic achievement. J. A. Bayona’s fable of a woman whose son goes missing is a tale of spiraling obsession and of the traces that remain in a house with a violent history — a violence that perhaps inevitably imprints itself on the present. The film reconciles these two themes with a vision of great hope and optimism, but what remains with the viewer is the sheer harrowing despair of actress Belén Rueda as she allows her huge, empty house to swallow her and her grief whole.
Where to watch: Amazon Prime
I Am the Pretty Thing That Lives in the House (2016)
Deliberate and methodical, I Am the Pretty Thing That Lives in the House unfolds at a snail’s pace in order to give viewers a full sense of its empty, titular house. Lily (Ruth Wilson) is hired as caretaker to Paula, the house’s sole elderly inhabitant, and Wilson moves just as slowly and methodically within it as the camera does. It’s as if she’s becoming gradually absorbed into the walls and the story of the house itself as she uncovers its past. The whole atmosphere is inevitable and inexorable — a movie for when you just want to choose your own demise.
Where to watch: Netflix


vox--2020-10-16--Get yourself a pandemic crush

Get yourself a pandemic crush

During the lonely month of April , the most thrilling news I could anticipate came in the form of weekly updates on my friend Kenny ’ s pandemic crush .
An intense and somewhat unrealistic infatuation had managed to rear its head in Kenny ’ s life , right when the virus made it dangerous to be in close contact with others .
It was a second-degree-removed crush on my end , but I still felt invested ; a crush is a torturous delight , even in normal times , and even when it ’ s happening to someone else @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , whom we ’ ll call Arthur , virtually on a Discord group chat for gay League of Legend gamers .
“ I had nothing to lose , ” Kenny later recounted to me .
He had just ended a three-year relationship , and quarantine heightened his sense of loneliness .
In reality , the relationship “ really wasn ’ t going anywhere , ” he admitted , despite the constant messaging and back-and-forth flirting .
Arthur , who lived about 40 minutes away , was working as a nurse and interacting with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hadn ’ t progressed enough to risk an in-person meet-up .
Over time , the mutual feeling gradually faded , and Kenny found himself preoccupied with yet another crush from the same Discord group .
2020 has been a big year for yearning — for crowded bars , cozy family gatherings , tight hugs , and mask-less interactions .
That has translated into a deep , unattainable longing for all sorts of people , experiences , and destinations .
Developing a pandemic crush , therefore , is a sort of emotional coping mechanism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ necessarily the goal .
It ’ s a silly yet socially non-consequential obsession a person can safely cultivate in the confines of their head and home .
Plus , crushes are indiscriminate — they ’ re definitely not just for young , single people .
Older adults and those in committed relationships ( monogamous or polyamorous ) can harbor these feelings as well .
“ Crushes have more to do with fantasy than with reality , ” argued psychologist Carl Pickhardt .
“ They tell much more about the admirer than the admired @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prove unrealistic that in a relatively short time they soon wear off.
” “ Crushes have more to do with fantasy than with reality ” In pandemic times , the stakes are different when it comes to pursuing a love interest .
For some , having a crush is a noncommittal hobby , in which brief feelings of attraction are directed toward a mutual friend , a cute neighbor , or a friendly grocery store cashier with good vibes .
Meanwhile , others are wading into romantic entanglements ( often long-distance ) that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to that of a long-distance relationship , while the uncertain nature of the pandemic hangs in the background .
Particularly for the many single young people who ’ ve found themselves living alone or with their parents , and socializing at arm ’ s length with a handful of familiar acquaintances , it ’ s a pleasant , time-worthy distraction .
The type of romantic yearning that comes with a crush is a form of escapism , an act that ’ s arguably as productive as ( if not more so than ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ feels like I ’ m in high school again doing homework at my family ’ s dinner table , ” said Dorian , a 25-year-old graduate student in Minnesota , who began crushing on his high school ex-girlfriend in May .
After emotionally extracting himself from this one-sided affair , Dorian developed another crush , this time on Zoom while he was helping a coworker prepare for a presentation .
“ Given that all my social and physical contact has become so infrequent and short-lived , there ’ s almost extra emotional salience @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he explained to me .
“ And that can easily be confused by my lizard brain as being romantic , instead of a desire to spend time with literally anyone.
” “ That can easily be confused by my lizard brain as being romantic , instead of a desire to spend time with literally anyone ” Given the lack of anticipatory excitement in our lives , crushing on someone — whether that ’ s an old friend or a social media mutual — is seductive and oddly satisfying .
So why stop ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ s brain chemicals acting up , releasing dopamine ( the feel-good hormone ) and oxytocin ( the love hormone ) to create a sense of euphoria and fuzzy excitement .
One clinical psychologist told Bustle that by virtue of having a crush on someone , “ our brain has a stimulus that is different from our daily experience , and that novelty keeps us engaged.
” Novelty feels sacred nowadays , even if the nature of a crush is fickle .
Love in the time of coronavirus — as described to me by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — is “ pure ” yet “ emotionally devastating , ” “ thrilling ” but also “ exhausting.
” “ It ’ s been a very lovely and indulgent way to exercise my hopeful , imaginative , and romantic muscles , ” said Sarah Kissel , a 26-year-old master ’ s student in Massachusetts , of her pandemic crush .
The two connected in September through an Instagram matchmaking setup for queer women run by the account @ dykeblanchett .
Within minutes of having her Instagram handle shared on the account ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ messages from women across the world , but her strongest connection was with , as she described to me , “ the most unattainable babe of all time ” named Rachel , who is a Rome-based filmmaker and screenwriter .
Their flirtations , which started on Instagram messages , have been “ languid and longing , ” according to Kissel , and moved immediately past small talk into questions like , “ Do you believe in fate ?
” and “ What was your most painful heartbreak ?
” They ’ ve set @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up on her Spanish and Italian ( Rachel speaks both fluently ) , but in light of the international travel restrictions , her budding feelings are “ a real problem , ” Kissel joked .
“ Will I go to Rome as soon as it ’ s safe to meet her ?
Absolutely.
” But not all crushes are made equal .
There are the long-haulers , like Kissel , who are developing intense emotional attachments with their crushes ( who are likely reciprocating this interest ) .
Then there are the more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , usually directed toward mutuals on social media or vaguely familiar acquaintances .
The parameters of a crush doesn ’ t always fall neatly within these two categories ; there are also quarantine Hinge boyfriends , Trader Joe ’ s employee crushes , and thirst trap reply guys .
“ I ’ ve had quite a few crushes that would just randomly slide into my DMs and give me some attention after I post a thirst trap , ” said Isshani Desai , a 25-year-old creative strategist in Brooklyn .
“ These conversations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is why it feels unattainable for me.
” Over the past six months , Desai has developed surprising , brief crushes on people who randomly flirt with her online .
None have expressed interest in texting her more consistently , but that noncommittal factor keeps Desai grounded .
“ People want to meet up right away , and they ’ re not willing to make conversation to really get to know you , ” she said .
“ I don ’ t know if they ’ re as great as their social media @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be , but in quarantine , the only thing you have is your mind and your own fantasies.
” There is , though , the growing thrill of scoping out in-person crushes at local bars , parks , and grocery stores — something Desai never really used to do before the pandemic .
Most people are masked up , which makes the search more exciting .
“ Nowadays when I go to Trader Joe ’ s to get groceries , I ’ d dress up and wear something really nice , ” she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , where else am I going to meet the love of my life ?
” These crush scenarios all maintain an element of ambiguity , since the majority of them are sustained virtually .
Attraction toward one ’ s interest could be “ a potent mix of idealization and infatuation , ” as Pickhardt , the psychologist , described .
“ It doesn ’ t require knowing another person well at all.
” It ’ s much easier to project emotions or character traits on another person when they are physically distant , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 27-year-old advertising strategist in New York City , has when it comes to her pandemic crush Jacob , who is based in London .
“ I feel like I know him through the glass on my phone , through an app , ” she told me .
“ I have projected things on people before , but I don ’ t think that ’ s an entirely fair assessment of our relationship since we talk so much.
” Jacob was only supposed to be a one-night stand for Andrea when she was vacationing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sporadically kept in touch over the next couple weeks when he flew to New York City and she to London for work , but it wasn ’ t until the pandemic that they began texting every day .
Yet Andrea is uncertain whether Jacob is equally invested in her or even knows who she is as a person .
Their relationship is now in a weird “ no-man ’ s land territory , ” where there ’ s no timeline for defining the relationship or demanding exclusivity .
“ I ’ m not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and I shouldn ’ t stop myself either , ” she said .
“ But that doesn ’ t mean I can ’ t be crushing .
I have the most disgusting crush on this man .
It ’ s horrific .
And I don ’ t know what to do because he ’ s in London.
” “ I ’ m not going to stop this person from dating , and I shouldn ’ t stop myself either .
But that doesn ’ t mean I can ’ t be crushing.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ her pandemic crush , international travel isn ’ t currently an option for Andrea .
She is curious about the blurry nature of their virtual relationship , but the reality of her crush — and her burgeoning feelings for him — is something she ’ s only considered in the abstract .
“ I ’ ve kept him to myself selfishly in a way , ” she told me .
“ I want to preserve these feelings that I have , this relationship that feels so unmarred by the politics of friendship or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s just a pure connection between us.
” This sense of emotional purity and deep connection is , perhaps , more salient for most people in quarantine than ever before .
For most of this year , we ’ ve lived in closed-off clusters , interacting primarily with those we already know and trust .
Developing a crush is a naive act of hope .
While it is an act of emotional projection , it ’ s also one of self-redemption — allowing yourself to pine after an unattainable dream , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mind-boggling events that have occurred so far .
According to my own pandemic crush , “ there ’ s something obviously a bit fantastical and romantic ” about this moment and the feelings people are developing .
“ It came about largely because we ’ re in these glitch-in-the-matrix circumstances , ” he texted me , “ but because the emotions involved are legitimate , it also feels just as committed as a full-fledged relationship.
” What is the risk , then , of putting your feelings on the line for someone in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ meet , when all the systems we depend on are in crisis ?
Crushes come and go , but the feelings that accompany them , however fleeting , are legitimate and a reflection of what we desire .
A pandemic crush is simply a chaotic byproduct of these chaotic times .
Help keep Vox free for all Millions turn to Vox each month to understand what ’ s happening in the news , from the coronavirus crisis to a racial reckoning to what is , quite possibly , the most consequential presidential election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone make sense of an increasingly chaotic world : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

During the lonely month of April, the most thrilling news I could anticipate came in the form of weekly updates on my friend Kenny’s pandemic crush. An intense and somewhat unrealistic infatuation had managed to rear its head in Kenny’s life, right when the virus made it dangerous to be in close contact with others. It was a second-degree-removed crush on my end, but I still felt invested; a crush is a torturous delight, even in normal times, and even when it’s happening to someone else.
Kenny was introduced to his crush, whom we’ll call Arthur, virtually on a Discord group chat for gay League of Legend gamers. “I had nothing to lose,” Kenny later recounted to me. He had just ended a three-year relationship, and quarantine heightened his sense of loneliness.
In reality, the relationship “really wasn’t going anywhere,” he admitted, despite the constant messaging and back-and-forth flirting.
Arthur, who lived about 40 minutes away, was working as a nurse and interacting with at-risk patients, and their online courtship hadn’t progressed enough to risk an in-person meet-up. Over time, the mutual feeling gradually faded, and Kenny found himself preoccupied with yet another crush from the same Discord group.
2020 has been a big year for yearning — for crowded bars, cozy family gatherings, tight hugs, and mask-less interactions. That has translated into a deep, unattainable longing for all sorts of people, experiences, and destinations. Developing a pandemic crush, therefore, is a sort of emotional coping mechanism, even if romance isn’t necessarily the goal.
It’s a silly yet socially non-consequential obsession a person can safely cultivate in the confines of their head and home. Plus, crushes are indiscriminate — they’re definitely not just for young, single people. Older adults and those in committed relationships (monogamous or polyamorous) can harbor these feelings as well. “Crushes have more to do with fantasy than with reality,” argued psychologist Carl Pickhardt. “They tell much more about the admirer than the admired. It’s because they usually prove unrealistic that in a relatively short time they soon wear off.”
“Crushes have more to do with fantasy than with reality”
In pandemic times, the stakes are different when it comes to pursuing a love interest. For some, having a crush is a noncommittal hobby, in which brief feelings of attraction are directed toward a mutual friend, a cute neighbor, or a friendly grocery store cashier with good vibes. Meanwhile, others are wading into romantic entanglements (often long-distance) that have become much more serious, akin to that of a long-distance relationship, while the uncertain nature of the pandemic hangs in the background.
Particularly for the many single young people who’ve found themselves living alone or with their parents, and socializing at arm’s length with a handful of familiar acquaintances, it’s a pleasant, time-worthy distraction. The type of romantic yearning that comes with a crush is a form of escapism, an act that’s arguably as productive as (if not more so than) doomscrolling through Twitter.
“Quarantine basically feels like I’m in high school again doing homework at my family’s dinner table,” said Dorian, a 25-year-old graduate student in Minnesota, who began crushing on his high school ex-girlfriend in May. After emotionally extracting himself from this one-sided affair, Dorian developed another crush, this time on Zoom while he was helping a coworker prepare for a presentation.
“Given that all my social and physical contact has become so infrequent and short-lived, there’s almost extra emotional salience that normal interactions are given,” he explained to me. “And that can easily be confused by my lizard brain as being romantic, instead of a desire to spend time with literally anyone.”
“That can easily be confused by my lizard brain as being romantic, instead of a desire to spend time with literally anyone”
Given the lack of anticipatory excitement in our lives, crushing on someone — whether that’s an old friend or a social media mutual — is seductive and oddly satisfying. So why stop?
Crushes are a result of one’s brain chemicals acting up, releasing dopamine (the feel-good hormone) and oxytocin (the love hormone) to create a sense of euphoria and fuzzy excitement. One clinical psychologist told Bustle that by virtue of having a crush on someone, “our brain has a stimulus that is different from our daily experience, and that novelty keeps us engaged.”
Novelty feels sacred nowadays, even if the nature of a crush is fickle. Love in the time of coronavirus — as described to me by the many young people I spoke with — is “pure” yet “emotionally devastating,” “thrilling” but also “exhausting.”
“It’s been a very lovely and indulgent way to exercise my hopeful, imaginative, and romantic muscles,” said Sarah Kissel, a 26-year-old master’s student in Massachusetts, of her pandemic crush.
The two connected in September through an Instagram matchmaking setup for queer women run by the account @dykeblanchett. Within minutes of having her Instagram handle shared on the account’s Stories, Kissel received a deluge of messages from women across the world, but her strongest connection was with, as she described to me, “the most unattainable babe of all time” named Rachel, who is a Rome-based filmmaker and screenwriter.
Their flirtations, which started on Instagram messages, have been “languid and longing,” according to Kissel, and moved immediately past small talk into questions like, “Do you believe in fate?” and “What was your most painful heartbreak?” They’ve set up Zoom dates for Kissel to brush up on her Spanish and Italian (Rachel speaks both fluently), but in light of the international travel restrictions, her budding feelings are “a real problem,” Kissel joked. “Will I go to Rome as soon as it’s safe to meet her? Absolutely.”
But not all crushes are made equal. There are the long-haulers, like Kissel, who are developing intense emotional attachments with their crushes (who are likely reciprocating this interest). Then there are the more casual crushes, like Kenny’s, usually directed toward mutuals on social media or vaguely familiar acquaintances.
The parameters of a crush doesn’t always fall neatly within these two categories; there are also quarantine Hinge boyfriends, Trader Joe’s employee crushes, and thirst trap reply guys. “I’ve had quite a few crushes that would just randomly slide into my DMs and give me some attention after I post a thirst trap,” said Isshani Desai, a 25-year-old creative strategist in Brooklyn. “These conversations are not getting any deeper, which is why it feels unattainable for me.”
asking a girl on a date
- terrifying
- she might say yes so then u have to go and be social
- could get covid
having a crush but never doing anything about it
- extremely easy
- can do it from the comfort of your own home
- safe from covid and any sort of emotional vulnerability — hype (@TheHyyyype) July 30, 2020
Over the past six months, Desai has developed surprising, brief crushes on people who randomly flirt with her online. None have expressed interest in texting her more consistently, but that noncommittal factor keeps Desai grounded. “People want to meet up right away, and they’re not willing to make conversation to really get to know you,” she said. “I don’t know if they’re as great as their social media or what I build them out to be, but in quarantine, the only thing you have is your mind and your own fantasies.”
There is, though, the growing thrill of scoping out in-person crushes at local bars, parks, and grocery stores — something Desai never really used to do before the pandemic. Most people are masked up, which makes the search more exciting. “Nowadays when I go to Trader Joe’s to get groceries, I’d dress up and wear something really nice,” she said. “Because seriously, like, where else am I going to meet the love of my life?”
These crush scenarios all maintain an element of ambiguity, since the majority of them are sustained virtually. Attraction toward one’s interest could be “a potent mix of idealization and infatuation,” as Pickhardt, the psychologist, described. “It doesn’t require knowing another person well at all.”
It’s much easier to project emotions or character traits on another person when they are physically distant, which is a concern Andrea, a 27-year-old advertising strategist in New York City, has when it comes to her pandemic crush Jacob, who is based in London.
“I feel like I know him through the glass on my phone, through an app,” she told me. “I have projected things on people before, but I don’t think that’s an entirely fair assessment of our relationship since we talk so much.”
Jacob was only supposed to be a one-night stand for Andrea when she was vacationing in Los Angeles in January. They sporadically kept in touch over the next couple weeks when he flew to New York City and she to London for work, but it wasn’t until the pandemic that they began texting every day. Yet Andrea is uncertain whether Jacob is equally invested in her or even knows who she is as a person.
Their relationship is now in a weird “no-man’s land territory,” where there’s no timeline for defining the relationship or demanding exclusivity. “I’m not going to stop this person from dating, and I shouldn’t stop myself either,” she said. “But that doesn’t mean I can’t be crushing. I have the most disgusting crush on this man. It’s horrific. And I don’t know what to do because he’s in London.”
“I’m not going to stop this person from dating, and I shouldn’t stop myself either. But that doesn’t mean I can’t be crushing.”
Like Kissel’s situation with her pandemic crush, international travel isn’t currently an option for Andrea. She is curious about the blurry nature of their virtual relationship, but the reality of her crush — and her burgeoning feelings for him — is something she’s only considered in the abstract.
“I’ve kept him to myself selfishly in a way,” she told me. “I want to preserve these feelings that I have, this relationship that feels so unmarred by the politics of friendship or day-to-day life. In my head, it’s just a pure connection between us.”
This sense of emotional purity and deep connection is, perhaps, more salient for most people in quarantine than ever before. For most of this year, we’ve lived in closed-off clusters, interacting primarily with those we already know and trust. Developing a crush is a naive act of hope. While it is an act of emotional projection, it’s also one of self-redemption — allowing yourself to pine after an unattainable dream, in spite of all the terrible, mind-boggling events that have occurred so far.
According to my own pandemic crush, “there’s something obviously a bit fantastical and romantic” about this moment and the feelings people are developing. “It came about largely because we’re in these glitch-in-the-matrix circumstances,” he texted me, “but because the emotions involved are legitimate, it also feels just as committed as a full-fledged relationship.”
What is the risk, then, of putting your feelings on the line for someone in another country or someone you might never meet, when all the systems we depend on are in crisis? Crushes come and go, but the feelings that accompany them, however fleeting, are legitimate and a reflection of what we desire. A pandemic crush is simply a chaotic byproduct of these chaotic times.