#'the movie never explained-' it was a visual metaphor

[justicecaballer]

i love watching a movie and enjoying it and then going to rotten tomatoes to see people write reviews that are so devoid of reading comprehension its like did we even watch the same film

[zooophagous]

The biggest problem with art cinema is that many of these films would have been better off as a photography book. What I mean is, the visuals and artfulness of the shot are the only reason for the film existing and other elements of what the media of film is all about, like creating characters or telling a story, are left as a barely finished afterthought.

What little story there is gets relegated to a ham fisted metaphor to make it feel like the collection of photos means something and the unsatisfying plot is never resolved or explained.

Like sure. You don't need a linear storyline to have a movie. You don't need well defined characters with clear motivations. You don't need good dialogue or even any dialogue technically.

But you should at least ask yourself that if you're cutting off every part of the medium that gives it its structure, are you sure you don't just want to make something else? Have you considered that your visuals aren't even strong enough to carry the project alone? Do you feel like this film could have been a coffee table book?

[hawkogurl]

Hi! 😊 I saw you post something saying it was clear to you that raimi harry Osborn was schizophrenic do you think you could please explain that a bit? (If you've already made a post about it and I've just missed it I apologise) Have a nice day!

Probably won’t be the best worded so I’ll be happy to elaborate further. Also feel compelled to state that I probably view that constitutes canon pretty differently than most people. What I mean by the idea that Harry having some sort of psychotic disorder in the raimiverse is at least semi-canon is generally pretty complicated so bear with me.

A lot of what has brought me to this conclusion is pretty doylist. It’s not a plot hole that Harry’s hallucinating in the second movie, the way the first two movies are written in this regard before Sony decided to fuck with things in the third is too deliberate. Raimi’s history as a horror directors shows in a lot of areas, but it never really feels like he’s throwing elements in for the hell of it, whenever something feels horrorish, it’s pretty deliberate. All this to say that Harry’s not hallucinating for the hell of it.

When it comes to specifically raimiverse based interpretation, there’s generally four things I see a lot. The first and in my opinion weakest being the idea that it’s happening as a result of the serum in the nearby hidden room leaking. I understand how this is seen as appealing or interesting, especially in any case where someone might think it doesn’t make sense for Harry not to have developed a goblin persona like Norman had. In the past I’ve gone into how I believe that’s also a pretty deliberate narrative choice, so putting all that aside, I don’t think it makes sense for this to be intended by the creators. From a writing standpoint, if that’s what we were supposed to think, you’d be shown shots to indicate things like that. Additionally, the serum itself is always shown to be stored in a liquid form, only gas when it’s applied to a person, a process that consistently requires quite a bit of machinery. I understand the appeal of the theory, but if I’m looking at what I think is most likely to be the thought in the creators heads, I don’t think this is likely.

I also see it generally get dismissed as ghosts a lot, which also feels strange to me. The only other instance of something happening that could be seen as similarly supernatural would also be in this movie, being the scene where Peter, conflicted about how being Spider-Man effects his life, has a conversation with Ben, who is also dead, in the car from the first movie in the middle of a white void. This scene occurs in an ambiguous white background using imagery from the last conversation Peter had with Ben before he died and also draws on how that conversation has affected Peter’s worldview. This scene ends by cutting to Peter, who’s sitting in bed with his eyes open as he comes to the conclusion he can’t keep being Spider-Man. Because of the framing of it in a space that isn’t recognizable as the normal physical world and the fact we’re shown Peter in the physical world after it, we’re not meant to be taking this scene literally. This scene is a metaphorical expression of Peter’s internal conflict, not a literal event that’s physically happening in any sort of meaningful capacity. It’s a visual expression of a non physical story element. This isn’t all that important for my point, but I find it important to state for later comparison.

This leaves Harry’s interactions with Norman after he’s died as the only remaining event that can be simply explained with the supernatural. That being said, it doesn’t really make internal sense for this to be the case. Though fantastical, every superhuman element of this story has been at least connected to some sort of scientific idea that grounds it in reality, never something more fantastical. The Green Goblin is the result of a performance enhancing drug created for the military. Doc Ock is the result of malfunctioning AI and his most dangerous goals rely on using nuclear fusion to create energy. Sandman was created by the writer’s rather incorrect idea of what a particle accelerator is. Venom is an alien, but still connected pretty blatantly to real life biology ideas of real word symbiotes. It’s all rather fantastical and implausible, but it’s all still connected to real world familiar scientific ideas. To randomly bring the supernatural into it for scenes it could be easily replaced with something else to accomplish the same end results and never elaborating on the idea that apparently ghosts are real would be a really bizarre world building choice.

But going back to the scene with Peter, unlike that this scene is not framed to be metaphorical. It’s happening in the real world right before and after real physical events with Harry and has physical results on the world and the characters. In some capacity, what’s happening here is literal—but I don’t think that means some piece of Norman is physically there. The audience is viewing this alongside Harry and from his perspective, there’s never any other character who’s present for scenes where Harry experiences things like this. The events are literal and intended to be something physically happening, but only from Harry’s perspective. There’s no other set of eyes to establish the reality of this from beyond Harry’s sole perspective.

Among the common theories I see, I probably like the idea that it’s alcohol induced the second most. I don’t really like to demean it because I think it’s very likely that this idea is important to people in the same way it being psychological is important to me. That being said, I don’t know how much I think it holds up to scrutiny. Yes, Harry’s shown to be drinking pretty heavily around this period, but in the moment he first experiences his hallucinations, he’s not shown to be drinking. He at least appears to be somewhat sober. In the second instance, he is shown to drink, but only in the literal seconds before he hallucinates. If this is intended to be the actual cause, the creators would more likely put more emphasis on him drinking in relation to the hallucinations or similar. That being said, I have reasons I think it was kept more vague that I’ll get into.

If I’m looking at what was likely intended, the most likely doylist explanation for why these scenes exist, the idea it’s psychological for him is the only thing that’s going to consistently check out. For one thing, in the comics, Harry is schizophrenic! That’s outright the word used to describe what he has going on, he is diagnosed with schizophrenia. Additionally, in a lot of comics with Harry at the time, he’s hallucinating Norman as an expression of a lot of his internal conflicts, similarly to what we see here. In the comics that Raimi Harry most closely follows the broader beats of, he has persecutory hallucinations of his father as an expression of his internal conflict, hallucinations that target the things that he feels make him weak and drive him towards his worst behaviors while also being specifically schizophrenic. In the raimi trilogy, Harry develops persecutory hallucinations of his father that particularly target the idea that he feels weak and drive him towards his worst behaviors. From that alone, it’s not irrational to conclude that it’s at least something of a reference towards his schizophrenia in the comics.

What’s more, in the novelizations it appears to be rather explicit. While interviews and Reddit AMAs have made it somewhat clear that Peter David, their author, did have quite a bit of freedom, they also made it clear he was still obligated to follow the scripts he was given rather closely and his writing still had to be approved. The novels were primarily only allowed elaboration, not outright reimagining. In the novelizations, Harry is written to hallucinate much more frequently. He’s often paranoid of the world. His behavior is more erratic. He experiences moments of Cotard’s delusion. His behavior through the third movie goes from likely being inspired by or intended to reference and imply Harry’s comic-canon schizophrenia to, in the novels, being outright written to resemble and follow the symptoms of schizophrenia far more closely. While they very much aren’t the movies, the fact that they were being written from the scripts at the time of the movies release and a lot of the information we have on how they were written does point me towards the idea that while you can’t exactly treat them as above the movies in terms of what’s canon, you can treat them very fairly as auxiliary information in terms of interpreting the intended story.

Additionally, I think they provide a pretty interesting piece of information that also sort of solidifies the idea for me that what Harry’s experiencing is some form of psychosis. Harry only develops these issues after learning Peter is Spider-Man. Not after taking the serum, specifically immediately after learning Peter is Spider-Man. At this point in the story, Peter is Harry’s closest friend and arguably the most important person in Harry’s life. I don’t need to explain that Spider-Man is the exact opposite. It’s likely rather shattering to how Harry perceives reality to realize the most important person in his life is the person he hates the most, and that he’s been lying to him after in Harry’s perception killing his father for multiple years. Psychosis is specifically a break in someone’s grasp on reality. I don’t think it’s that hard for me to believe that a revelation that shattered how Harry perceived reality that severely might risk causing a psychotic episode of some form.

Additionally, it’s the most consistent with how the world and writing of these movies work internally. It’s never really about the fantastical elements narratively—these movies are about people. The internal, human elements of these characters lives are the most emphasized, the supernatural elements are almost always allegorically connected to some aspect of humanity or very human flaws. That’s always what’s emphasized. Narratively, the goblin is representative of Norman’s greed and ego, his conviction that he is superior to others and entitled to power and control. Otto isn’t about the arms, not really, it’s about selfishly motivated ambition even with the best of intentions and turning those motivations into selfless ones. Flint being Sandman is secondary to how poverty has fucked him over, how he’s been forced into crime in his desperation to help his ill daughter. Eddie wasn’t really corrupted by Venom, he was a selfish and self centered man with a massive sense of entitlement to what he wanted who was given the power to do what he wanted. By extension, it makes the most sense that Harry, who’s already defined by trauma, cycles of abuse and identity would be far more connected to the very human idea of mental illness than something far less poignant like inexplicable supernatural elements.

All this to say that when I, guy who’s always going to feel compelled to take doylism and authorial intent into account when doing my analysis, look at all the information that I have, I think it’s very likely that Harry’s comics schizophrenia or hallucinations were on the writer’s minds when they were planning out or writing the scenes I am referring to. I don’t think that was ever likely to end up explicit—it’s not practical for a movie with its demographic, with a studio prone to intervention, especially with how messy SM3’s development was. It’s not practical for it to be super explicit in a movie of its demographic in 2007, but I think it’s very likely to be on the writers minds when it was written.

[otakween]

Digimon Frontier: Island of Lost Digimon

This was actually pretty fun! It wasn't the strongest Digimon movie by a long shot, but it was good as a Frontier side story. It was nice to see them revisit the whole "beast digimon vs. human digimon" conflict that they didn't do much with in the show. Also, I got to see my Digimon World 3 friends again! They were super cute.

Notes:

I enjoyed Izumi humming Funiculi Funicula in the intro to the movie. For a split second I thought it was Bolero and was about to throw hands lol.

What the HECK were they riding on in the opening? It wasn't really a Trailmon it was more like a Mike Wazowski themed rail cart. They, of course, never explained.

This movie's aesthetic was really weird. I don't know if it was necessarily higher quality animation. It kinda looked like they took the usual level of quality and put a "cinema" filter over it or something. Also some of the "shots" were weirdly cropped and almost blurry. IDK if that's just because there isn't a clean copy on the internet or if it was a stylistic choice. At least the characters are super on model, which is more than I can say for the show!

Speaking of animation quality, they were a little too obsessed with using CGI in this movie. It looked really bad and added nothing lol. Also, what was with the neon disco rave tanks? They felt extremely out of place.

Once again we get a lot of unnecessary focus on Izumi's butt...

So many new (or new-ish) background digimon! I kept being like "ooh, who's that?" I really liked the bunny-with-razors-for-ears design. It's funny how they debut new digimon in the movies and games, it almost feels like they're testing them out.

The original title is more like "The Revival of the Ancient Digimon." I can see why they would change that cuz it sort of feels like a big spoiler.

Kotemon and Bearmon were super cute. It was exciting to see their anime forms. They had really nice voices as well (in Japanese and English). Kinda wish I had watched this before DW3 instead of the other way around, whoops!

They used the exact same plot of "evil character encourages war to resurrect evil monster via the sacrifice of many" in the isekai series I'm Standing on a MIllion Lives. Makes me wonder how many fantasy series have used that. It must be a more common trope than I thought.

Why does this one digimon look like Impmon and My Melody had a baby?

The whole "beast vs. human" thing still feels silly when half of the "human" side doesn't actually look that human. I could totally see Dinohumon be considered a "beast" in a different series. (Maybe it's a metaphor for how racism is dumb and makes no logical sense).

The visual of digieggs flying and baby digimon being all over the place due to the ongoing war was interesting. I guess they couldn't go to the Village of Beginnings because the island is blocked off from the rest of the digital world?

One CGI scene literally looked like the 3D maze screensaver from Windows 98 lol

Kinda rolled my eyes when Bokomon said that Murmukusmon (what a mouthful) could turn into any digimon. What OP power will they think of next? Also, we only saw him digivolve into two digimon, so I'm not that impressed.

That final battle was pure chaos and I had a lot of trouble following wth was going on. I didn't know why AncientGreymon/AncientGarurumon were suddenly there so I googled it. Apparently it was due to "the power of Kotemon's sacrifice and Bearmon's tears"...riiiight. Shounen movie logic.

AncientGreymon looks amazing and AncientGarurumon looks..aight lol. I'm totally biased to prefer beast-like digimon

Kinda anticlimactic to have two "spirits" do the dirty work instead of our heroes, not gonna lie. Maybe if we had met AncientGreymon and AncientGarurumon before and had some level of emotional attachment to them it would have been more impactful.

The new mural with the Frontier MCs and Bearmon/Kotemon at the end was cute

[canmom]

l'aventure de canmom à annecy - épisode deux: jeudi 1 - kimi no iro

kimi no iro/the colours within: for real great movie. naoko yamada once again the goat. if you like stories about girls making a band (one of them is supposed to be a boy but like. so fucking eggy lmao). if you want emotions. or gorgeous character animation. or even if you like a catholic school setting (i won't judge). or if you want to see a movie in which a theremin player has a major role. go watch this movie.

but let's say a little more. since i recall people wondering, is it more Liz and the Blue Bird or Koe no Katachi?

hmm. the musical focus and like, focus on vibes over plot is definitely more Liz. not that there isn't thematic or emotional conflict but it's deliberately a little understated. likewise, it's got that theme of kids facing an uncertain future where they'll have to part. and like Liz, it's quite gay. despite the title and marketing, the visual metaphors are less on the nose than koe too. but it's also not as tragic a movie as Liz. it is ultimately pretty hopeful. it's a story about finding connections, and releasing secrets, so in that regard it is like Koe.

the religion element probably deserves some comment! it's set at a catholic school, and besides the main trio the other major character is a nun - but a kind and forgiving nun with a rather open interpretation of the religion, who covers for the girls. to her mind, just about any honest expression is in a sense a hymn. the main character is herself quite sincerely religious. but it feels more like an element of characterisation - of both girl and setting - than religious propaganda. often it seems that characters are kind despite, rather than because of the rules of the school, which punishes Totsuko for faking illness to cover for Kimi.

the other two face their own conflicts, and one is a dropout from the school - a choice that is never questioned or explained, though she has conflict over disclosing it to her grandmother who looks after her. it is kind of interesting in a way - Kimi is the character with the biggest emotional conflicts, but it's not her eyes we see the movie through, but the much more upbeat Totsuko.

i never managed to be in a band at school, but now I'm coming back to music, and playing in a band with people, it does feel strangely relevant lol. of course it's got that classic anime thing where the technical skill of these high school students is waaaay higher than is actually plausible but the music slaps so so cares lol. it's kind of a fantasy of what being in a band could mean - yamada 'admitted' on stage that she 'secretly' used to be in a band herself, and this is what she wanted it to have been.

it is technically excellent - science saru really went off with Inu-oh before and here they're showing they can stand up alongside Kyoani pretty damn well.

I was so glad to get to go to the showing where Yamada herself was present, and be part of the crowd applauding her. She really is such a special director. This film is full of Yamada-isms of course - the physical camera emulations, acting shots of feet, the wash of colours and symbolic cuts.

Of course I bet Eunyoung Choi is really happy too to have her on board as a new star director as Yuasa steps down - I heard things were bad at science saru work wise a few years back during Heike, and I don't know if they've improved. With Kyoani you have the assurance that nobody was overworked half to death to make the movie, and I feel much less confident saying that of modern Saru. Still. They did good on this one.

We are truly so back.

[tasteless-lemonade]

Today is June 6, 2024. It's the five-year anniversary of the movie X-Men: Dark Phoenix.

It's not the best movie, it makes no sense considering the other Fox X-Men movies, it's a bad adaptation for the Dark Phoenix Saga. But this is not about the movie.

Five years ago, this movie went to the theaters in Brazil. I wanted to see a movie, and I knew the X-Men. I had seen their cartoons in the past, but so long ago I forgot most of their story. The visual effects looked cool. I went to see Dark Phoenix.

It wasn't good. I didn't knew anything about the original story but I didn't like the movie. The script just felt weird. After the movie, I went to the internet to see the reviews and found many people saying "The comics are better!" "The comics have a better story!"

The comics. I read some comics. My father collected many comics since before I was born and I would read it when I was a child and bored. However, I didn't actually get into comics and was more reading to pass the time.

I decided to read the comics. Those X-Men seemed interesting. "Where do I start?" I thought. I didn't look at read guides or readlists. I went to the beginning, and it was The X-Men #1 (1963)

5 years ago I read my first X-Men comic and it was the first of all.

My reading of the X-Men was messy and confusing. At first, I was scared of the 500 issues of UXM and it took me some time to start following readlists and read important issues with more logic.

Why did I like the X-Men so much? I entered comic world and read about heroes other than X-Men, I rooted for a variety of teams and loved many other stories. But none of them were like the X-Men. Why? Why where these weird people in peculiar clothing more special than the other weird people in peculiar clothing?

I don't know

Maybe it's the mutant metaphor and how these stories helped me accept my differences when it was making me feel wrong and sick. Maybe it was the giant cast full of characters to meet, love and hate. Maybe it was the fact that a school was a major scenario in these stories and I come from a family where most people are teachers. Maybe it was the found family stories about people who accept you, even when you're uncanny, stories that I read when I thought I would have no friends as people would always find me weird. Maybe it was just the feeling upon seeing the first issue.

I read many good stories about those X-Men, I read many bad stories about them. I loved a lot of these characters as some of my absolute favorites, and some I really hated. I kept reading some of these damn books even when I disliked them so much.

I started reading X-Men five years ago. My life changed a lot since, even if not related to comics, I weirdly feel like my life has become... better.

I know I will see what the X-Men are doing in their comics when new stories appear next month. I am sure as this, sure as I am that Jean Grey will rise from the ashes everytime she dies.

I just wanted to thank mostly (some of them didn't make a really good impact) of the writers and artists who made these books that entertained me for so much time. Special thanks to the original X-Men, by Stan Lee and Jack Kirby.

I saw how it all started with 5 uncanny students and a teacher in a wheelchair. I see what it is now. It never ceases to amaze me, honestly. I can't explain why I like these stories, but do I really have to? It just feels good.

Well, happy five-year anniversary, X-Men: Dark Phoenix!

[drawingducktalesducks]

no terrafermians au continued. Kinda

Webby: I’ve never drawn on a public building before!

Lena: This old dump? Trust me, the amphitheater is more abandoned than public. I’m pretty much the only one who ever hangs here.

Webby: And me!

Lena: And you.

Webby: It's really cool though! Why don't people like it?

Lena: Mold, rot, the visual metaphor of abandonment and mortality embodied in a decaying framework of former glory. It's not for everyone. Gotta say though, good company makes a pretty big difference to the vibes of this place.

Webby: Hehe! Ooh, can you come do some more of that cool fire stuff around my sword horse?

Lena: Cool fire stuff coming right up, madam. I’ve only got a can of blue left though. That okay?

Webby: Sure! I’m down to just the green chalk too, anyway!

Lena: Making graffiti with chalk… you really stick to your own style, don’t you Pink.

Webby: I guess? … is that a good thing?

Lena: Duh. Being yourself is so radical.

Webby: Oh whew! That’s good! For a second I thought I was doing wrong the wrong way too!

Lena: ….. okay, spill. What’s up?

Webby: Nothing!

Lena: Uh huh. Your sword horse is frowning, Webby.

Webby: Oh.

Lena: And now you are too. Bottle cap for your thoughts?

Webby: Thanks. I guess… I guess I just feel bad about lying. To Granny. And to the guys.

Lena: Ah yes. The tweedle-three.

Webby: Aww, you're still angry at them for leaving me behind aren't you?

Lena: I reserve the right to be filled with spite.

Webby: You don't have to be, you know. They wanted to do a late night movie marathon and invited me- They’ve been really good about inviting me these days!- but I didn’t want to oversleep and miss out on meeting up with you, or make Granny suspicious by being tired in the morning. So I told them I didn’t feel like it…

Lena: But you did feel like it.

Webby: A little? I mean, I still wanted to see you more. They just looked so disappointed when I said no, and I couldn’t even explain why I wasn’t hanging out with them.

Lena: Dude. It won’t kill me not to see you every night. You can still hang with them.

Webby: I do! All the time!

Lena: So it's really just the lying thing that’s eating you up?

Webby: I think so. I thought keeping a secret would be fun, like a little adventure all of its own, but… I don’t know. It’s not, really. Or at least this one isn’t.

Lena: Well you could always-

Webby: I’m NOT going to stop sneaking out to see you, Lena! That would be the worst!

Lena: Cute, but for real. A few nights wouldn’t be-

Webby: THE WORST!

Lena: Okay okay. Heh. Guess we’ll have to find a way to get me back on Tea Time’s good side then.

Webby: How?

Lena: No idea. Maybe if I changed my name to Brittania.

Webby: Oh she’d hate that.

Lena: Yeah… Hey, wanna know a secret that’s actually kinda fun?

Webby: Yes please.

Lena: C’mon. This place has more to it than just old rocks and moldy props. Check this out.

Webby: GASP! A secret trap door!?

Lena: Pretty neat huh.

Webby: Where does it lead to? A hidden passageway through Duckburg? Buried treasure? The bones of the actors who mysteriously vanished on the night of the last performance?! OR A-

Webby: ….. bedroom?

Lena: Yeah, wrestling the mattress down here was a pain.

Webby: You decorated this?

Lena: With a blacklight. Took me forever to hook that up, had to ‘find’ enough extension lines so I could mooch off a nearby office building. Totally worth it though.

Webby: YOU HAVE A SECRET HIDE OUT, THAT’S SO COOL! Gosh, no wonder you spend so much time here!!

Lena: Ha ha yeah, right. Totally.

Webby: Oh and you’ve got plants! Do they have names? Isn't that one poisonous? Can I call her Vera? And a SKULL! And- oh oh are those the Featherweights!?

Lena: Yep.

Webby: IS THAT POSTER IN FRENCH???

Lena: You’ll never guess where I snagged it from.

Webby: FRANCE?

Lena: Wow, nice guess Pink. Paris, actually.

Webby: Is that where you got the skull too?

Lena: Nope, that’s from Italy.

Webby: YOU’VE BEEN TO ITALY! Did you see the colosseum? Does the sand still smell like blood? Did you climb Mount Vesuvius? Did you see the hollow imprints left in the ash of its previous victims? Is that where you got the skull from? Was there-

Lena: Shh, hold that thought.

Webby: Mmph?

Lena: Wait.

Webby: ...Um. It sounds like something’s knocking over your display of empty glass bottles.

Lena: Ugh.

Webby: Is that bad?

Lena: Your Granny’s got her ways of securing a perimeter, I’ve got mine. Keep it low, okay?

Webby: Okay-!

Lena: Let’s see what kind of idiots decided to take a stroll through the old haunted amphitheater.

Webby: Oooh, haunted? By what?

Lena: Me.

Webby: Oooohhh…

Lena: Oh great, of course it’s those idiots.

Webby: Who?

Lena: Beagle Boys.

Webby: Are they looking for-

Lena: Shh….

Webby: ?

Lena: ...

Lena: Alright, we're clear.

Webby: And a little amped up now too! Yay adrenaline!

Lena: Sorry about that. They never used to come around here.

Webby: You mean before you shoved a cake in Ma Beagle’s face to save me?

Lena: You know, that might be part of it. Talk about holding a grudge, am I right?

Webby: Heheh! Wait. How did they even know to look for you here?

Lena: I mean I did kinda trick them into taking me here, back when I got nabbed at the playground.

Webby: Oh!.... why?

Lena: My paper and pencils were here. “It’s all about presentation!” I told them “The spotlights! The dramatic flair! Don’t you want Ma Beagle to get the full satisfaction package?”

Lena: I said, while talking the Ugly Failures into letting me write a “Will” and some “Last Words” and toss it out to sea in a couple of bottles for me, just in case a certain butt-kicking and summersaulting genius happened to find 'em and rescue me.

Webby: Flatter.

Lena: Never. After that they gagged me. No idea why.

Webby: I love your cunning brain.

Lena: And here I thought you only liked me for my pretty face.

Webby: That too! Wait, was that sarcasm?

Lena: Was yours? Come on, time for you to be heading back. I’ll walk you.

Webby: You always walk me home.

Lena: If you ask me to jog this time I’m turning around right now.

Webby: Heh. Lena?

Lena: Yeah?

Webby: The Beagle Boys haven’t figured out where you actually live, right? They aren’t following you home?

Lena: I’m fine, Pink.

Webby: …That’s not a real answer.

Lena: Uh yeah, pretty sure it is.

Webby: Are you safe? Is your family safe?

Lena: I’m fine.

Webby: This doesn’t sound fine though. The Beagles are really, really good at holding grudges.

Lena: And bad at holding onto everything else, me included.

Webby: But you’re alone out here so much!

Lena: Which is fine.

Webby: If you need help, I can-

Lena: I said I’m fine, okay?

Webby: But you won’t actually say you’re safe!

Lena: So? Who cares!

Webby: Me! I care!

Lena: Oh so you go on crazy adventures for lunch, and what, you think I can’t survive living in Duckburg!?

Webby: No! I think you might be in danger now because of ME! I think Granny would know how to make this place safer if I could just tell her about it! I think I’m scared of something happening to my best friend, and it being my fault!

Lena: Nothing’s gonna happen-

Webby: The Beagles were RIGHT THERE.

Lena: -and even if it does-

Webby: SEE?

Lena: -I’m the one who brought you to the stupid Beagle birthday party in the first place. I’m not blaming you for something you didn’t even do!

Webby: Then let me help!

Lena: Webby… Look. I’ve been tweaking the tails of Ma Beagle and her boys for ages. I’ve flunked out of, like, half a dozen boarding schools without getting expelled for all the pranks and petty thefts I got up to- I’ve got top marks in messing with people and getting away with it.

Lena: When I say I’m fine, I really am fine. Okay? Trust me. I can handle myself out here.

Webby: …so the Beagles do know where you live.

Lena: I mean kinda? They don’t know they know though, if you know what I mean.

Webby: Can. Can I know where you live?

Lena: … it’s nothing special.

Webby: But then I could walk YOU home sometimes! We could meet up somewhere safer. You wouldn’t have to mess with so much… stuff.

Lena: You’re not gonna let this go, are you?

Webby: I will if it makes you really mad. But I’ll still worry about it.

Lena: Last thing I wanna do is worry you. Kinda goes against the whole ‘mysterious rebel’ image I’ve got going on.

Webby: No it doesn’t.

Lena: Whatever you say, Pink.

Webby: You walk me home because you worry about me too, don’t you.

Lena: No. You’re like, literally half ninja. The creepy shadows on street corners should be afraid of YOU, not the other way around.

Webby: You still walk with me though.

Lena: It’s called spending time with your friend. It’s a thing people do sometimes.

Webby: So is worrying about the people you care about lot. Like friends.

Lena: Mm. So is trusting them.

Webby: I thought telling your friends stuff was part of trusting them?

Lena: Whatever. Hey. We’re here. Moneybags McManor.

Webby: Oh, yeah. Yay.

Lena: You good for sneaking in? Need a distraction?

Webby: No, I’m okay. I’m... fine.

Lena: It’d really suck if Tea Time clocked you this late. I could lean on the bell while you go round back, or something.

Webby: I said I’m fine. You trust me, right?

Lena: … sure.

Webby: You, you have a good walk home, and… see you tomorrow night.

Lena: Looking forward to it.

Webby: ….

Lena: ...

Lena: …. Ugh okay. Listen.

Webby: YES!?

Lena: You- Wait, were you expecting this-? No, never mind.

Webby: Yeees?

Lena: You already… you already know where I live.

Webby: No I don’t?

Lena: Yes, Pink. You do. You meet me there every night. You named my stupid little potted plant and doodled on the wall of my living room.

Webby: But the only plants I’ve seen are the ones in your hideout, like Vera! And I’ve only drawn on the walls of the old theater!

Lena: Yeah.

Webby: … you. You live- there?

Lena: Just for the last couple of years. Not like I would’ve bothered decorating otherwise.

Webby: You live there? But, Lena-

Lena: It’s hidden and way safer than any house. You heard the dumb Beagle Boys walk right over the trap door, I’m literally right under their noses and they have no idea. It’s great. See? I told you, I’m fine.

Webby: It doesn’t even have heating! What’re you going to do when it gets cold?

Lena: Same thing I did last year.

Webby: Freeze!?

Lena: Blankets are a thing. So are 24-hour coffee shops and sneaking into theaters for late-night Mole Monster movie reruns. Chill.

Webby: Ha, chill. Right. I- I guess, I mean, I don’t know, but- Don’t you have family you can stay with?

Lena: I wouldn’t stay with my aunt even if she had a place here.

Webby: Why not?

Lena: It’s getting kinda late. Tell you tomorrow?

Webby: Or you could come in with me and tell me right now. Inside. Where it's warm.

Lena: Oh yeah, that would really just tickle your Granny’s biscuits. Finding the ‘bad influence’ sneaking into her granddaughter’s room in the dead of night? I can hear her posh, disproving scowl already. Shudder.

Webby: We could tell her about how you-

Lena: No. No, Webby, we are NOT telling her that.

Webby: But I’m sure she’d-

Lena: Think finding my aunt was the most responsible thing to do? Tell some official I've slipped my leash? Send me off to another boarding school so I turn into a ‘proper’ young lady?

Webby: Granny wouldn’t! I don’t think? Not without asking you first!

Lena: Sure, right. Because that’s what every other grown-up has been like so far.

Webby: I wouldn’t let her do any of that.

Lena: We’re both kids, Pink. No one really cares what we want. So like, go ahead and tell her all your secrets, tell her about sneaking off to go deface public property or whatever and get double grounded. Just leave my thing out of it.

Webby: ...

Lena: Webby.

Lena: I'm serious. Please don't.

Webby: … okay. I won’t say anything.

Lena: Good. Thanks.

Webby: I’ll just wait until you tell her yourself.

Lena: Not happening.

Webby: We’ll see. I can be VERY persistent! And I’ve never had a chance to mentally break someone before!

Lena: Wow I feel so special.

Webby: You are! See you tomorrow?

Lena: Sure. I’ll be the one squatting at the ruined old amphitheater, playing tick-tac-toe with the spiders and tying the Beagle Boy’s shoe laces together when they’re not looking.

Webby: And I’ll be the one who can’t wait to see you again! Good night, Lena.

Lena: ‘night Pink. Sleep tight.

Webby: Ha, I will! And don’t let the bed bugs bite!

Lena: Yeah….Man I wish they wouldn’t…. I’m joking, I’m joking! Geeze don’t look so heartbroken. Web- W-Webby! Hug too tight, can’t breathe!

Webby: Sorry!

Lena: Eh, I deserved it. But you’ve BEEN on my bed, Pink. We made an emergency pillow fort. You know the worst thing about the mattress is food stains and squeaky springs.

Webby: I’m still bringing you a heated blanket next time I come by! AND A MOP! WITH SOAP!

Lena: Do you even know how to use one?

Webby: We’ll find out!!!

Lena: Sure Pink. As thou wishest.

Webby: Heheh, yesss…your defenses against me are already crumbling…

Lena: Oh my duck just go to bed already.

Webby: Egads! And I have no defenses against you at all!

Lena: ‘night.

Webby: Goodnight, my angel of the abandoned opera house~

Lena: It’s a theater, not a… Wait… was that-

Webby: NOPENOTAREFERENCETOANYINGPHANTOMRELATED. SEEYOUTOMORROWBYE!

Lena: ......

Lena: … yeah. See you then, mam'selle Daaé.

-

Lena: Wakey-wakey, evil aunt lady. I'm home.

Magica: Oh goody. And look, the two of your drew adorable little artworks together. Not ones of the interior of Scroogie’s manor or his private rooms, but I’m SURE these stupid, insipid scrawlings of IDIOTIC goats will help us find the dime.

Lena: It’s a sw- it’s a unicorn, not a goat. 

Magica: AND we’ve wasted another night teaching the shut-in freak-show how to fleece a vending machine!

Lena: Will you chill. She’d never seen one before.

Magica: Pathetic! Do you think you can buy your freedom with a stolen soda pop can? How exactly is THIS helping us with our plan!?

Lena: The plan is going great okay?

Magica: IS IT? OR ARE YOU JUST TOO BUSY PLAYING HOUSE WITH THAT ANNOYING, OVEBEARING, MORONIC LITTLE -

Lena: She’s gonna keep inviting me over! Especially now she knows about… this.

Magica: Ha! Your disgusting little hole in the ground, you mean.

Lena: Yeah yeah, that’s right, rub it in. But my ‘disgusting’ hole in the ground is the perfect reason for her to get me in the mansion as much as she can. And Colonel Crumpet not liking me is also the perfect excuse for me sneaking around while I’m there!

Magica: Hmmm.

Lena: It’ll work, okay? You’ll get the dime and your body back, I'll get the hell away from you.

Magica: YES. MUWAHAH! VENGANCE AT LAST! Then we’ll watch the heartbreak in the pink one’s eyes as she realizes her ‘best friend’ was nothing but a LIE!

Lena: Right. Can’t wait.  

Magica: Ooooh, it’ll almost be worth all this just to see her fall to pieces. Do you think she’ll cry? I hope she SOBS!

Lena: I gotta get some sleep now, aunt Magica. Keep it down.

Magica: Oh ho. Have I touched a nerve?

Lena: You’re shouting in my ear.  

Magica: Oh all right. Sweet dreams, Leeena~ Don’t let the love bugs bite.

Lena: I’m not- whatever. Just let me sleep.

Magica: If you can.

Lena: …

[crossroadsghost]

fargo s5 details i have noticed on rewatch:

-munch's differences in body language/behavior/violence around men vs around women is so pronounced and tangible when you pay attention. even when he's supposed to be helping abduct dot, he hands the hammer off to donald instead of wielding it himself, and the only time in the rest of those scenes he ever touches her is when she's at the bottom of the stairs and he goes to pick her up. he kills the guard outside roy's house, but doesn't lay a finger on karen or the twins when he goes into their room. i can't actually think of any time he's violent towards women.

-munch's blood type is mentioned to be O negative, which is universal donor. fitting for a sin eater to have blood that can be exchanged to save anyone.

-sam spruell has such long eyelashes

-at the scene where ole munch is waiting at the gas station to kill gator's partner, the final lyrics of "this is halloween" to play are "i am the one hiding under your bed, teeth ground sharp and eyes glowing red/i am the one hiding under your stairs, fingers like snakes and spiders in my hair." given the visual emphasis on ole's teeth and hands, i assume it's meant to be a comparison to him

-one of the street signs dot rearranges is named nylund circle. rose nylund from the golden girls is supposed to be from minnesota. whether it was intentional or not, it made me giggle.

-subtitles say ole munch's original name was bryn.

-the symbol on ole munch's chest during his ritual looks like the Peorð/ᛈ symbol from the elder futhark, a rune that has unknown meaning. the rest of the symbols shown are invented, so this could be a coincidence.

-"ring the door bell pretending to be trick or treaters and grab whoever answers" is literally how they catch santa in the nightmare before christmas movie. i'm still not sure what they were driving at with so many TNBC references in this season.

-there's gotta be a reason danish has one eye and lorraine's husband is named wink, but i don't know what that reason is.

-crack theory time: danish is wayne's real father. wink is so busy drinking and playing with models he would never notice. danish refers to wayne as slugger, and wayne refers to scotty as slugger, which implies something. it would also explain some of danish's emotional investment in the family and willingness to try to save dot with or without permission from lorraine--it's not only lorraine's feelings he cares about. and it's only after lorraine finds out that danish disappeared on the ranch that she decides to go full tilt against roy--she wasn't willing to go that far for dot, but she is for danish? maybe this isn't a crack theory at all actually.

-donald trump in the chat on roy's livestream lmao

-it feels like the dugout is meant to be a metaphor for . . . violence? trauma? manhood, patriarchy? okay i'm not exactly sure, but it's where munch performs the ritual, where witt dies, where gator has to pass through to get home and injures himself as he goes, it's where roy escapes to and says, "my destiny is at the other end of that tunnel." there's some significance to it.

-i don't adhere to the theory that the ending is a dream/delusion/afterlife/whatever, but if it is, i think it starts in the moment when the fbi rolls up on dot as she's about to kill roy, not in the backseat of the fbi vehicle. IF i supported this theory i would say they shot dot and killed her because she was holding the gun, and everything after is unreal. but i don't really support that theory to begin with, so eh.

-lorraine occupies the same metaphorical-and-literal narrative space as munch, of being a device of debts paid and owed, of use and abuse through the concept of debt, but she exists at the other end of the scale. she represents the eternal "ruling class" in both a literal and metaphorical sense, just as munch represents an eternal "oppressed class" in both a literal and metaphorical sense; he is forced to take on the debts of others because he's powerless, lorraine claims the debts of others to be empowered by them. i don't think we're meant to see her as a redeemed girlboss; she's supposed to be an implacable force of nature, and sometimes awful people like roy get swept up in that tide too, but that doesn't mean she's on anyone's side but her own. it's just that now she sees dot as "belonging" to her, and she protects what belongs to her.

-when they're praying at the dinner table and the prayer ends munch does not let go of dot's hand; she has to pull her hand away from his. thisisfine.jpg

-a charting of ole munch's life: we know he was born in wales, but uses a scandinavian name and mentions crossing the sea in longboats. vikings did know how to travel by water from scandinavia to greenland to canada, but they had basically stopped doing this completely by the 1500s; idk if we're meant to believe ole hitched a ride on an ill fated expedition or what, but technically they did know how to get there, they just had given up on attempting to colonize it, so the timeline is a little wonky there. regardless of that, the indigenous groups he mentions are the cree, arapaho and tonkawa, which were primarily in canada, colorado, and oklahoma, respectively. judging by this, he left wales and traveled north to adopt a new identity in scandinavia (sin eaters were treated as pariahs in their communities, so that's presumably why he left), then at some point sailed across to canada, then traveled west across canada, then south through colorado, then on to oklahoma. the tonkawa were forced south into texas in the 1700s, but then were relocated back to oklahoma later; during the civil war they were heavily massacred, so it could be that is what he's referring to when he talks about "the cannons and the muskets," but the timeline on when he actually lived with them is wobbly too. it's all kinda vague and the timeline is a little weird but not unfeasible.

-all throughout the final scenes, ole refuses to eat or drink anything the lyons give him- he doesn't actually drink either the orange soda or the beer wayne gives him, and when he's describing the "sins of the rich," he pushes his untouched plate of chili away without tasting it. like maybe he's convinced this is all a big trick; that the last time people brought him into their home and gave him a plate of food, it condemned him. ergo, the biscuit is more than just a gesture of forgiveness from dot; for him, taking a bite was also a gesture of trust in her. ow oof my heart.

[a-la-sante-du-progres]

The thing with R's design is that he's very canonically ugly, but I can't see "ugly".¹ I just never feel repulsion when looking at human traits. It's not a political stance but an instinctual lack of reaction. Lacking a internal compass telling me who is ugly, I can just use conventional ugly traits but those imho are associated with poverty, illness, violation of gender roles, violation of North European traditional aesthetics, old age². So even if I give R random conventionally ugly traits, I still won't think of him as ugly but as something else. It's a fruitless effort. So I gave up on picturing him as ugly and physically repulsive to me.

So my R design is:

-something makes him repulsive, but it's nothing people can explain rationally. No ugly trait in particular. After all, he's described as "impossibly" ugly. What if it's impossibly ugly because people can't say why he's looks ugly to them? Because it's a sensation that defies logic? My realistic headcanon is that people can sense his all-encompassing dread and lack of any positive belief, and they fear it and from fear it comes the irrational repulsion, also I'm sure that his behaviour toward women has a big impact on his perceived ugliness. It would be right in Hugo's alley anyway, Hugo uses ugliness as a visual metaphor for psychological and social issues.

(In a fantasy!AU I like to headcanon his perceived impossible ugliness as people unconsciously feeling that he's not human. The same is valid for Enjolras, but with his angelic and statuesque beauty.)

-I adopted as headcanon what it can be deduced from the brick. He's 26-29 years old, so quite young, he's fit and strong because of the multiple sports he does, he's short because he's impressed at Enjolras's height, he must have good hair because he appears to be proud of his hair and glad of not going bald like Bossuet. He's supposed to be the apparent opposite of Enjolras, so my headcanons are dark hair, small forehead, bad teeth, strong manly features. His hair may have been ginger too because Hugo had a bit of anti ginger bigotry and he stupidly thought ginger hair were ugly so he may have thought of R as red haired when he wrote he was ugly. Ginger!R is a fascinating idea to me, 99% of the times I see him as black haired, but I think ginger hair is a likely feature for brick!R (and also hot NGL).

-Bladgen!R has imprinted on me, so I borrow some of his features, but he looks too delicate to be R, so I usually roughen up his face a bit when I think about him as Grantaire. He's also too beautiful (I can tell when someone is beautiful to me), but when I try to think of traits to assign to R to turn him ugly, my mind goes blank. Without the obligation to make him ugly, I manage to picture him with different features, but I can't give up on his curly hair in the 2012 movie. Grantaire with curly hair is fixed in my imagination as if it was canon. Bbc!R is sometimes R in my mind, but I don't think he's ugly either (on the contrary, I find him beautiful as well), he just gave a great R impression thanks to his interpretation. No musical actor left something into my headcanons, it's regrettable because I usually enjoy a lot musical!Grantaires.

-Canon R is white imho, he talk about other ethnicities as "other". I'm not sure because he may identify with the dominang group despite not being part of it, but it's a likely guess. He also said he would rather be born a Turk/Arab, he's was joking/trolling, but I take it as inspiration for modern and reincarnation AUs. Obviously, it's unrelated with his perceived ugliness, and to avoid involuntary correlation and involuntary endorsement to white supremacist propaganda, I would explore his ugliness and being Arabic in different fanworks.

-Green eyes just because he's associated with green by the musical.

-Damages from his addictions. So corrupted teeth from smoking and alcohol, flawed skin from smoking, sleepy/tired eyes. Those could work as conventionally ugly traits, but I still think of them as neutral, bad just because they're symptoms of bad habits, not necessarily bad to look at.

¹I'm not trying to be holier than thou, I acknowledge ugliness is real and can be defined by what triggers repulsion at the sight. I can feel this repulsion when I look at very ugly architecture, for example, but I simply don't feel it when I look at people. If I'm repulsed at someone, it's just because I already hate them because of their behaviour. I don't know if it's related, but I don't feel repulsion at anything from the human body either. I've spent some nights in the hospital with surgery patients, and nothing repulsed me, no fluid or matter I saw. It's not high morals, it's high scientific interest, and the human body is too interesting to me to feel other than utter fascination. Like there is one thing I find ugly, and there are bushy eyebrows. idk why, that's it. As I said, lacking an internal compass that tells me what's ugly to me, when I try to picture ugly, I resort to conventions. ²But "ugly" traits are always ugly for ulterior motives, they're ugly because they're associated or they have been associated in the past with the poors (es badly groomed hair, inelegance, bad teeth), they're associated with a lack of health and physical strength (fat bodies, very skinny bodies, asymmetry, paleness, eyebags etc), they defy gender roles (moustaches/beard/big bodies for women, small stature/small hands/small D for men), they're typical of old age or they're anything else than north-European (big noses, bushy eyebrows too probably). I don't blame who find those traits ugly, we can't choose what is repulsive to us, we can only treat everyone decently (unless they're being harmful). But while I recognise ugliness is legit, I see every ugly trait as being something else, the trait of a poor/sick/old/androgynous/poc person so I'm unable to think of someone who is just objectively ugly. Instead I can well see beauty, I'm charmed by people with some colour and proportions as if they were work of art, also I see beauty in all the people I care about because looking at them is pleasurable to me. The opposite of beautiful is just "normal" to me, when I don't feel anything when I look at someone, likely with random strangers.

[athetos]

I finally (after years of putting it off) watched annihilation and honestly I was pleasantly surprised because while I don’t think it was superior to the book in any way, it served as a nice complement. It took the main themes and vibes and made something enjoyable and unsettling that can stand on its own. I think the metaphor about refraction was a really nice addition, and the many (so, so many) changes from the book were mostly born from necessity as it would be impossible to translate them to a visual medium. I’m glad it didn’t try to just copy the book’s plot and characterization because it would never hold a candle to Jeff vandermeer’s writing.

However, with all that said, there are two glaring detractions. Firstly, the ending was disappointing. If I had the ability to change just one detail, it would be to make it ambiguous as to whether the shimmer truly disappeared, or if it advanced to encompass the entire planet. That alone would be much more interesting. Obviously I don’t expect them to tackle questions like “what IS the shimmer” because even the novels don’t really answer that question (I mean there’s a 4th book in the works so MAYBE but c’mon it’s Jeff vandermeer he’s not going to give a definitive answer).

The second major criticism I have is that there’s no tower or crawler! I know they kind of merged the tower with the lighthouse but it’s a pretty weird omission to me since the tower is the most significant part of the first book and whenever I think about them, I always picture the tower and the nonsensical but chilling scripture first. I do understand why it might not have been included for budget and set purposes but I’m so distraught over this…

I guess the last two, smaller criticisms I have is that they had to throw in a contrived affair (why does every other movie feel the need to do this) and that they didn’t explain what annihilation meant. I won’t spoil it for people who haven’t read it but it has a very specific meaning that gave me chills when it was explained. I’m kind of surprised they didn’t mention the psychologist using any type of hypnotism or mind tricks on them at all. It adds a lot more to Ventress’ character even without the backstory for her we get in the other two books, and it would play way more into the “are we being manipulated to turn on each other” question that arose.

Other than that I think most of the changes made sense from a filmmaking perspective. Lena is ex-military so they can show her shooting big damn guns. They let them bring electronics into the shimmer because finding a videotape left behind is way more interesting to the audience than reading a journal entry. They gave the other survey members backstories to make the audience get more attached to them. They let Kane live because they needed another ‘changed’ person for the ending. Kane (presumably the original) committed suicide because it was a great way to show the plot twist. Etc etc

I also want to address that there is whitewashing in this movie but it seems to come from a place of genuine unawareness. The main character is Asian and the psychologist is indigenous in the books however they’re both white in the movie, but their races are never touched on until the second book, which was being written and cast at the time of the script’s writing (the rights for the film adaptation were acquired before the first book was even officially released!) I truly don’t think anyone involved was aware of this information, as it just wasn’t available. I don’t know enough about the filming process to know if they could have altered it after the second book came out or if it was too late in the process, so that’s all I have to say, but I don’t think it was done with malicious intent at all.

TLDR: it was a good movie and I recommend it but I recommend the books way harder go read them right now

[mitochondriaandbunnies]

Miami Vice S1E8: No Exit

Bruce Willis plays one of the sleaziest villains in all of Vice, directed by David Soul.

One of my favorite early episodes-- this is definitely a good candidate for trying to convince someone to watch Miami Vice. Fair warning that it’s fairly upsetting!

While Paul Michael Glaser (Starsky) directs 3 episodes of Vice, David Soul (Hutch) only did this one. PMG’s episodes are brisk, sarcastic, and laden with visual metaphor. This episode from Soul is dark, contemplative, and artistically spare. Both directors, however, use music absolutely beautifully, and seem to understand the almost visceral connection between Sonny and Rico, even this early in the series. It’s a shame we never got another Soul episode, but this one is damn good.

I love that Tubbs mentions that he is scared of machine guns, because it’s something that sets him apart from the other men in the department. He’s willing to admit his weaknesses and fear and isn’t as wrapped up in the I’m-the-toughest-cop-here machismo bullshit. His ability to be a little more honest with himself is almost certainly a protective factor in terms of why he doesn’t crash and burn quite as badly as the other characters over the course of the show.

Poor Lester the bug man. Lester is one of those early Vice characters who was clearly intended to be recurring, but he mostly spends the beginning of this episode trying to explain how his tools work while Tubbs is like “shut up I’m creepily looking at ladies through a telescope” again. Jesus, Tubbs.

Sonny and Rico are so fucking mean to Paul, the FBI agent who is supposed to be going undercover. Sonny jokes that the guy “must’ve taken drama in high school” and Rico patronizingly says that he “thinks they’ll handle it.” Then they proceed to send Rico, who has like 3 months of inconsistent undercover work under his belt, and whose Jamaican accent occasionally sounds Transylvanian, to do the job instead. Great work, boys.

God. Just-- the way Sonny is simultaneously truly, genuinely, and deeply concerned about Rita and wants to get her out of Tony’s grasp, and yet in the next breath he’s utterly manipulating her so Vice can use her. “Can you do that, Rita?,” he asks her, looking desperate and mournful, “Can you buy us some time?” It’s so goddamn bald-faced. You wonder if he justifies it to himself-- he has to make her do this to save her-- or if he just goes home hating himself that night because he knows what a bastard he was for even asking.

The sequence that follows is utterly wrenching. Tony offers Rita earrings, and when she doesn’t react with the level of excitement (fawning?) he was hoping for, he slowly stalks her down the spare, white hall and then slaps her so hard she falls to the ground. It’s a repetition of the same slow, white-backgrounded violence from the interrogation scene in Calderone’s Return pt. 2; it’s shot and framed like Tony is a horror movie monster; it’s set to the tinkly, synthy, shmaltzy strains of Stay with Me by Teddy Pendergrass. The intentional musical mismatch makes it all the more painful to watch; the age-old excuse that abuse comes from love or the fear of losing the victim’s affection falls apart when a love song is juxtaposed with such stark violence.

I think it’s very telling that Sonny’s call to Rita after he witnesses this (and, rightly, blames himself for it happening) is shot with him standing in almost exactly the same way at the exact same kind of payphone as when he calls Caroline in the pilot. In both cases, he’s calling theoretically to offer some kind of support or reassurance, but in actuality appears to need reassurance himself. He wants Caroline’s confirmation that she did love him once; he wants Rita’s forgiveness. Sonny’s ongoing issue with women comes from the same place as his issues with his self-esteem; he sees himself as a hired weapon at worst and a protector of the innocent at best. When he fails to protect someone, especially a woman or a child, his self-image starts to collapse. He doesn’t believe he’s good for anything else-- so in S1, he asks those he’s failed for reassurance that he is still a good protector. In later seasons, he just believes he really isn’t good for anything.

Sonny: Well, time for you to go to jail / Tony: No one can ever make me go to jail / Random government agent: Yeah uhh so we use him for proxy wars in the Southern Hemisphere, you know how it is with the US government and guns and cocaine and something something contras, so uh, yeah, he can go free

....but Miami Vice definitely is just about speedboats, right

I consider the ending of this to be the most classic/the “ur” Miami Vice Freeze Frame ending. It’s perfect, because like. Yeah, sure, there could be a denouement, but... why bother? There’s nothing that can be said that hasn’t already been said, and nothing that can fix what has happened that wouldn’t utterly undermine the themes of the story. It just sucks! The system is corrupt! They failed because they were set up to fail! You can’t fix the justice system from inside the justice system! This is the theme of the series in one abrupt freeze!

Okay. Okay. So. If Don Johnson is to be believed, he got Bruce Willis either the role or the audition for the role here. And he knew him because Bruce Willis was a waiter at a restaurant he liked. Not to put my tinfoil hat on or anything, but I find it utterly hilarious that Phillip Michael Thomas and not Don “hey boss, I need you to give a job to this hot talented waiter I know” Johnson has a scene here where he and Bruce Willis feel each other up in a men’s room. Look up photos of DJ and Bruce Willis from the 80′s. Look at DJ’s face and tell me I’m wrong.

[dourpeep]

Oh god okay this is like super old (you can tell because it was from Shadows Amdist Snowstorms HA SO TWO YEARS) but I still like this even if it's not entirely finished so don't mind me. I'll likely reblog later with more rambles dksnf

--

HELLO HI

I just remembered one of my absolute favorite things in philosophy and the social sciences--simulacrums.

In this case, I'm specifically going to rant about a specific type of simulacrum, or a perversion of reality (Baudrillard's idea of simulacrums) as well as play-by-play of major spoilers for the event story for 2.3 shadow amidst snowstorms.

Everything's gonna be under the cut, because this is going to be a doozy.

Alright alright alright, essentially, the easiest way that I've found to explain a simulacrum in the sense of it being a perversion of reality is two identical paintings. Both are visually the same--same color, same style, same mediums used, right?

However, no matter the skill of the artist replicating (or even if it is the same artist who did two at once), the paintings will never truly be exactly the same. One will always be a facsimile of the original.

Now, you might be wondering: "But Basil? You just said that they'll never be exactly the same but then went on to say that the replica is a facsimile? But doesn't facsimile mean that it is an exact copy? So it'd be the same, right?"

Well, exactly that--in the definition itself, the word "copy" is housed. So while it is correct to assume that they'd be the same, it would be just as incorrect to assume that they're carbon copies. Confusing. Very much so, so I'll move right back to the point-

OKAY

So in the terms of two paintings that look exactly the same, use the same materials, same style--the catch is that the replica (whether it be produced at the same time or leagues in the future) will never be the exact same as the original. Think of it in more of a sense of structure. There are the subtle nuances in the pressure of the brush, the angle, the pigments used, the amount of hairs of said brush that make contact with the canvas itself and drag to create strokes-

And due to these little differences, is why the replica will never be the same.

This is the bare-bones idea of a simulacrum.

As such, a simulacrum is, by definition, a representation or imitation of a person or a thing.

(a very general definition, which is why I used the painting metaphor first)

The word itself hold negative connotation in the sense that, if you were to call something a simulacrum, you are essentially stating that no matter the attention to detail, no matter if the end result is an exact replica--that is all it will ever be, a replica.

But we can also take the idea of a simulacrum and say that describing something as a simulacrum is also acknowledging it's individuality, where no matter how close it may be to it's predecessor, it is considered an entirely separate entity because the differences, no matter how slight, are enough to create a new category for it.

We see this in the ideas of creating artificial intelligence with the appearance of a human--note, you wouldn't go and say that an Android is a human, rather they replicate or are modeled after such. And if we are to go into fiction, there are instances of Androids who have visually no differences to that of a human (take the game, Detroit: Become Human, as a prime example, or the movie Bi-Centennial Man). While the idea is acknowledged of the development of intelligence and self awareness, they are still considered 'Androids' rather than 'Human'.

In that case, the idea of a simulacrum is neither positive nor negative.

(keep this in mind)

Moving on again-

With the current game version's main event, Shadow Amidst Snowstorms, we see a simulacrum of Albedo, the Chief Alchemist--a doppelganger of him that, visually, is an exact copy apart from the lack of a diamond on his neck.

Apart from that slight visual difference, there are differences in the tones used as well as the speech patterns and thought processes in his lines.

While Albedo still is learning about the world, he takes everything with an openness that then calls for further thought--on the other hand, our dear doppelganger (we'll call him Rubedo as well for the sake of readability) has a more one-track mindset. When something comes up, he assesses, ironically taking it in as either valuable or not, and continues on.

This is mainly shown right after we, the Traveler, meet him the first time after gathering starsilver.

Rubedo is shown to acknowledge the fact that Albedo is looking for the thief, as is traveler, and when the starsilver is brought up, his idea that 'what is useless should be discarded' is only supported by what the traveler says about the quality of starsilver.

At first, it seems as if he learned this ideal from Traveler because directly after he leaves to lead Joel away and nearly causes grievous injury to the child, however, in part three, it's proven that this idea has long since been Rubedo's. Specifically, Rubedo's planned to get rid of Albedo to take his place instead.

From this we instead can take the starsilver incident as further dirt to the wound.

Rubedo sees himself as defective because he was not chosen to become human by Rhindottir, unlike Albedo. The bitterness in his lines--about how humans only judge for what is worth or not worth and cast away what they deem as trash--is proof to that.

[bybdolan]

As promised/threatened/announced, I compiled some of my favorite and least favorite metaphors/images/turns of phrases/everything that kind of falls under this category on Midnights and explained why they work for me and why they don’t. Enjoy! (Bevor we begin: @whiskeyswifty put together some of her least favorite metaphors on the album here and there probably will be some doubling. Points were made!)

FAVORITE

“From sprinkler splashes to fireplace ashes.” – What a genius way to signify the passage of time! Not only does it have a strong sensual element (the feeling of water on your skin, the smell and sound of a crackling fireplace), it also implies a certain loss of virility and innocence through going from an image usually associated to childhood to the scorched, burned wood of a fireplace. LOVE.

“The rust that grew between telephones.” – A little gem on a song I really dislike otherwise. It fits the color scheme of the song (very obviously the writing exercise Taylor set herself with it: “write about things that are red that you associate with the relationship” – not a bad approach per se but often led to weird moments on Midnights) and immediately communicates a loss of contact in a very sad, destructive way.

“I’m a monster on the hill. Too big to hang out, slowly lurching towards your favorite city. Pierced through the heart but never killed.” – LISTEN! I absolutely love this line because the idea of her as this large, scary being is thought through and expanded upon in a way that is so effective in evoking a very specific mental image in your mind. I can clearly visualize  this creature on all fours crawling towards a skyline or something 1930s-monster-movie like that. I also like this because it goes into this slight horror element that pops up at certain points on the album but is never all that realized and tbh… I want gore!

“Did all the extra credit, then got graded on a curve. I think it’s time to teach some lessons!” – again: a very solidly thought out use of school imagery that is gleefully condescending.

“I'm the wind in our free-flowing sails, and the liquor in our cocktails.“ – Great line in a song I never listen to lol. It is, again, kind of sensual (speaks to the feeling of wind on your skin, makes you think of the sea; there is the slight burn of alcohol) and just makes you think of freedom and fun and life being easy going, which is exactly what she is describing here.

“High Infidelity” – one of her BEST titles and arguably my favorite “writing exercise” song concept because wheeew! I know she was happy when she came up with that and rightfully so! Genius wordplay.

“And maybe it's the past that's talking, screaming from the crypt, telling me to punish you for things you never did.” – kind of using this as a stand in for the entire song because I find the war metaphor to work very well as a whole (although I carry sliiight issue with it from a personal standpoint, given that it feels very clearly connected to WWI instead of just ~a war~ and it’s a peculiar choice). It’s a very tight sing imagery-wise because every lyric connects back to the main theme in a way that also makes it makes sense on an individual level. I picked this lyric specifically because it reminds me a favorite song where the singer describes his duties yelling at him from beneath the floor but he can’t hear because he is hanging out with his favorite person. I like personifications like that, and the suggestion that these influences are outside of ourselves, rather than inside.

“The tomb won’t close, stained glass windows in my mind.” – Putting this one directly behind The Great War because a) crypt parallel and b) Would’ve, Could’ve, Should’ve also works sooo well as a whole because the imagery is so tight and is utilized perfectly. One of her strongest work ever in that regard, because it adds a very specific layer to the story being told without ever outright saying it.

[the entire chorus of Karma] – it’s soooo fun and tongue in cheek and every single comparison she does works so well to me. “Karma’s on your scent like a bounty hunter” is so good as well. The song genuinely has some very good metaphorical work.

LEAST FAVORITE

“He was sunshine, I was midnight rain.” / “All of me changed like midnight.” – I think my main issue with this song is also the underlying issue I have with all of my least favorite imagery moments on the album: It feels like they were forcefully included to fit the theme of the song or album, without actually thinking about how they work by themselves. Midnight rain as a concept is so broad that the lyric describing it feel weak? I suppose it is meant to signify that she is dark and moody, but it ends up feeling a bit basic (as weather metaphors sometimes do). And the idea of “changed like midnight” just escapes me because, apart from the striking of the clock in a New Year’s Eve or Cinderella way, I feel like midnights are not commonly associated with change. I get where she is coming from, but it feels so so flat to me. However, this is also the lyric I am willing to give grace considering it might simply. Idk. Go over my head.

“But your eyes are flying saucers from another planet.” – Hands down my least favorite lyric on the entire album (and one of my least favorite lyrics of all time). Again: I get the idea, but the mental image this puts into my head is just incredibly goofy. Joe Alwyn with big ol’ round cartoon eyes. Was somebody scrambling for a lyric that matched the cosmic imagery of the song but already blew “starry eyes” and “eyes full of stars” on two different songs? Mh? “Flying saucers” as an object and a word combo simply are not romantic to me. Couldn’t we at least have used spaceship to signify that he feels out of this world? Idk man

“Draw the cat eye sharp enough to kill a man.” – Do I have to say anything about it? By itself it would be okay I guess but using internet speech from 2014 as an opening line to a song is. A choice. Also… I thought we didn’t dress for men (or women for that matter)? Why are u then thinking about him while doing your makeup, babygirl?

“You know how scared I am of elevators, never trust it if it rises fast.” – overdone! This is not a bad metaphor per se but it sure is a familiar one and IMMEDIATELY leaves your brain. Never use a metaphor/an image you have heard before, or whatever George Orwell said. (Great writing advice!)

“Spider boy, king of thieves, weave your little webs of opacity.” – Another one of those lines where you can feel the forced concept. I know somebody was super happy with “Spider boy” and then went looking for something that fit. “Weave your little webs of opacity” is SO clunky and heavy handed! I do like “my pennies made your crown” though.

“Sit quiet by my side in the shade, and not the kind that's thrown, I mean the kind under where a tree has grown.” – Bad. Very unsuccessful way of incorporating online lingo, and the “having to explain yourself” thing through the “I mean” is sooo… scrap it. I like the tree idea though, having grown something together, nurturing the relationship like a plant, etc.

“Freedom felt like summer then on the coast, but now the sun burns my heart, and the sand hurts my feelings.” – ok including this with a caveat: I think this actually is a good metaphor. Evocative, sensual, well thought out. However! I personally think “the sand hurts my feelings” sounds goofy and I think this line also would have worked had we stuck to the “real” nature impressions. Sun burning skin, sand getting into every crevice. Something like that. I think it would have communicated the idea equally well.

FINAL THOUGHTS: Having looked at a very specific part of the album like this, I wonder about the “writing exercise” thing she mentioned on the Graham Norton show. Multiple people have said that the concept album idea does not work for them, and I think I personally agree, but furthermore, Taylor developing entire songs about a word or a specific image appears to be pretty hit or miss, since we sometimes end up with these forced lyrics where you can just tell they needed that line and wondered how to make it fit with the rest of the song instead of having it come naturally. That said: as the good examples illustrate, Taylor is a capable writer and knows what she is doing.

[girl4music]

I miss with everything in me TV shows/movies and visual art/entertainment of any kind that are self-referential in a clever campy, fourth wall breaking, lampshading way. Basically visual art/entertainment that is able to and has the balls to take the piss out of itself and can admit where it goes wrong within the narrative itself. Honest, transparent clever meta TV.

Everything is just so fucking serious and dramatic now. Even when it’s a comedy, there’s still an urgency and a need to make you laugh that really takes the fun out of watching it. I don’t know if this will make any sense but I feel like TV visual media today just tries too hard. And it’s probably because it’s no longer just TV. What’s the word I’m looking for in explaining what I mean by this? I can’t think of it. Contrived? Forced? No, that’s not it. I don’t know how to articulate it.

It’s like you just can’t help but notice that there is a goal or an agenda to it while watching it so it takes you out of the experience of interacting/engaging with it when it’s supposed to pull you further in. ‘Xena’, ‘Buffy’ and ‘Charmed’ had it down so fucking well. Yes, all of them have their flaws and controversies but it was exceptional writing to the point where you feel like you’re part of it. Like you’re up close and personal with the characters and the environments and you feel like family. Like you belong with them and it. No TV show or movie has made me feel like that since. I’ve tried. I tried with ‘Sense8’, I tried with ‘First Kill’, I tried with ‘Santa Clarita Diet’, I tried with ‘Warrior Nun’. And I know that it was happening ever so slowly, but in the next second it was ripped away from under me. I didn’t even get chance to become a part of any of them, let alone let them become a part of me. I mean you wouldn’t really call fantasy or supernatural shows like Xena, Buffy and Charmed realistic storytelling. It’s some of the wackiest, most over-the-top, ridiculous shit ever for much of each respective show’s run. But all of them really feel more real to me than anything I could watch today on a streaming service of any kind. It feels real because it feels like me. Who I am, what I care about, how I perceive the world, where I stand. Makes me feel like I’m at home. When everything else I watch just makes me feel even more alienated. And it really is hard to explain how special these 3 are. How they’re just leagues ahead in my heart and mind over all else.

I both miss the realism in the absurdity in TV as well as I when it was about learning something significant. I miss the balance in the comedy and the drama. And I really miss when it never took itself too seriously yet was still able to get the point across without forcing it. You know, the way it both grows within and with you. The way it began with you and never leaves you. I guess what I really mean is I miss character-driven. I miss those episodes that had nothing to do with plot but told you more about the characters because of it. When the TV show wasn’t necessarily or specifically about anything. It was just the characters. They are that show. You know? Yeah, that’s what I mean. 😌

I’m always talking about how ‘Xena: Warrior Princess’ especially doesn’t really have any point to it. What it means and what it stands for is entirely up to you. I always say that it’s magic is in its ambiguity. How you’re supposed to interpret it over just watch it. And it’s just one big fucking headcanon that never ends. And they’re all like that in their own ways. All 3 shows. If they weren’t they wouldn’t be such cult classics. People wouldn’t still be watching them years after the very last episode aired. So timeless and so special. Unlike anything you could even find in visual media today. You can put it down to nostalgia but I think it’s more than that. I think they’re lightning in a bottle. With amazing chemistry between the actors and exceptional writing in storytelling and metaphor meaning. And with the fact they gave you room to create in it all that matters to you as a sentient being. To say I’m passionate about them is an understatement. I feel like I’ll never know anything that knows and fulfils and satisfies me completely like these 3 incredible shows do: Xena/Buffy/Charmed.

[falling-violet-petals]

(Contains spoilers for Star Wars and A Wizard of Earthsea)

I've sat with my thoughts on Star Wars a little more since my first post about it and I think I've made up my mind a bit more now. I think I know now that the one big fault I find in it is the division between dark and light side, that the conception of this universe and the world building are bad from the beginning. I've talked about this before so I won't repeat myself but it still baffles me how reductive and black and white the movies are. There's this quote from Ursula K Le Guin on the afterword of her book A Wizard of Earthsea (one of my favorite books ever) that explains it so well:

I don’t think this way; my mind doesn’t work in terms of war. My imagination refuses to limit all the elements that make an adventure story and make it exciting—danger, risk, challenge, courage—to battlefields. A hero whose heroism consists of killing people is uninteresting to me, and I detest the hormonal war orgies of our visual media, the mechanical slaughter of endless battalions of black-clad, yellow-toothed, red-eyed demons. War as a moral metaphor is limited, limiting, and dangerous. By reducing the choices of action to “a war against” whatever-it-is, you divide the world into Me or Us (good) and Them or It (bad) and reduce the ethical complexity and moral richness of our life to Yes/No, On/Off. This is puerile, misleading, and degrading. In stories, it evades any solution but violence and offers the reader mere infantile reassurance. All too often the heroes of such fantasies behave exactly as the villains do, acting with mindless violence, but the hero is on the “right” side and therefore will win. Right makes might. Or does might make right? If war is the only game going, yes. Might makes right. Which is why I don’t play war games.

And honestly I think what Star Wars really needed is the answer that UKLG gives in A Wizard of Earthsea, where a man chased by his own shadow created by his own egoism and pride decides that the only way to stop evil is to face your own shadow and welcome it inside you.

Aloud and clearly, breaking that old silence, Ged spoke the shadow's name, and in the same moment the shadow spoke without lips or tongue, saying the same word: ‘Ged.’ And the two voices were one voice.

Ged reached out his hands, dropping his staff, and took hold of his shadow, of the black self that reached out to him. Light and darkness met, and joined, and were one.

[...]

Ged had neither lost nor won but, naming the shadow of his death with his own name, had made himself whole: a man: who, knowing his whole true self, cannot be used or possessed by any power other than himself, and whose life therefore is lived for life's sake and never in the service of ruin, or pain, or hatred, or the dark.

THIS is what I am missing in Star Wars. I have seen some discussions and debates in fan spaces dedicated to this franchise where people give reasoning as to why they would be either Jedi or Sith, what side of the force they would choose if they were in the universe, and they all give reasonings like the evilness of the Sith or the emotionless way of Jedis to choose one or the other. Well, here's my answer: I would be neither. Running away from evil only ensures that you will not see how it is evil that's choosing your path, that you will not see the evil ahead of you until you come to it. Living in opposition to your own evil, afraid of it, is only going to make you vulnerable to it. You cannot tell me this isn't the Jedi's fatal flaw. You cannot tell me that at the end of the movies the conflict is solved when the dark side is defeated by killing Darth Vader or Palpatine. Evil doesn't die like that. It isn't born like that either, but star wars personifies it in Palpatine whose intentions we don't know, whose origin we don't know, who causes all evil and who corrupts all other villains. And when he's dead, we presume evil is too. We learn no lesson from Anakin, there is no moral value to take from how he fears evil so much that he becomes it, because at the end, even if for a single moment he realizes this, the victory is his death, and when he dies the Jedi are rebuilt again, and we even go back to that same evil only a few years later with Snoke and Palpatine, because him having light didn't matter, solving the root of the problem doesn't matter, the only thing that matters is to win every battle. Morals in Star Wars aren't made by reason and thought, but by force, and so the Jedi can't possibly think about their flaws, because they have won and therefore they are stronger and right. It all goes back to the status quo of having dark on one side, and light on the other, and light triumphing over dark because they are good and better. I can't think of anything more reductive than that. I just so desperately wish we had a sequel where the answer wasn't to kill the darkness but to unite dark and light, two sides of the same coin, together as a whole again. What worth is half a coin?

Anyway, seeing as I'm already quoting A Wizard of Earthsea this much, I should probably end this with one of my favorite quotes that really fits into what I'm saying about Star Wars, which just happens to be the very first page of the novel and and also the next line after the quote I brought up earlier:

Only in silence the word, only in dark the light, only in dying life: bright the hawk’s flight on the empty sky.

[watching-pictures-move]

Movie Review | Shut In (Caruso, 2022)

The most notable thing about this movie and the reason I sought it out was the involvement of Vincent Gallo, who came out of retirement for almost a decade to appear in this movie. His participation can likely be explained by the fact that Gallo is an outspoken conservative and that this movie was produced by the Daily Wire, a conservative media company owned by a deeply unpleasant man who shall not be named and who is something of an intellectual hero to the right on the basis of many arguments where he DESTROYS the dumbest people on the left by talking too fast for them to keep up. Who could this person be? We will never know. But Gallo's involvement gets a lot harder to explain when you realize he has like ten, maybe fifteen minutes of screentime, or at least scenes where he's given some dialogue. Maybe he didn't read the script beforehand, but what I can say in favour of the movie is that his presence hangs over the rest of the movie. His portrayal of a pedophilic meth addict is so sleazy and so forcefully performed that he makes the movie around him feel a touch extra noxious. To the extent that Shut In works as a thriller, a good amount of credit goes to him.

Now, I have not seen the Daily Wire's other productions (I'm not particularly keen to support their work directly, and that school shooting movie sounds a little too vile even for me), but I understand that as far as explicitly conservative movies go, they're supposed to be closer to real movies than all those movies where Kevin Sorbo rails against atheists, abortions, antifa and probably Anthony Fauci. (I haven't actually seen those movies, I'm going by secondhand reports.) Given Dallas Sonnier's involvement as a producer, I can make a comparison to two Cinestate productions, Dragged Across Concrete and The Standoff at Sparrow Creek. Both of those are similarly grimy thrillers and can be read as right wing (although I think there's some ambiguity with the latter), but despite their politics, I think those movies know how to work as examples in their genre and are willing to muddy the moral waters of their protagonists. The heroine here is defined as a recovered drug addict who loves Jesus, and the movie has no idea how to make this dramatically compelling. We get long scenes of her looking longingly at the cross nailed on her wall, and one very long scene of her reading the bible. In the middle of a home invasion. Exciting stuff.

And her recovery from addiction is nominal, because the movie never depicts her as being even remotely tempted by drugs during the runtime. Some of this is the movie's gross views on addiction at play, as the drug addicts in the movie are almost comically evil and crippled by their addictions, and the movie makes the not terribly subtle metaphor of throwing out bad apples or cutting out the rotten bits (and does so repeatedly, meaning we get lots and lots of shots of apples). The movie posits that drugs are something only bad people and good people can never succumb to them because they're good people. Which, despite never having been near hard drugs in my life, reads as entirely dishonest to me. I recently watched The Boost, (starring James Woods, who shockingly enough hasn't shown up in one of these movies despite the views he's voiced through his deranged Twitter account), and 8 Million Ways to Die, and what those movies get (despite the former plunging into a worst case scenario style depiction), is the idea of constant temptation and threat of relapse. This one features the heroine being handed some supposedly high grade meth and batting nary an eyelash, instead scheming how she can use it against her assailants.

Aside from that, much of the movie has the heroine locked repeatedly in a pantry while her dumbass kid proves useless in helping her get out. Which means that it's pretty low wattage as far as home invasion thrillers go, although D.J. Caruso does provide some sturdy visual direction. That being said, the fact that the heroine's comically run down house looks like something out of a Conjuring sequel and is shot in fecal tones to boot means that it never registers as a real, lived-in space, which greatly undermines the immediacy of the premise. So no, I do not recommend seeing this movie, although Gallo's performance is pretty engaging and the few minutes of conscious screentime he has could be edited into a pretty tense short film.