#(but it's pretty obvious that they got the idea from the one recent popular portrayal that fucked that up)

[ihaveatypeanditstrickstergods]

People who know me may remember that a while back, I went off on Stranger Things and its writers using cultural touchstones from its time period in a way that demonstrates only a surface-level and sometimes antithetical understanding of the thing itself (ie taking a song about how women are held to higher standards than men and still receive less for it and making it about a female character's relationship to male characters). This is especially obvious when it comes to the D&D names they use for the monsters, as very few of them are used in a way anyone who actually plays would use.

Well, Dead by Daylight just introduced Vecna as a killer. He has both hands and both eyes.

Congratulations, Stranger Things, you have officially fucked up Vecna. I hope you're proud of how much you "respect" D&D.

[fromtheplanethexagon]

the robot problem: a critical look at tobecky, 5 years late

hello wordgirl fandom i am back :) and i have a lot of thoughts that i never got around to expressing before i moved on from the show. so be aware that everything i'm saying is based on my experiences during the 2012-2016 era of the fandom & state of tumblr in general, and i am not familiar with more recent fan content.

it's been over five years since the show ended, and @ifbrd​ reminded me (along with some great analysis) that while tobecky was super popular since before the show technically started (thanks to the play date shorts), it's pretty unhealthy in a lot of ways that tend to be excused or flat out ignored in fanworks. i'd like to reflect on that a bit (a lot); specifically, how both the show and the fandom approached this enemies-to-lovers ship, and how easily this ship can slip into uncomfortable territory if we're careless about how we interpret the ship and create fan content of it.

i will admit, i'm mostly writing this as a response to past me and my old creations - though i moved on from the show as a whole years ago, i do like taking the time to reflect on old interests once in a while, and reevaluating my thoughts on them. and this ship is probably the biggest one that still lurks in the corners of my mind once in a while, so let's go.

cherish is the word: a short positive note before a much longer negative one

i wanted to start this essay off with some positivity, because i am going to be very negative after this. tobecky was, in some ways, cute. it's obvious from the very beginning that these two characters are on pretty equal ground, even if one of them isn't aware of it. and that's part of the fun - the irony of how unaware tobey is that his nemesis/crush/person that pretty much always wins against him is someone that he completely dismisses as incompetent. i want to point this out because honestly, in general i don't like enemies-to-lovers because a lot of them use a power imbalance within the dynamic, and i hate power imbalances, especially when it comes to actual life-or-death scenarios (at least, as much as cartoons can do that). in most episodes, becky is never actually forced to go along with his wishes. she's not held in a 'date' against her will, nor is she ever really outwitted by him. i bring this up because there is one huge, uncomfortable exception, which i will get to later.

another big plus to the ship is the fact that they just... get along? even when fighting? of course we get brief moments where they just hang out and talk about paintings or whatever, but i'm talking about how much they get each other, even if they don't realize it. like the word banter, for example. been there since day one. becky loves words, and while most other people in her life don't really care (ranging from 'eh, that's cool i guess' to her brother calling it annoying), tobey gives her a chance to show off and thus treats her as a worthy adversary as herself, not because of her more generic superpowers - something that we've seen in canon that she feels self-conscious about (see: her motivation in patch game). one of the less noticed examples, to me, is "it's your party and i'll cry if I want to", because it's just - okay. they both are excluded from a social event, and while it's obvious that tobey deals with it by destroying the city, it's also pretty obvious that becky also deals with her frustration by fighting in that battle. like, yes, realistically it's just objectively bad that he's destroying buildings. but they're also providing each other with a way to work through their frustrations, first by fighting and then by talking things out, and finally by hanging out together instead of dwelling on being excluded from the party.

so it makes a lot of sense to me that many tobecky fans gravitated towards writing far-in-the-future fic, usually by implying that some growth had taken place before starting to write the ship. (there are, as far as i'm aware, 2... maybe 3 exceptions, that take the time to attempt a real redemption for him, at least when i left the fandom.) because if you take away his worst moments, either by reasoning out that he was 10 years old and a mess, or that he was a cartoon character in a cartoon world where everyone's actions are over-the-top, or by just flat-out pretending that certain episodes never happened, there's some pretty solid ground to start a ship on.

go gadget go: we all do not see it, we simply close our eyes (review of canon)

when the show began, i was the same age as the characters. a lot of other people were, too - at least in my cohort of the fandom. i think it's pretty safe to say that many of us have fond memories of the show's earlier seasons, and held on to that interest as we got older, for whatever reasons. so like, not to be all 'as an OG fan...', but i remember seeing the shorts air for the first time in 2006. i have a diary entry in july of 2009 about how i, a 12yo with no concept of the idea of 'shipping', was disappointed in the new tobey episode because i wanted more tobecky interactions. (that was robo-camping, btw, lol.) and so i remember how exciting their rivalry felt, watching them as someone literally their exact same age, and then watching that again as a nostalgic 17yo, and then uh... growing up, to put it frankly, and realizing just how unhealthy most of their interactions were.

okay what i meant to say was, this section is an overview of the relationship's canon portrayal throughout the years.

first, we have early tobecky: this includes the shorts and the first few seasons. this is their classic relationship: he likes her and takes robots on rampages to get her attention, she majorly disapproves and has fun taking him down. we've all seen the show, you know what i'm talking about. his backhanded ways of trying to find out her identity often feature prominently in the episodes, which - sigh, i've mentioned this whole issue before, but it's kind of a grey area in the whole uncomfortable-factor thing, because while trying to find out her identity is VERY invasive, it's something that like... everyone in the show tries to do, even her canon crush (scoops). on the one hand, it's really not a great look, but on the other hand, this is a cartoon meant to parody a genre in which this trope is extremely common. so i just wanna say that i have Issues and Thoughts on this aspect of their relationship, but there are other things i find more important to discuss here.

second, we have late tobecky: this is seasons 7-8. this is... a very strange and huge shift from the previous dynamic, though it's not necessarily obvious. what i mean by that is that for some reason, the show writers made it so that half of tobey’s rampages have nothing to do with his crush on wordgirl, even though that used to be the sole reason for his villainy. seriously. we have the birthday episode, where he's upset because he feels left out; wg vs tobey vs the dentist, where he's mad that he has a cavity; and trustworthy tobey, where his robot goes on a rampage... after becky accidentally makes it malfunction. the two outliers are ‘guess who’s coming to thanksgiving dinner’ and ‘patch game’, but they still differ from previous seasons because 1) his destruction is isolated to a forest far away from the city, and 2) his motive is still to impress wordgirl, but his methods are relatively tame. also he completely gives up on the secret identity thing??? i may have missed some things but i think he straight up tells her 'yeah there's no way you're wordgirl, lol' and the subject is just dropped for the rest of the show.

i also want to include 'the robot problem' here, because it's one of two season 6 tobey episodes, and follows the 'doesn't destroy buildings to get her attention' pattern: in fact, he teams up with her to try and stop someone else from going on a rampage (even if his reasons are selfish, lol).

and finally. the other season 6 episode. we have go gadget go, the bane of my time spent in the fandom. because GGG is the single episode where tobey truly manages to take away her autonomy, and proceeds to abuse that power for an extended period of time, for his own amusement. it's bad. it's Very Bad. put in the context that it's a white boy doing this to an (ambiguously) brown girl, it's REALLY REALLY BAD. and the more i look back on it, tbh, the more weirded out i am that the show not only made it seem like she wasn't affected at all within the episode, it just... forgot about it (which is not unusual for shows and especially children’s shows, but WG does make some efforts to either retain continuity or create canon reasons for why things are forgotten about). it's the kind of thing that you can't excuse and honestly you can't redeem (like at this point, you gotta ask yourself why you're spending so much effort trying to redeem this guy when becky has several other possible ships that are nowhere near this unhealthy - violet, scoops, honestly even victoria if you want another hero/villain ship, my absolute fave rarepair rose, etc).

so if you want to still ship it you have to just pretend that it never happened. (i remember trying for weeks to write something exploring the aftermath of this episode, to try and make myself feel better about it, but the more i wrote the more i realized just how traumatic this event should've been, so i eventually just dropped it.) and i brought up my own timeline of experiences earlier to point out that this episode aired eight whole years after the show started. which means that when i saw it, even though i was a huge stickler for canon at the time, i'd built up my own idea of the show and characters strongly enough to go 'yeah, no, this episode sucks and i am going to pretend that it doesn't exist'. and i think a lot of other people did too, because i really saw like... no one mention it, ever, except for some rogue fanfics over on ff dot net that already liked dynamics like that.

because here's the thing, and i don't know if people nowadays are aware of it? but i'm 80% sure (cannot find a source, so the other 20% is that it was just a rumor) that the show was originally supposed to end after season 6. and even if it's a rumor, it makes a ton of sense, because we get 1) an 'ending' to tobecky, which is a bad one, 2) a permanent wordgirl identity reveal that significantly changes one of the major dynamics in the show, 3) an episode where TJ gets to work with wordgirl and get a nice potential ending for their sibling dynamic, 4) an episode where we see Two-Brains explore life without his henchmen... the list goes on, and idk how many of these are just major stretches. but the point is. if the show had ended there, that would've been a pretty solid ending for many things, including their relationship: aka, it would prove that it was only ever heading somewhere bad, and when tobey finally has his moment of triumph, he is truly evil about it. and this provides us fans who HATE go gadget go with an easy reason to dismiss it - we can say that it was an attempt to conclude things in a way that wouldn't have happened if the writers had known they'd get more time. but despite that... it is still a canon episode.

it is odd to me how dramatically the dynamic shifts after that, though, because we seriously go from 'worst case ever, tobecky is toxic, your ship is dead' to 'no actually they get along and hang out and get ice cream together and tobey isn't even pressuring her into it, she's happy to go along with it :)' like, immediately. i never knew much about the show writers, so i don't know if the writers changed in between these seasons, but i would absolutely not be surprised if they did.

the earlier episodes are definitely problematic as well (though they pale in comparison to GGG) but i think everyone who ships it is aware considering that tobey is, yknow, a villain. from memory, he destroys buildings to get her attention, lies to her about the level of danger that people are in to trick her into spending more time with him, blackmails her into reading his poetry, and he creates a robot based on her that’s supposed to be devoted to him (but of course, all of these things backfire). not great stuff of course, but like... he’s a villain, that’s the point of his character. and considering that he’s a child these are things that can be redeemed, if done thoughtfully.

anyway, to sum up this section, the show starts off with a pretty standard 'enemies with an unrequited crush' setup, takes a really dark turn for a single episode, and then for the rest of the show takes their dynamic in a direction that makes it much, much easier to ship. as long as you ignore a lot of previous content.

wordbot: where's becky's autonomy in all of this? (misogyny)

we've finally gotten to the fandom. i recognize that a lot of this is going to come across as hypocritical considering how active i used to be re: this ship, but like... i'm a very different person now. anyway. disclaimer i guess - i don't write this to accuse all tobecky shippers of being like this - i know a lot of us aren't/weren't! but boy do i have things to point out, so without further ado:

it is very hard to ship this without allowing some bit of misogyny to slip into it. very, very hard. the entire premise of the ship involves a girl falling in love with a boy that repeatedly pressures her to date him via threats to the safety of herself and people she cares about, which... it's 2020, i shouldn't have to explain why that's terrible & a terrible example to set for children (which is why i am glad they never made it canon, tbh). best-case fan content has tobey stop pressuring her and start working to redeem himself out of an actual change of heart, which leads to becky seeing him in a new light. worst-case fan content treats his incessant pressuring and sometimes outright threats as something romantic - and even worse, romantic to the point where he deserves her attention and love as a reward for not giving up or whatever. i did see this pretty frequently for a while, especially in the earlier 2010s (didn't read much, Not My Thing At All), but i don't feel like going into detail here because of how obviously problematic it is. one medium (but still bad) case is where the fan content makes him start his redemption, but treats her liking him back as a reward for not knocking buildings over anymore. another not great case is where she tries to fix him with her love, which is a very common and very dangerous romantic trope. both are just... so incredibly unfair to her.

in content where she tries to 'fix him'... yeah i feel like it's really obvious how misogynistic that is. girls and women should not feel responsible for the evil actions of men, plain and simple. idk what else to say here i just really hate that trope and hated it back then and it just sucks! so can we not do that anymore, thanks.

in content that treats her like a reward for good behavior, there really isn't much of an explanation for what she sees in him. if she just goes 'oh wow, you're good now, i am going to fall in love with you for it' the whole thing falls flat because it makes NO sense whatsoever. we get to hear so much about tobey and his feelings and why he likes her and how he feels about it, but where is that energy for becky? why does she choose to trust him, to spend time around him, what does she enjoy about his presence? where is her getting over scoops in the process of falling for tobey? where is her telling her friends about this, confiding in them, asking them for advice? where is her choice in the matter?

win a day with wordgirl: do you guys even like becky or do you just like the idea of her (misogyny... 2!)

it was pretty standard for all fandoms the early-mid 2010s, but that's still not a good excuse for why so many tobecky fanfictions centered specifically around tobey's feelings while refusing to give becky the same level of empathy and nuance. it is true that to ship them comfortably you have to redeem him to some degree, which means spending time figuring him out and trying to find ways to pull him to the light without feeling super OOC. but ships take two people??? and there was so much potential for fanfics to explore becky's complex feelings on the matter - because she is! complex! she's heroic and kind but she's petty and has a competitive streak, she easily befriends villains but also doesn't trust them and doesn't believe they can ever really change, she's the savior of an entire planet but has feelings of inadequacy as her civilian identity and struggles with feeling like she can be successful without superpowers, she's great at the straightforward meanings and uses of words and loves reading but struggles to write passages that aren't dry as hell, it can be easily headcannoned that she's neurodivergent (special interests, issues with fitting in with her peers, taking things very literally, etc)... seriously there is SO MUCH to explore about her character, and a lot of it comes into play when you add tobey into the mix (literally ALL of the things i mentioned are explored at some point using tobey as a parallel or foil), but i rarely saw fanfiction that explored her thoughts on things further than 'he's evil but... maybe good?' or 'he's evil but... i kind of like him anyway?'.

if you want her to fall for him while being a villain, explore it!! why does she go against her morals? does she lie to herself about it to feel better? does she feel like she has to 'fix him' as part of her superhero duties to the city, and if so, how does that affect her as she tries and fails to help him? does she fall for him when she believes that he's turning good, only to feel betrayed when he starts acting worse because he feels like he can get away with it? it's such a shame that fanworks spend so little time even considering these questions, and it is absolutely a product of how deeply misogyny is/was baked into how we approach media (especially back then).

tobey goes good: but wait, i thought this show was progressive (a conclusion, i guess)

ifbrd wrote a great meta recently about how the show is a bit misogynist, despite being progressive in several ways. honestly i don't have much to add, but i'd really recommend reading through this; it makes a lot of great observations about the ways that male and female characters are presented differently through the show

i have little to add, so i'd just like to conclude with a reflection on the ship from my current viewpoint. i do think part of the reason so many of us latched onto the ship, despite how obviously problematic it was, is that the show treats a lot of things that would be serious in real life as normal or even comedic - which is fine lol, i'm not going to pretend that it's not a show for little kids, so they have to keep the tone light.

but if we, as teens/adults, decide to engage with this content in a more realistic manner, we have to be prepared to confront how messed up so many of the things going on really are. and if you still want to ship it, there's nothing inherently wrong with that! there's a lot of interesting things to explore in this ship, no matter what stage of enemies-to-friends-to-lovers you write them at, and it can be really helpful to have a space where you can explore a dynamic such as this in fiction. (speaking from experience here tbh, writing some fic for them helped me deal with complicated feelings about some ex-longtime friends.)

so to write this ship at all means that there are canon issues that you need to deal with if you want to have them end up in a healthy relationship in any manner that makes sense (unless you create an AU where none of that is applicable, which, power to you then). and i’m not saying ‘write them with a healthy endgame or you’re Bad’, not at all lol. but at least please, please take a step back once in a while to examine the dynamic that you’re writing, and please be careful about whether you mean to be romanticizing whatever behaviors you end up portraying as good.

[crusherthedoctor]

Can we have some unpopular Sonic opinions?

I tried to cram in a lot, so I hope this satisfies you. :P I tried to stick to the ones that I haven't brought up quite as often, since by this point, we all know that I think IDW's storytelling is dire, SA2's story is overrated, X Eggman is an embarrassing portrayal (at least from season 2 onwards), Blaze shouldn't be handcuffed to Silver, Shadow's backstory had issues with or without the Black Arms, Neo Metal Sonic looks silly, etc. But anyway, here we go:

- Knuckles may be tricky to incorporate into plots that don't relate to Angel Island, but making him obsessed with his duties is no better than having him forget about Angel Island entirely.

- I like Marine, and never found her annoying. Oh, I understood what they were trying to do with her, but I honestly wasn't put off by her, and found her Aussie lingo more endearing if anything. Since her debut was during the period in my life where where I couldn't stand Sonic himself, I instead thought he was irritating (and hypocritical) for getting annoyed with her for doing shit he would often be guilty of.

- Silver is just as guilty of being shoehorned into games and plots as the Deadly Six are. Having more fans than the latter is irrelevant, since we're still talking about a character who constantly has to time travel in order to be present.

- Speaking of Silver, if he has to stick around, please do something different with him. They've pulled the doomed future routine multiple times now, and it's been boring every single time. I wasn't interested when it involved Iblis. I wasn't interested when it involved Knuckles drinking the edgy Kool Aid. I wasn't interested when it involved a council of dumbasses... give it a rest already.

- The Tails Doll can work as a mildly creepy thing, with maybe more to it than meets the eye when it's time for a boss fight or what have you. But the memes about him stealing your soul are just dumb, and I thought it was dumb even back in my teenage youth.

- “Eggman is supposed to be clownish!” Yeah, well he's also meant to be a genuine villain with a 300 IQ. These qualities don't have to be mutually exclusive.

- “Sonic is supposed to have attitude!” Yeah, well that's not the same thing as being an absolute cunt. Sonic was only ever meant to come off as having an edge compared to Mario. He was never meant to be a GTA-tier protagonist.

- Rouge is not a villain, and never was a villain. Literally the whole point of her role in SA2 was to reveal that she was working against Eggman and Shadow the whole time, albeit using sneakier tactics to do so. You'd think all those people who exult SA2's story would remember this, but apparently not. She barely even qualifies as an anti-hero, since aside from stealing the Master Emerald, she rarely does anything morally questionable otherwise. She's got a lot more good in her than people give her credit for.

- Captain Whisker is a better Eggman Nega than the actual Eggman Nega. And as far as robot characters in this franchise go, Johnny's design is pretty underrated.

- I don't like Iblis or Mephiles, but I DO like Solaris, and it annoys me that it was out of focus for most of the story due to all the time spent on its less interesting halves. Had they kept the backstory with the Duke and his experiments, and worked from there, I think they could have provided an interesting contrast with Chaos (since Solaris can also qualify as a monster with a sympathetic backstory) instead of recycling the surface level schtick.

- Black Doom may technically be just as bad as Mephiles, Nega, Scourge, Mimic, etc, since he's yet another villain with one-note characterization and fucked over Eggman. But because he never gained a disproportionate fandom, he doesn't annoy me to the same extent. It's easier to ignore him by comparison, and his Dr. Claw voice and face shaped like a lady's delicate part make him enjoyable to mock.

- Likewise, while Lyric is also on the same level as these other villains, it's easier to dismiss him because I was never invested in the Boom games anyway, and being an obvious alternate universe (compared to Sonic X or IDW, which retain the Modern designs and plot elements), it never had an effect on the main series. I also unironically like his design, and if nothing else, at least this snake didn't start a hypnotism fetish across the internet.

- Sally - and the rest of the Freedom Fighters for that matter - have had their importance in the franchise severely inflated. They may have been lucky to be the face of popular media (SatAM and Archie), but they're not these magnificent entities that the game characters are but a speck of dust in comparison to. Having a “legacy” doesn't make them more entitled to shit than any other character, old or new.

- Conceptually, the treasure hunting gameplay is one of the better alternate gameplay styles IMO. But it was let down in SA2 by its one track minded radar (the levels may have been big, but I don't think that would have been an issue on its own if the radar was better). If they brought it back and made it more like SA1's treasure hunting, I'd be all for it, although it would probably be better suited for a spinoff title.

- This goes for a lot of games, but when it comes to 2D, I prefer sprites over models. Not that the Rush models are bad (though the ones in Chronicles sure as fuck are), but the sprites in Mania and the Advance trilogy are just so charming and full of character.

- I actually like Marble Zone. Yeah, the level design is a bit blocky, but I love the concept of an underground temple prison, mixed with lava elements in a zone that otherwise isn't a traditional volcano level.

- I also like Sandopolis Zone. Again, completely understand why it's not the most popular zone around, but I've been a sucker for the Ancient Egyptian aesthetic since childhood (you can thank Crash 3 for that), and Act 1 is visually stunning.

- I prefer the JP soundtrack for Sonic CD over the US version overall... but I also prefer Sonic Boom over You Can Do Anything.

- SA2's soundtrack isn't bad by any means - I love Rouge's tracks, and The Last Scene is one of my favourite pieces of music - but as far as variety goes, it's a step down from SA1's soundtrack.

- If Sonic X-Treme had been released, it probably would have been unenjoyable and confusing. Whatever your thoughts on SA1, it was probably the better option between the two as far as Sonic's first legitimate translation into 3D goes.

- I have no qualms with Modern Sonic and the other Modern designs and characters, but I also fully acknowledge that changing gears from Adventure onwards - and doing it with a great amount of fanfare - was always going to create one of the biggest divides in the fandom, and fans shouldn't act surprised that this happened. The fact that they felt the need to hype up a new design and direction in the first place (compared to Mario, who has mostly been the same since the beginning, with only the occasional minor change with little fanfare) also indicates that they weren't confident enough in Sonic and his universe being the way it was, which often gets ignored by all the “SEGA have no confidence!!!” complaints you see with their recent games.

- Unleashed did not deserve the incredibly harsh reviews it received back in the day... but it doesn't deserve its current sacred cow status either. It had more effort put into it than '06 to be sure, and I can respect that, but much of it was misguided effort, and even if you like the Werehog, you have to admit that the idea came at the absolute worst time. The intro cutscene may be awesome, as is the Egg Dragoon fight, but 2% doesn't make up the entire game. Chip was also quite annoying, and I wasn't particularly sad when he pressed F in the chat at the end.

- On the other hand, while Colours definitely has its shortcomings, and people have every right to criticse those shortcomings, a lot of its most vocal detractors tend to have a stick up their arse about the game because people actually enjoyed it, and it had a gimmick that people actually liked. Yes, it may have been the first game to have those writers everyone hates, but then SA1 was the first game to give the characters alternate gameplay styles and have other villains upstage Eggman, so...

- Forces is absolutely not on the level of '06. It's nowhere close. A game being flawed does not make it the next '06, clickbait YouTubers. Or should I say, the game they want to retroactively apply '06's reception to, since they've been trying hard to magically retcon '06's own quality...

- To echo @beevean, ALL of the 3D stories have their issues. SA1 is probably the most well-rounded of them on the whole, but even that one isn't perfect.

- To echo another opinion, although I do love SA1, I'm not crazy over the idea of a remake, and would prefer them to just take Sonic's gameplay from SA1 and work from there. Because with a remake, you're stuck in a hard spot: Do you keep it the way it is bar the expected graphical upgrades, and risk accusations of not doing anything to actually improve the experience? Or do you try to address past criticisms, and risk the wrath of the fans who will inevitably go on a #NotMyAdventure crusade about it? What people fail to consider is that the Crash and Spyro remakes were accepted gracefully because their original iterations were still unanimously beloved for the most part, whereas SA1 - and especially SA2 - have always been divisive, and have only gotten moreso over the years.

- People take their preferences for the character's voice actors too seriously. I have my own favourites like anyone else, but I don't make a big deal out of it.

- And with fandom voice actors, they usually focus too much on doing a basic impression of their preferred official voice actor, and not enough on the acting. So you end up getting a lot of fan voices who sound like decent impressions of Ryan Drummond or Jason Griffith on the surface, but they sound utterly empty beyond that impression, because there's no oomph or depth to the actual emotions. They think about the actor rather than the character, when it should really be the other way around.

- The thing with Ian Flynn is that he is capable of telling a decent story, and he can portray some characters well. But he's proven time and time again that everything will go off the rails if he's given too much freedom (ironic, given how quick he is to point the finger at mandates when something goes wrong).

- Ian Flynn and Shiro Maekawa are not the only people in the world who are allowed to write for Sonic. I understand that one should be cautious when seeking out new writing talent, but for all the fandom's accusations of playing it safe, they sure aren't in a rush to experiment outside of their own comfort zone.

- And of course, the big one: You don't fix the franchise's current problems by crawling back to its previous problems. It's much more helpful and constructive to discuss the good and bad alike with each of the games. Less “THIS GOOD, MODERN BAD”, and more “This could work, but maybe without that part...”

[liskantope]

Some brief (and sometimes not-so-brief) reactions to major Disney films 1937-1967

Around a month ago I made a temporary switch from Netflix to Disney+ with the goal of watching all major Disney movies in order, roughly paced so that one year of Disney film-making equals one day of real life. I should clarify here that by “major Disney movies” I mean mostly just all the animated ones plus a few hybrid live-action/animated ones, and a few of the most popular live-action ones (at least the ones I remember having a song considered good enough to feature on one of the Disney Sing-Along videos, a staple of my video-watching as a kid growing up in the 90′s). I would have been interested to see Song of the South, which I’ve never seen in its entirety, but it’s not included on Disney+ for fairly obvious reasons. As I get further into modern Disney, I’ll probably skip over most of the sequels and other features I strongly expect not to like (with the exception of Belle’s Magical World, which is said to be so legendarily bad that I just have to see what the fuss is about).

This time range of three decades happens to include more or less exactly those Disney productions that Walt Disney himself took a major role in (he died shortly before the final version of Jungle Book was finished). I’d like to do this again in another month, when I will have gotten up through the late 90′s, but honestly this post wound up way longer than I was imagining and took several more hours than I expected (or could really afford), so I’m not promising myself or anyone else that.

Looking at Wikipedia’s list of Disney productions, I’m a little taken aback at what a low percentage of these are animated features, which to me form the backbone of that company’s legacy; visually scanning the list makes the line of animated films look shorter than I had always imagined, but really what this is showing is that Disney produced far more live-action movies than I ever knew about, including (and perhaps especially!) in its early days. Right now I’m continuing on through the 70′s films, but this set of mini-reviews represents the first month of watching and three decades of Disney magic.

Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, 1937

This is the full-length feature that began them all and which had the burden of defying contemporary skepticism that a full-length animated feature could be taken seriously at all. We are already far beyond the earliest days of animation and have progressed lightyears beyond the quality of “Steamboat Willie”; throughout the film I marveled at the sophistication of the animation with a newfound appreciation of how groundbreaking a lot of the sequences must have been.

I know I watched this at least a couple of times in childhood and I think once when I was a bit older, but even that was long ago.

Snow White is based on one of the simpler classic fairy tales, and the writers had to come up with ways to flesh out this very short story enough to occupy well over an hour. This was done not by exploring the character of Snow White or the Queen or even filling in extra plot details (the fate of the hunter is never addressed) but by spending a lot of time on the dwarfs. The detail spent on individuating them took a lot of work from the animators, but I think their efforts paid off. I can’t say the same about the attention paid to Snow White or the Queen (pretty much the only remaining characters). Snow White has an almost entirely flat personality, with no sense of curiosity or concern whatsoever about the Queen’s designs to have her killed, just having literally only one goal in mind: to marry this Prince who she’d only seen for about two minutes and run away from out of shyness. (This is of course a trend we’ll see with Disney princesses for a long time.) The Queen similarly only has the goal of being “the fairest in the land”. Something about the particular harshness of her voice strikes me as The Quintessential 1930′s Female Villain Voice (“I’ll crush their bones!”), whatever that means -- maybe I got my idea of what this should be from the movie Snow White in the first place.

I still think “Heigh Ho” (which I’ve known well since early childhood) is an excellent song in its utter simplicity, especially when complimented with the “Dig Dig Dig” song (which I did not remember at all until a few years ago when a Tumblr mutual posted the excerpt containing it!). I’m not enormously fond of “One Day My Prince Will Come”, although I did enjoy playing it on the violin at a couple of gigs with one of my musician friends back during grad school -- I was convinced then, and up until watching Snow White just now, that it belonged to Cinderella.

Pinocchio, 1940

This was a favorite movie of mine in earlier childhood; we owned the VHS and I watched it a lot. As a child, I had no sense of one Disney movie coming from a much earlier time than another one; it was only much more recently in life that I understood that Pinocchio really comes from all the way back eight decades ago. Pinocchio taught me the meaning of “conscience” (both in the dictionary sense and in a deeper sense), and it shaped my notion of what fairies may look like -- for instance, my mental picture of the Tooth Fairy, back when I believed in her, was inspired by the Blue Fairy in Pinocchio.

It’s amazing just how much the quality of Disney animated features improved from the first one to this one, the second. It helps that both the story and the characters are far more complex than those of Snow White. The plot from the original book (which I’ve read in Italian and English) was more complex still, of course. There is one gaping hole where it’s never explained how Gepetto somehow found himself in the belly of a whale (I don’t remember whether or how this is explained in the book), but I’ll forgive that.

It’s interesting to see the 1940′s caricature of “bad (early teenage?) boy” shown in the animation and voice of Lampwick. Phantom Strider talks about the turning-into-donkeys scene as a notoriously dark scene for adults who didn’t find it as terrifying when they were children -- count me in as one of those adults! It’s especially terrifying to see the whole mass of boys-turned-donkeys being treated as slaves in the hellhole known as Pleasure Island and realizing that this is never going to be resolved in the movie -- it’s rather unusual in Disney stories for some great evil to be left unresolved with no recompense even for the chief villain. In fact, Pinocchio is pretty much the only Disney story I can think of where the worst villain doesn’t meet some kind of dire fate. Really, the range of Pinocchio’s view is much narrower: it’s just the coming-of-age story of one puppet in his quest for Real Boyhood. (And yes, I still giggle at how intricutely Jordan Peterson analyzes particular scenes from the movie to support his beliefs about neo-Marxism or whatever.)

Disney+ heads many of the descriptions of the older movies with “This program is presented as originally created. It may contain outdated cultural depictions.” I’m a little surprised they don’t do this with Pinocchio, given what appears to me a rather derogatory depiction of Gypsies.

“When You Wish Upon a Star” has become a timeless hit, for good reason. And I still find “Hi Diddle Dee Dee” extremely catchy.

Fantasia, 1940

I saw this one multiple times growing up (for earlier viewings, I was not allowed to see the final number “Night on Bald Mountain”). My mom, for her part, saw this in theaters at the age of around 4 (even though it originally came out long before she was born) and thought for years afterwards that there was no such film in real life and her memory of seeing it had been just a pleasant dream.

I have nothing much more to say about this one except that, representing a very different approach from most animated films, Disney or otherwise, 1940′s or otherwise, it succeeded exquisitely. The “Sorcerer’s Apprentice” number was particularly perfection; it was as though the composer originally had every motion of the story in mind when writing the music. At the same time, having the main character appear in the form of Mickey Mouse in some way seems to cheapen the effect.

The Reluctant Dragon, 1941

I watched this for the first time, not having known it existed. There isn’t really much to say. All that stuck in my mind was one of the shorts, “Baby Weem” (amusing in a disturbing way), and the longer segment which gives the movie its title (also amusing, in a different kind of disturbing way). It was especially interesting to see a 1940′s cartoon portrayal of a very effeminate man, or should I say, male dragon.

Dumbo, 1941

I saw this maybe two or three times growing up, and not in very early childhood. It was never one of my favorites. Later on, I learned that it was done very low-budget to make up for major financial losses in the Disney franchise. This definitely shows in the animation. However, if there’s one thing I can say in praise of Dumbo, it’s that it’s incredibly daring in its simplicity, not only to have such elegantly simple animation but in having a mute title character (instead the main “talker” in the film is the title character’s best friend, who had much more of a New York accent than I’d remembered).

In some ways I find this film incredibly cold and dark by Disney standards, for reasons I can’t entirely explain, and I remember feeling this way even on earlier watchings when I was much younger. The stark cruelty of the humans running the circus, as well as the elephants other than Dumbo and his mother, just really gets to me. (I vividly mis-remembered one of the lines I found most memorable in childhood as “From now on, Dumbo is no longer one of us.” The actual line is, “From now on, [Dumbo] is no longer an elephant”, which in a way, is even more chilling.) In this regard, there was no need to make a modern, woker remake of Dumbo containing an explicit anti-animal-exploitation message -- the 1941 version conveys this message loud and clear. Now that I’m writing this, I suppose it could be argued that this is another instance of what I described under “Pinocchio” of leaving a major evil unresolved in a Disney film. And apart from that, while the ending for Dumbo is meant to be a very happy one, as an adult I find it incredibly naive: Dumbo is now super internationally famous for his extraordinary gift and is entering the life of a child celebrity, and it’s just going to be smooth sailing from now on? I hate to say it, Dumbo, but your troubles are only just beginning. (I was glad to see Dumbo reunited with his mother in the last scene, however, which I hadn’t remembered happening at all.)

“Look Out For Mr. Stork” is a skillfully-written song I’d completely forgotten about for two decades or so but remember knowing well when I was young. I still think “When I See an Elephant Fly” is a fantastic song, especially with all its reprises at the end -- I’d had some bits of it confused in my memory but had kept the main chorus with me over all the years. Now it’s widely decried as racist, or at least the characters who sing it are decried as racist caricatures. For whatever my opinion is worth, I’m inclined to disagree with this, in particular on the grounds that the crows seem to be the most intelligent, witty, and self-possessed characters in the movie. I’m also pretty sure I heard critical things about it over the years which are false. For one thing, not all of the crows are played by white actors -- only the lead crow is, while the rest of the voices are members of a black musical group called the Hall Johnson Choir. Also, I’m not clear that the lead crow was actually named Jim Crow by the time the movie came out (no name is given in the movie itself). Now an earlier, much more forgettable song featuring black men singing about how they like to work all day and they throw their pay away... yeah that seems awfully racist.

Bambi, 1942

I have surprisingly little to say about this one -- it’s just very distinct from other Disney films of the time, in its story’s lack of magical elements, its characters all being animals and animated in to realistically model animals’ movements, its lack of musical numbers, and its plot reaching the same level of simplicity as that of Snow White. Not to mention actually having a benevolent character die, which I don’t think had been done up to that point. I remember watching this a couple of times as a kid; I was never terribly eager to watch it again and I feel the same way now, despite having majestic beauty that I can really appreciate.

The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad, 1949

This is the first of Disney’s animated features that I never had seen before. What a strange movie, or should I say, two smaller, unrelated movies rolled into one. I liked Mr. Toad’s half better than Ichabod’s half, or at least I found it more entertaining. I was brought up with the book The Wind in the Willows and recall seeing a non-Disney animated rendition of it (which was better and somewhat more thorough than this half-movie-length rendition). I was kind of excited when the “The Merrily Song” started because it unlocked a song from my early-childhood memory that I’d forgotten about for more than twenty years but knew from one of the Disney Sing-Along videos. I still think it’s a not half bad song, especially with the harmony.

The Ichabod story was not at all what I expected, not being familiar with the original book version (I had always assumed that Ichabod must be the name of a villain). I found it completely boring until the final horror sequence. As a child I would have found the courtship part even more boring (at least now I can muse on how man-woman courtship dynamics were shown in the late 40′s), and I would have found the horror part at the end very scary (in fact, maybe this is the reason my parents never showed the movie to me). It is a little shocking in being the only Disney story I’ve seen so far with a decidedly unhappy ending.

Cinderella, 1950

This one I only ever saw once or twice as a child. This is not counting a very vivid memory I have from around age 6 or 7 when I was watching a part of it over at another family’s house and their child, who was almost my age and nonverbal autistic, rewound and repeated the same 2-minute sequence involving the mice for probably about an hour (I was impressed because I at the time didn’t know how to work the controls of a video player).

I suppose this could be considered the second in the main trifecta of the most conservative fairy tale princess stories that Disney did in the earlier part of its history. I think one can argue that Cinderella has the strongest and most fleshed-out character out of those three princesses. I like the spirited internal strength she reveals in her very first scene. That said, like the other earlier princesses, she seems to have one singular goal in life, and that is to find her true love, not, say, to escape her abusive stepmother and stepsisters.

My reaction to this movie is overall positive. The mice were fun (I also like how their voices seemed a lot more like how mice “should” talk than in most other Disney cartoons); the dynamic between Cinderella and her evil relatives, and the dynamic between the stepmother and stepsisters themselves, was shown in a rounded way; and the fairy godmother is a great character despite having only one scene. The character of the king is pretty odd (very selfish yet his main dream is of getting to play with his future grandchildren) while not especially memorable or well fleshed out. There are certainly some great classic songs in this one -- not the most stellar that Disney has ever produced, but solid.

Alice in Wonderland, 1951

I was curious about what I would think of this one, since we owned the video of this at my home growing up and I watched it many times during childhood but as I got older I fell in love with the original Lewis Carroll books which, together, I often consider my favorite work of written fiction ever. I had not seen the Disney film Alice in Wonderland for around two decades, although I made the mistake of catching parts of more modern, live-action adaptations of the story more recently. I wondered what I would make of the old animated Disney adaptation after getting to know the books so well.

There is simply no way that any movie can recreate the true flavor of the books, but Disney’s Alice in Wonderland does a fine job of creating the general nonsensical, sometimes bewildering dream atmosphere, and, perhaps more importantly, capturing the essence of Alice’s personality. I give a lot of credit to Katherine Beaumont for this -- she has the major girl’s role in the next movie on this list as well, but she especially shines as Alice. Two other very distinctive voices, Ed Wynn as the Mad Hatter and Sterling Holloway as the Cheshire Cat, also add a lot to the cast of characters.

While mixing around some of the scenes of the original book Alice in Wonderland, with some scenes of Alice Through the Looking Glass inserted, the progression of the plot is a long, dreamlike sequence of strange situations with only a few common threads, true to the original first book (Looking Glass had a little, but only a little, more structure). In the movie, everything breaks down at the end with many of the previous scenes and characters swirling together and Alice frantically trying to wake herself up. One could object that this is not how the dream ends in the book Alice in Wonderland, but there is a similar sort of breakdown at the end of the dream in Looking Glass and it feels very real somehow, as in my experience this is sometimes how vivid dreams disintegrate.

Oh, and did you know that Alice in Wonderland has a greater number of songs in it than any other Disney film? There are nearly 25 that made it into the film, even if lasting just for seconds, with a around 10 more written for the film that didn’t make it.

So, does the Disney film do a good job of conveying one of my favorite books of all time, within the confines of being a children’s animated film? I would say yes. For reasons I described above, and from the fact that it manages to avoid working in a moral lesson for Alice, or depicting Alice as a young adult, or manufacturing an affair between Alice and the Hatter (ugh), like some film adaptations, I would say that this classic Disney version is the best Alice in Wonderland adaptation that I know of.

Peter Pan, 1953

Although I never knew this one super well, this movie has a special place in my heart from the way the flying sequence enchanted me in early childhood. I have to differ with the YouTuber Phantom Strider when he dismisses the 40′s/50′s-style song “You Can Fly” as just not doing it for him, because that song along with the animation of the characters’ journey to Neverland had a major hand in shaping my early-childhood sense of magic and wonder and yearning. I distinctly remembering a time, around age 6, when I just didn’t see much point in watching other Disney movies, or movies at all, which didn’t have flying in them, because what could possibly top the sheer joy and freedom of feeling able to swim through the air? I’ve had hardly any exposure to Superman, and so the kind of bodily flight I imagined in fantasy or performed in dreams was almost entirely shaped by Peter Pan. (At the same time, the crocodile in Peter Pan influenced my nightmares at the same age.)

I only ever saw this one a few times, but I distinctly remember the most recent of them being when I was a teenager, perhaps even an older teenager, and I remember thinking at the time that it was a pretty darn solid Disney movie. I still think the same now, while granting that some aspects of the movie seem a little antiquated and certain sequences with the Native Americans are quite cringe-worthy from the point of view of modern sensibilities. Only a couple years ago, when visiting my parents’ house, I finally took down the book Peter Pan from the shelf and decided to give it a read and found it a beautiful although slightly strange and offbeat story. In particular, I was shocked at how nasty and vengeful Tinker Bell was (particularly in trying to get Wendy killed), when I had remembered her as sweet and naive in the movie. It turns out I was wrong about the movie -- Tinker Bell tries to get Wendy killed there also! -- but somehow the tone is moderated well enough that in this version I never really feel horrified at her behavior, nor do I feel disturbed at the situation of the Lost Boys in the way the book made me view them. The song of the lone pirate who sings about how a pirate’s life is short, right before Captain Hook fires his gun and we hear a dropping sound followed by a splash, is one of the more masterful executions of dark humor that I’ve seen in Disney animation for children.

While most of the songs in Peter Pan, considered as songs on their own, are pretty good, I think the best one is the one whose lyrics didn’t make it into the film: “Never Smile at a Crocodile”.

Lady and the Tramp, 1955

Despite being more obscure than most of the old Disney animated classics, I used to know this one quite well since we had it in our home. I’ve always considered The Great Mouse Detective as the most underrated Disney film of all time, but I think it has serious competition here. Lady and the Tramp is an absolute gem. While not quite as Disney-fantasy-ish with its lack of magic and other fairy tale elements, in my opinion Lady and the Tramp is, in most ways, superior to everything else on this list save Mary Poppins. Beautiful animation which shows Lady and most of the other animals moving realistically in a way we haven’t seen since Bambi*. Everything visually and conceptually framed from the dogs’ points of view. Great voice acting. Consistently solid dialog without a single line too much or missing. A story evoking the dynamic between humans and pets, class inequality, and deep questions about the place of each of us in society and choices between a stable existence among loved ones and striking out to seize life by the horns. Our first female lead who stands on her own two four feet and whose sole goal isn’t to get kissed by her true love (one could argue that Alice was the earlier exception, but she is a little girl whereas Lady is actually a romantic female lead). When Lady is approached by her two best (male) friends in a very awkward (perhaps especially from a modern sensibility) but sweet scene where they offer to be her partner, Lady makes it clear that she doesn’t want or need a husband just for the sake of having a husband to make babies with -- her standing up for her own wants in this way doesn’t in the least turn into a Moral Stand that dominates the movie. Excellent music all the way through.

Oh, and this movie was my very first introduction, in early childhood, to the Italian language (”Bella Notte”), which some 25 years later sort became my second language of sorts.

Criticisms? Well, the baby was animated rather stiffly and unnaturally, but that was like half a minute of the movie at most. And there’s the whole segment with the Siamese cats, which produced a great song purely music-wise (fun fact: Peggy Lee provided the voices of the cats) but nowadays comes across as rather racist. I’m not entirely sure how I feel about it, but I will say that I’m sure in the minds of the creators this was no different than having animals of all other nationalities (Scottish, Russian, Mexican) appearing in the film with voices reflecting the respective accents.

*There may be a few exceptions, like Peggy, who seems to be modeled after the musician Peggy Lee and moves like a sexy human woman. The way that human sex appeal is conveyed through the animals’ movements in this movie is quite impressive: my mom confesses to having somewhat of a crush on Tramp growing up and not quite understanding how that could be possible when, well, he’s a dog.

20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, 1954, and Old Yeller, 1957

I don’t want to say about these movies, as they don’t really fall under the category of animated classics. I just want to say that, while I saw each of them once growing up, on seeing them again I recognize each as a great movie in its own adult point of view way that is not necessarily very Disney-ish.

Sleeping Beauty, 1959

I think this was the movie I was watching at the time I decided it would be fun to write a bunch of mini-reviews for Tumblr, as my reactions were changing a lot as I was watching. I went into the movie very curious, because while I only remembered enough of the fairy tale story to know that it was another of the very simple ones, and I remembered the one song as a waltz by Tchaikovsky, and I knew I had seen the movie once (and probably only once) as a kid, I couldn’t remember anywhere near enough to possibly fill a full movie time. What was actually going to happen in this hour-and-a-quarter long film?

I wasn’t watching long before I came up with the description “spectacularly forgettable”, in part to justify why I’d managed to forget practically all of my one previous viewing. The story doesn’t have much substance and feels sillier than even the other fairy tale Disney plots, like even minor twinges of critical thought, even granting the magical rules of the universe, are liable to make the plot topple. There is some filler to flesh out the movie, but (unlike with Snow White’s dwarfs) none of it is as amusing as the creators seemed to think it was. The only characters with actual personality are rather boring -- the capers between the members of royalty and the jester are a bit on the annoying side in my opinion. Maleficent seems to have no motive whatsoever. She actually calls herself something like “the mistress of evil” later in the movie. This is pretty black-and-white even by Disney standards, where the bad guys usually at least want to think that they’re on the right side of things or justified in their aggressive behavior. Aurora (the title character) has the least personality of all the Disney princesses. Literally all I can say to describe her is that she has the Disney Princess Trifecta of characteristics: she has a good singing voice; she is friends with all the “nice” animals; and her only goal in life is to be reunited with her True Love who she met once for all of a few minutes. The reason why I couldn’t remember any songs other than the Tchaikovsky one is that there aren’t any.

The one thing I consciously really enjoyed while watching was the fact that the score throughout was Tchaikovsky; the idea of having one work of classical music as the entire score seems like a bold one for a Disney film. As I was digesting the movie afterwards (and watching the short documentaries supplied on Disney+ helped here!), I came to realize that this classical music backdrop was complimented in quite an interesting way by a fairly unique animation style. I had been disappointed by the animation early in my watching, disliking how a lot of the figures in the beginning castle scene (for instance, various people’s faces), looked very “flat” somehow. But I’ve come to see this as part of a style where everything looks almost like a series of cut-outs superimposed on each other, to incredibly beautiful effect in a lot of the outdoor scenes.

My conclusion? If you watch this the same way you watch most Disney animated movies -- focusing on plot, characterization, action, and meaning of the main story -- it will just be kind of forgettable at best. But if you watch it as more of a purely visual and musical piece of art without trying to make much “sense” out of it (so, more like I would watch a ballet), you may find it uniquely beautiful among Disney classics.

One Hundred and One Dalmations, 1961

Whew -- what a complete and utter contrast from its predecessor! I can hardly imagine a film that’s still distinctively Disney while being more different from Sleeping Beauty in every aspect.

I remember seeing One Hundred and One Dalmatians a handful of times in childhood (when I was around 5 and it had just come out on home video, my mom almost bought it for me but decided to go with Beauty and the Beast instead explaining that it had better music -- I grew up knowing the preview for Dalmatians that showed at the beginning of our Beauty and the Beast VHS than the dalmatians film itself). I remembered a number of scenes very distinctly, including a lot of the Horace and Jasper bickering and Cruella smashing one of their bottles of beer into the fire and knew Lucky’s line after getting stuck behind in the snow almost word for word, while I had entirely forgotten all of the country/farm characters and entire sequences involving them. I had forgotten, but soon remembered, the television scenes including the Kanine Krunchies jingle. (Some years later, I think as an older teenager, I read the original book with some interest.)

Although I wasn’t around in 1961, everything about this movie’s style strikes me as very contemporary -- the animation in particular seems like the current style for 60′s cartoons. Something about the dialog and humor feels that way as well, as though it closely represents a sort of 60′s young-people-in-London culture that I’ve never seen myself (I was struck for instance by Cruella being asked how she’s doing and cheerfully answering, “Miserable dahling as usual, perfectly wretched!”). It was a little strange and offputting to see television so prominently featured in Disney animation from so long ago, and to see such a decrepit bachelor pad (with the accompanying lifestyle and attitudes) as Horace and Jasper’s in a children’s movie. The crazy driving in snow at the end startled my adult sensibilities (as I now have some memorable experiences driving in snow) in a way that didn’t affect me as a child -- scenes like that just didn’t feel like Disney after having just watched all the previous films. All in all, these novel features made the whole movie a wild ride.

I’m bemused by the fact that, despite taking place in London (which I hadn’t remembered -- I thought it took place in America), the only accents which are fully British are those of the villains Cruella de Vil, Horace, and Jasper.

Main criticisms: I found all the stuff with Rolly being characterized by his body shape and only ever thinking about food to be in poor taste (although not surprising for the times). And while “Cruella de Vil” is a great jazz number, the movie has no other music to speak of -- my mom was quite right to choose Beauty and the Beast over it.

(I realized when finishing this review that this is the only one of all the movies in the list that I’d actually enjoy seeing again sometime soon. Not sure what to make of that. Something about it is more interesting than most of the others? Especially the human-centric parts?)

The Sword in the Stone, 1963

I never saw this movie until later childhood or maybe even early teenagerhood, when I quite liked it. On watching it again, I was overall pretty disappointed. This movie has some decent songs and some fun aspects to the story, but a lot of it is kind of weak and forgettable and it’s all just sloppily done.

The story has a clear moral message which is generally pro-education and about reaching one’s full potential, but in my eyes it comes out kind of muddled because the story shows Wart ending up as a legendary king only out of the arbitrary happenstance that that happens to be his divine destiny. Merlin’s motives seem kind of inconsistent as well, with him sometimes seeming to support Wart in his desire to become a squire, then flying off in a rage when Wart chooses squirehood over fulfilling a “greater” destiny, then joyfully returning after Wart pulls the sword from the stone and is now set on the fixed path to being king, even though this involved exactly zero change of attitude on Wart’s part. The message that actually comes across looks more like, “We have to just follow whatever fate has in store for us” than “We must strive to be the best we can be”. And, it arguably even comes across as subtly disrespectful to more mundane lifestyles and career paths.

The animation is not great by the high standard of full-length Disney features (I noted how I especially disliked how tears were shown). Wart’s voice seems to change a lot, sometimes broken and sometimes not yet broken. I found out after watching that this is because the character was played by three different actors, sometimes with more than one of those actors in the same scene! This was purportedly because the voice of the first actor cast for the role started to change, but then why does Wart sometimes sound like his voice has already changed anyway? Sloppiness all around.

Still, some parts of The Sword in the Stone are fun even if none of it is stellar, and it entertained me more when I was younger, so worth watching once, especially if you’re a kid, I guess?

Mary Poppins, 1964

I came into this one far more familiar with it than with most of the other Disney movies, including the ones I watched many times when I was young, so it feels a little strange to try to summarize a similar-length review of it. Mary Poppins is in my book without a doubt one of the top three Disney movies of all time, in some respects the very best, and certainly the masterpiece of Walt Disney himself, the culmination of literally decades of determination on his part to turn Pamela Travers’ children’s works into a movie. (I would feel sorrier for Travers about how strongly Disney twisted her arm to turn her books into a movie whose style was entirely antithetical to hers, if it weren’t for the fact that the Disney version of the story is just way better than her rather weak set of stories. I give Travers ample credit for having created an amazing character in the person of Mary Poppins, but for coming up with good stories, not so much.)

I didn’t see the full movie Mary Poppins until later childhood (although I knew many of the songs) and it quickly became a favorite of mine. I went a gap of a number of years without seeing it before I copied the soundtrack from someone when I was in college, which spurred me to go out and rent it (back when Blockbuster was a thing) and so I managed to reconnect with it at the age of 20. More recently I’ve become somewhat of a Mary Poppins enthusiast -- feeling pretty alone among my generation in this regard, with the possible exception of the theater subculture -- having seen probably most or all of the documentaries there are on its production and learned a ridiculous amount of trivia about it, not to mention knowing the whole soundtrack pretty much in my head.

Mary Poppins seems to be Disney’s longest children’s classic, at 2 hours and 19 minutes. All it lacks, really, is an animal-themed or classic fairy tale atmosphere and a proper villain. But what can you get out this movie? Stellar child acting (especially for that period) and excellent performances all around, apart from some awkward but endearing aspects of Dick Van Dyke’s acting (while his singing and physicality is superb). A complex and multi-layered story combining magic, comedy and a little tragedy, appreciable in equal measure from a child’s level and from an adult’s level. Revolutionary special effects which include the first extended hybrid live-action and animation sequence. Timeless words and phrases which have permanently entered the lexicon. One of my favorite extended musical sequence of all time in any movie (”Step In Time” takes up 8 minutes and change, and I’m glad they didn’t go with the “common sense” measure of cutting this “unnecessarily long” number). The Sherman brothers at their very best, in a musical soundtrack that easily scores in my top two out of all Disney movies (the other one being The Lion King). A beautiful message (among several big messages) about the little things being important (or at least, that’s a very crude summary), exquisitely encapsulated in the most beautiful song of the movie, “Feed the Birds” (this apparently became Walt Disney’s favorite song ever, and I’m pretty close to feeling the same way -- I’m determined that one day when I finally have a piano I’m going to learn to sing it along with the piano). I could go on and on here.

If I try really hard I can come up with the sole nitpick of feeling that maybe the parrot head on the umbrella’s handle shouldn’t only reveal itself as a talking parrot head in only one scene right at the very end -- this should have been shown at least once earlier. Even granting that, this film is still practically perfect in every way.

The Jungle Book, 1967

(Let’s get the Colonel Hath in the room out of the way first: “The Jungle Book” is a terrible title for a movie. You know, when you base a movie on a book you don’t have to give it the same title as the book...)

I saw The Jungle Book several times as a kid and, despite not considering it nearly as good as Mary Poppins, similarly reconnected with it in adulthood (particularly the soundtrack). Only several years ago I found myself thinking of getting hold of a double album of classic Disney songs that I thought I’d heard about but couldn’t seem to find online. It soon occurred to me that mostly what I really wanted was some of the songs of The Jungle Book, so I got that movie’s soundtrack instead. I soon learned for the first time that The Jungle Book’s songs were written by the Sherman Brothers*, precipitating an “Ah, that explains why I remember them as so good!” moment. (“I Wanna Be Like You” seems like the clear winner among the songs.) Of course hearing the soundtrack made me curious about the movie, which I did eventually get hold of several years ago; thus I had seen this film exactly once already since childhood.

It says a lot about the music and the overall technique behind this film that I still look back on it as one of the great classics, considering how weak the story is. In particular, I consider a story arc to be pretty flawed when characters that seem significant and/or memorable come in without really living up to their expected big role: the wolves who raised Mowgli play a crucial role in the beginning before more or less disappearing (and it doesn’t entirely make sense to me why Bagheera, rather than they, is guiding him to the man village), and King Louie (who is a well-formed character that I particularly enjoy watching) really ought to come back into the story later somehow (an alternate, and much more complex, ending had him make a reappearance). The villain Shere Khan is not especially well developed in terms of his character and motives, but I do enjoy his menacingly bass voice. Still, the voice acting, the action, the animation, and the overall setting are all very solid here.

I’ll end with some random observations about the song “That’s What Friends Are For”. I think the likeness of the vultures to the Beatles was mostly lost on me as a kid (along with the recognition that this movie came out in the Beatles’ heyday). More interestingly, even when I was old enough to understand how vultures eat, the fact that every single line of the song is a clever macabre double-entendre went completely over my head. I do think it was a very obvious mistake, by the Obvious Standards of Cinematography, to give Shere Khan the last line of the song and begin that line with the “camera” on him, rather than have his voice come in “off-camera” and Mowgli and the vultures looking thunderstruck before panning to him, but maybe I shouldn’t be pushing for overdone techniques here.

* An exception is “Bare Necessities”, which was written by Terry Gilkyson, the original songwriter Disney received submissions from, who wrote two hauntingly beautiful other numbers which were deemed not Disney-ish enough to be put in the film.

Some general stray observations:

These older Disney films love gags involving alcoholism and drunkenness, a bit of a questionable emphasis given that the audience is children. This trend continues into the 80′s at least, but I don’t think one sees it much in modern Disney movies.

Watching these animated films I often find myself flinching as characters’ heads smash into things or gigantic objects smash over their heads, feeling almost surprised when they come out of it pretty much fine. I guess this a staple element of cartoon action throughout the decades, but I can’t recall a more recent Disney animated film where we see this (guess I’ll soon find out!)

There is a certain style of vocal music, with unified rhythm and lyrics but complex harmony and a capella, which seems to have been immensely popular in the 40′s and 50′s and distinctively appears in practically every single one of the 40′s and 50′s films above (“You Can Fly” is a typical example). I recognize it also from some non-Disney-related old records my parents have that were passed down to them. I’m curious about whether this style has a name.

For years I thought the Sherman Brothers did only the soundtrack for Mary Poppins and Bedknobs and Broomsticks, only discovering they did The Jungle Book songs rather recently as I explained above. It turns out they were involved in most of the major Disney films around that period, including The Sword in the Stone and The Aristocats (although not its best-known number “Everybody Wants to Be a Cat”).

There is a particularly sad instrumental passage, played by the string section starting with a minor-key violin melody going downward and joined by lower string instruments, which I knew well from my Jungle Book soundtrack (partway through “Poor Bear”) but was surprised to hear in desperately sad moments of several of the other movies around that time (including One Hundred and One Dalmatians and Robin Hood, or at least a close variant of this passage with slightly different endings). I have no idea who wrote this or how it came to be reused so many times.

I knew the name Bruce Reitherman as the voice of Mowgli in The Jungle Book, but in watching all of these other features back to back I’ve noticed that there are some other Reithermans in the front credits of quite a few of them.

[tominostuff]

Tomino x Hosoda on Wolf Children

Source - https://char-blog.hatenadiary.org/entry/20140720/1405889329 

Date: April 2013

--What was the reason behind Mr. Tomino giving this movie such high praise when it was released?

Tomino: Anyone who has experienced child-raising understands that children are an uncontrollable “wolf-like” existence to parents. I saw some opinions that marrying a “wolf” is disgusting but there are times when a boyfriend/girlfriend who seemed beautiful during the romantic stage suddenly changes into an existence even harder to understand than a wolf. In this way, [Hosoda] took a very normal story that everyone experiences and skillfully used an animation metaphor to keep the film within a very easy to watch time frame. It's frustrating to admit but Director Hosoda has become very capable. 

Hosoda: I was very encouraged by your earlier comments so I’m sincerely grateful to you. 

Tomino: In preparation for this interview, I read many reviews of the film and was reassured by what I saw. Mothers who are currently raising children would write, “this film is a very accurate portrayal of a mother.” I thought, finally animation has produced a “film” that could appeal to a wide audience. There’s something revolutionary in a different way from Miyazaki films. For example, among the reviews, there were some wondering whether the director was conscious of Waldorf Education while making the film. 

Hosoda: To get straight to the point, no, I was not aware. The main mother character, being placed in the special situation where she could not rely on general medical institutions to raise “the wolf children”, had no choice but to  prepare for children's illness with books, ranging from the classics like "Childcare Code", "Encyclopedia of Childcare" and "Pediatric Medicine", to books on natural remedies. It was simply a matter of Waldorf Education being among those books but what’s interesting is the audience noticing this book cover in the corner of the screen and debating the theories written in those books on their blogs. I think it represents how urgent of an issue child-rearing is for parents.

Tomino: I will not affirm or deny that particular theory of education, but I was surprised that mothers, who have a deep knowledge of children's literature and education, made statements that captured the work to this pedigree. As I thought, this work is seen by a fairly wide range of people. However, when I heard the opinions of the anime industry, I got the sense that they were discussing within the narrow confines of genres. In the first place, I don't really understand the tendency to organize media by identifying people into markets or generations and I think this tendency is making recent works lacking.

Hosoda: I too, think that this newest work has come to a place outside of the usual anime context. Up until Summer Wars I wanted to find out how far I could take world building and see what’s beyond that, while staying within the genre film. On the other hand, there are "movie fans" who have a wide field of view and on the other, there are also many people who like genres films like action, horror, romance, etc. From those people I received criticism which prioritized the laws of genre films, for example, "If you write a werewolf character, that character has to be persecuted and shot by the police and die.”

Tomino: That’s exactly what someone caught up in genres would say. Anime has a narratology centered around action, but I felt Wolf Children went outside of that. The very fact that unfamiliar terms such as “Waldorf Education” came up is proof that there are people who believe this movie goes beyond the confines of anime. In other words, it was conveyed that Hana, the mother character, is not as anime-like and pretty/delicate as the picture, but a woman who carried out strong child-rearing with considerable knowledge and insight. When I saw those reviews that touched upon the very core themes of the plot, I thought that anime was finally established as a medium.

Hosoda: Exactly. This time, I was very happy to see women, especially those in the middle of child raising, discuss this film from the viewpoint of a fellow mother. There was sound debate, including criticism. It's proof that the motif of this film is universal. After all, in both movies and anime, world building and expressions have wider potential than genres.

Tomino: That's exactly right. In my case, I’m very greedy, so if I am to express something to the world, I want it to become popular. I'm not interested in producing something that is only accessible to a narrow group of people who like certain genres. If you start making pandering work for niches, you will become a niche yourself and you will set up a flag to be discriminated against and beaten by society. If you are given the opportunity to express yourself in a public place and show your will, it’s better to be liked by everyone. Of course, being accepted is the premise that business is built upon as well. So, people tend to go in the direction of "it is easier to sell if you specialize by genre", but a work created upon that idea will last for at most two to three years. If I am spending a lot of money to make it, I want to do big business, show a concept that will last 10 years, 20 years, 50 years, and make it sell for a long time. There are quite a lot of works that are forgotten after the momentary box office profit. In that sense, Wolf Children definitely showed a new frontier of "things to express to the public" and I believe that the evaluation and recognition in the next 10 or 20 years will be much higher than it is now. 

 --What kind of expectations does Director Tomino have for Director Hosoda for the future?

Tomino: I don't have any particular expectations, but more what I would like people to pay attention to is the fact that not everything was made by Mr. Hosoda. The existence of scenario writer, Ms. (Satoko) Okudera is huge and it must’ve only been possible because they were in a realistic space where they could observe children. To the point where you might not have been able to make it if the timing was off by about a year or two. This is a realistic work. So while I think, wow you did really well, unfortunately I also think you’ll never have another chance like this. The moment you are told, "that was a hit, let's do it again!", you may fall with a boom so watch out for that. *tl note cough cough* mirai no mirai *cough* 

Hosoda: I may have obtained credibility from the box office hit but I believe every movie comes down to the original project proposal. In the future as well, it will depend on the spirit of challenge and fun imbued in each and every proposal. Instead of thinking, “This particular one was a hit so the next one has to go even higher,” I would like to seek a unique enjoyment of movies to share with audiences for each project. So even if I am asked to make another installment of this movie… 

Tomino: I mean you can’t, can you? 

Hosoda: Yeah, it is a complete work as it is. I will move on to the next new work. At that time, I have to forget all the previous works and start from scratch thinking about what is interesting in this world. 

 --How do you feel about Mr. Tomino’s previous statement about making work for the public?

Hosoda:  In the case of Wolf Children, the starting point of my idea was from a very familiar place. At the time, my wife and I were having a hard time making children. Therefore, the desire to raise a child and become a parent is directly reflected in the movie. At the same time, I thought that the motif of "raising children" is universal not only to us Japanese but to all over the world. Anyone in any country experiences it. Even if you have no children, you experience being raised by your parents. It's a story common to all humankind, so I thought this was a project that had the potential to be viewed by everyone. That's why I said something like the "child-rearing" film genre, but I realized that there is no such movie (laughs). In the first place, it is difficult to film a live-action movie of a situation like "growing up slowly", and I can't find a movie about a child where the parent is the main character. It’s always the conflict filled story of “overcoming parents in order for their children to grow up." I planned it as a "story from an observational perspective" about how parents watch the growth of their children, but I was really in trouble because there was nothing to refer to. Originally, movies originated from counterculture, so I think that is also related. 

Tomino: I was surprised to hear that, but it again reaffirmed the superstition that we could express freely, it’s actually not free at all. The fact that Wolf Children is taken for granted even though it’s doing such special things is amazing. Because at the end of the day it's a cliché story, isn't it? But due to the fact that it is universal …….

Hosoda: Yes, it's a very cliche story you can find anywhere. 

Tomino: But the moment it was illustrated through animation techniques, it looks revolutionary. This is actually an embarrassing story because something too obvious should not look innovative. It's a tremendous work because even that aspect can be learned from it. 

Hosoda: No no, as a creator, I just started from a very straightforward ideal and aspiration, thinking, "I want to do something like this, something like that, when I have a child," in line with the feelings of my wife and I. When I interviewed fathers and mothers who are raising children as references, they talked about hardships like "I can't sleep at night, I'll run out of personal time", but it all sounded enviable to me. “The fact that you are carrying all of that on your back is amazing!” is how I felt. 

Tomino: I see....I couldn't have imagined cutting in from that angle. Even though your own children aren’t that old yet, each one of the scenes are neatly arranged by age. While I was watching the film, I couldn’t understand how you could possibly depict the children’s growth so accurately but listening to your story just now, I think I understand half of it. Were you yearning to be a parent to that extent?

Hosoda: Yes, I was aspiring for it. If I didn’t hold ideals toward the idea, I don’t think this movie could’ve been made. If I had actually experienced a sleepless night with a newborn child, I don’t think I would’ve been able to make a film out of it. Because I had a longing for it, that became the power behind the realism. Even though there are some weaknesses to it not being a lived experience, I felt this was the only time I could make this film. Rather than my personal feelings when I first wrote the plot, I am amazed and grateful towards the secretary company and distribution company that took on such a challenging story. 

Tomino: It’s exactly as you say. After all, in the anime industry, we, the creators, are contaminated with the preconceived notion of anime. The staff who had the sensitivity to identify such potential in this film only with that title and proposal is certainly amazing.

 --Which scene was the most memorable for Director Tomino?

Tomino: It's rare for me, but I smiled at the last cut. Even though it was a cut with a loose composition without any ingenuity, I giggled, mimicking Hana. It’s because I thought, “Parents are just like that, aren’t they.” As the conclusion of a movie, this was really amazing because usually one would want to include something message-like here. If it were me, I’d be too scared to keep her just seated at the table and would make her look towards the mountains and say “Are you doing well?” There aren’t many movies that end so neatly like that. After all, it is a film that raises the story of the movie and the overall representation theory in a fairly dramatic way. However, looking at director Hosoda's career, you've improved your skills for the pursuit of the genre of anime, and you also love anime as an audience member, right? When trying to pursue such a versatile story with a natural theme, Mr. Hosoda's strength of "animation lover" may turn into a weakness and become a double-edged sword.

Hosoda: It's exactly as you pointed out. But I don't think it's possible to stop liking anime anymore.

Tomino: Of course you can't. Therefore, there is no choice but to plan movies in a straightforward, rule abiding way. In my case, I had the same kind of trouble with Gundam, so I know it's harsh. That’s the extent to which Mr. Hosoda hit the nail on the head and got out of the environment where just making work for the sake of doing the job would pass. 

Hosoda: However, while there are hundreds of thousands of movies in the history of movies, from many different people from many different cultures, I still think there is something out there that hasn’t been depicted yet. That is my "hope" that I have to keep making for my son who was born.

Tomino: That's the right line of sight. If you have that perspective, I think you can still make many works in the future. Those are probably words that can only be spoken by someone who felt “maybe what I’m creating is not anime?” since The Girl Who Lept Through Time. Because I personally have never come up with the logic that "there may be something that hasn’t become a movie yet."

Hosoda: What? That has to be a lie. Director Tomino was the one to provide that concept. We have been encouraged by that for over 30 years.

Tomino: No, I have the confidence to say that I don't have that kind of creativity or writing abilities. 

Hosoda: There’s no way that’s possible. If so, why did we enjoy the thrill of going “I would've never thought up of this!” every time Director Tomino’s new work came out? 

Tomino: That's because, in my case, I'm only thinking about the responsibility of "expressing to the public." Regardless of the fact that there were restrictions due to having sponsors involved with big robots, I have come so far only thinking about the narrow exit of, “if other people make it like this, I will do it this way.”

Hosoda: However, as far as I can see, it seems that Mr. Tomino's work pushes itself beyond and is located far above that, while being aware of the public consciousness. 

Tomino: Yes, to that, I can be very clear. Because I don't trust the modern public. How can we raise the public to highbrow and make them Newypes? I desire to continue thinking about these feelings towards the future through the theory of communication. Am I overreaching? That's why I'm taught that "a writer must have a perspective like Mr. Hosoda." I couldn't become a fiction writer because I didn't have that sense. Even looking at the relationship between Hana, Yuki and Ame, I realized that "Drama is something that must be assembled like this."

Hosoda: To me this is an unbelievable story. That relationship between Hana, Yuki and Ame could easily be replaced with the path taken by Commander Doba and Haruru and Karara of Space Runaway Ideon. However I couldn’t write the fierce drama of that parent and child as is… 

Tomino: If you say Wolf Children feels lacking because it’s simply about child-rearing without the fierce drama, then you are wrong. Things that everyone already knows. Things that everyone actually has hidden deep inside of them, to be able to just say those things straight out and lay it bare in public. Things like the sensual sense of distance in human relationships, you depict so naturally. I personally can't do that, so I forced it through with an easy-to-understand structure and logic. Passionate feelings required for a drama originally requires a sense of distance, and it should be drawn within that. Whether the distance when a hand stretches out and touches another person is true or good, false or true… that sense of distance is a wonderful way to show the goal of the story naturally. Director Hosoda is allowed to have confidence in his ability to direct those kinds of scenes. 

Hosoda: I believe that great directing is not in the skills but luck. There was an intangible something that fit the content and tone of the movie. It was good that I was able to stick it out until the moment when I thought "this is good!" for each cut. Those kinds of moments are luck, and the director is the type of person who has to wait for those moments to happen. I think the directors are blessed with their each individual type of luck.

Tomino: I think that as well and also think that, ideally, a play cannot be made unless you are prepared to make it after understanding the whole world.

Hosoda: That being said, while I think the motif I chose this time is good, I also realized that my ability as a director was not caught up with it, but I still had to go through the pain of making it anyway. I don't really understand the whole world, and I don't have enough expressiveness…

Tomino: if that is the case, then I think you’re okay. What’s important is the awareness that “my abilities may not be enough.” There are certain things that can only be built upon that awareness and even if it's making scenes, it’s not something that can be done by one person. Overcoming obstacles with brute force, saying, "There is no choice but to do it like this," sometimes becomes a form of expression that exceeds one’s own ability. The better the movie, the more I think that the camera is set up with the humility that “I can't do it all by myself,” and you can see the power of the group that one doesn’t see in individual work. 

Hosoda: For sure, and that’s important in animation as well. 

Tomino: Even with desk work like anime, not everything can be controlled by oneself. With such humility in mind, please continue to create soft Hosoda works that everyone can enjoy. 

Hosoda: I’m very honored to receive these words. I will continue to use them as encouragement. 

[mentiormusa-blog]

The Portrayal of Satanism and How it Affects the Youth of Today

Preface

Growing up, I always had a pretty decent idea of what was good and what was evil. I knew that cops were the good guys and the robbers were the bad guys and I knew that Batman was the hero and the Joker was the villain. But I guess the most prominent example I knew of regarding the power struggle of morality was the battle between God and the Devil, with God being the bringer of life and the Devil being the evil incarnate. But, in more recent times, with society becoming more open when it comes to one’s belief, the idea of Satan or, more appropriately, Lucifer, being a misunderstood bringer of justice has become a more accepted concept among the younger population. This is only because of how he is presented in works of fiction like the Fox television show Lucifer, which is, in turn, based off of the DC comic series of the same name. The show follows Lucifer, the archangel who was cast out of heaven for refusing to follow his father’s orders,  as he sets out to bring justice upon the criminals of L.A. This backstory can also be seen in the television show, Supernatural, where he is still a villain of the story but is given a sense of humanity for the pain he feels for being cast out by the father he loved. 

Background

The Church of Satan, which is one of more the commonly referenced branches of Satanism, was founded in 1960 by Anton Szandor Lavey in the United States.  Laveyan Satanism has the core belief of more humanistic values, which prioritizes the betterment of oneself. Satan, being the symbol of the religion, represents self assertion, rebellion against unjust authority, vital existence, and “undefiled wisdom.”

Lavey learned much about the occult and ritual-magic teachings during his time as a carnival worker and, in 1966, incorporated them in the tenants of the church he founded on the Walpurgisnacht, or April 30th (which is referred to as May eve). In 1969, he sat down and recorded these beliefs and teachings in the Satanic bible. They also participated in rituals designed to encourage members to develop their sense of self-importance and to cast away their past lives full of submissiveness.

But what appeals to people the most are the Satanic Commandments that Lavey conjured up within this bible. The 11 Satanic commandments are:

Do not give opinions or advice unless you are asked.

Do not tell your troubles to others unless you are sure they want to hear them.

When in another’s lair, show him respect or else do not go there.

If a guest in your lair annoys you, treat him cruelly and without mercy.

Do not make sexual advances unless you are given the mating signal.

Do not take that which does not belong to you unless it is a burden to the other person and he cries out to be relieved.

Acknowledge the power of magic if you have employed it successfully to obtain your desires. If you deny the power of magic after having called upon it with success, you will lose all you have obtained.

Do not complain about anything to which you need not subject yourself.

Do not harm little children.

Do not kill non-human animals unless you are attacked or for your food.

When walking in open territory, bother no one. If someone bothers you, ask him to stop. If he does not stop, destroy him.

Not only do these promote a more open religion for the impressionable gen z, but it also appeals to a more open society as a whole. These commandments are comparable to the ideals that have been seen more frequently within this evolving society, especially with the obvious disdain for sexual assault, child abuse, animal abuse, and being an overall nuisance.

Interview one (Axel Garcia, 17)

I was on the phone with my first subject, Axel Garcia, when the matter was brought up. Me and him have discussed both religion and the existence of an afterlife many times before this. Upon beginning the interview, I noticed that he was at ease and the topic itself did not bother him.  1

What is your Religious affiliation?

“I’m not a very religious person, I need evidence in order to believe in something so I’d say that I’m agnostic.”

When you hear the terms Satan and Satanism, what comes to mind?

“Evil and the flames of the hell for Satan and people who do not like God.”

How do you think media portrays Satan and Satanism?

“Some portray him as the king of darkness and the prince of all evil, while others portray him as this cool, chill guy who’s trying to become good.”

Would you say that this portrayal have affected the way you view them?

“As a kid, everytime he was mentioned, I thought, ‘Holy Crap, it’s the devil, he’s gonna punish me if I don’t behave,’ but as I got older, I started to think for myself and with shows like Lucifer and even kids shows sometimes painting him out to be just another person doing what he needs to do really impacted my views.” 

Interview two (Matthew Krug, 17)

The next person I interviewed was Matthew Krug. I asked him first if it was okay to interview him on the matter and, to my suprise, he was excited. The day of the interview, he kept texting me about how excited he was regarding it and how he could not wait to do it. 

What is your religious affiliation?

“I was born Roman Catholic but up until a couple years ago, I have not been as religious and I now recognize myself as agnostic.”

When you hear the term satanism, what comes to mind?

“When I was younger, Satanism was just...Satanism; they worship the devil, sacrifice babies and all that. But now, with the more that I have learned about them, I see them as more independent as anything else. The whole thing about Satanism is being independent from religion or God and that is really being a service to yourself than to a higher power.”

When you hear the term Satan, what comes to mind?

“Well, because of popular media and stuff like that, the term Satan and the Devil will obviously be coincided with evil and bad, but right now, Satan is just...Satan, I don’t really feel a certain way about the word or have any negative or positive connotations with it.”

How do you think media portray Satan and Satanism?

“Obviously, since the world is run by religion, Satan and Satanism are portrayed as the bad guys and evil.”

Would you say that this portrayal have affected the way you view them?

“No, because I know it’s just pop culture; it’s just media putting their two-cents in.”

If you had to stereotype a Satanist, how would you describe them?

“The stereotypical ones are the people who draw pentagrams in lambs blood and sacrifice virgins and babies. But, as I see them now, they’re just people trying to believe in and follow a certain ideological standpoint and deity just like everyone else. I’m not going to persecute them for that.

Interview three (Christopher Dellinger)

The next person I decided to interview was my father, who is active in the music scene. Having played in numerous rock and alternative bands for the past couple of decades, I decided to speak with him about the matter. When the topic was brought up, I noticed that he was passionate about it. The questions for this interview went more in depth than the other ones.

What is your religious affiliation?

“Christian.”

When you hear the term Satan, what comes to mind?

“The Devil, a two-horned man with red skin and a goatee. The father of evil, the one who crushes the universe.”

When you hear the term Satanism, what comes to mind?

“A group of impressionable people who made up their views based off of a fictitious book written by Anton Lavey (Satanic Bible) in the 1960 who don’t really have a clue on what goes on.” 

How would you say that Satan and Satanism is portrayed in media?

“It’s glorified, to make Satan seem like a superhero and is portrayed as something spooky, yet cool, which is not a good interpretation. Unfortunately, if there is a good and an evil, Hell is not going to be a party. If you go to Hell, you’re screwed; there is not this big rock and roll party in the streets where you get to hang out with your bros and jam out to Ozzy Osbourne and eat barbecue. So the portrayal is misguiding.”

Would you say that this portrayal has affected the way younger generations see him?

“Yes, because they blur the lines between good and evil and they glorify satan by thinking that Satan is actually good and could be something possible when it’s not.”

Would you say that this portrayal have affected the way you view them?

“Kind of, because it makes me dislike the fake Satanists, the people that believe in Anton Lavey, that do not have a good understanding of good and evil and think that they could have created a religion in the 1960’s. They claim that they are their own God and that they don’t believe in it while denouncing the bible.”

How do you feel about the younger generations viewing Satan as this anti-hero, in a way?

“Unfortunately, they’re just misguided, and don’t have a proper understanding of the religion or what Satanism actually is.”

Since you’re in the heavy metal scene and have been for awhile, how would you say that this portrayal has affected rock and roll?

“There’s a funness about it because there is rebellion such as ACDC’s Highway to Hell. Heavy metal has been associated with Satan. Members of Slayer have actually said that they’re catholics and it’s all for show. Marilyn Manson has had a career on being a priest at the Church of Satan and using Satan as a platform. But, in the end of the day, it’s all theatrics and, in that aspect, it’s fun for Halloween and shock rock. It’s fun as rebellion, but as long as the lines aren’t crossed and someone doesn’t commit an act of evil, then it’s fine. Partying with the devil seems like a great idea, but at the end of the day, as long as those lines aren’t blurred, it’s entertainment and shouldn’t be taken more than face value.”

Would you say that this portrayal is affecting the way kids see religion?

“Yes, it’s changing to an extent but there is always been young people that have rebelled against their parents. It’s just comes in different forms and now it might be more open, but it is what it is. Kids will always rebel against what their parents want for them until they are parents and the cycle just repeats itself.”

Conclusion

Going into this topic, I initially thought that Satanism and Satan were prime components of society that affected children but, the more research that I did, the more I realized that this issue could actually be viewed as an overlying theme and broken into a cluster of smaller pieces meant for a grander puzzle; glorification, societal acceptance, the change of religious importance, and rebellion.

With glorification and societal acceptance, which can both be tied into each other, one could infer that this type of response only happens when society allows for it. The idea of living in a society in which has become more accepting to unconventional practices, allows for this newer generation, who are leading members of this more liberal movement, to find an interest in a ideal that has previously been found as ludicrous and taboo. This, in turn, creates a worldwide mindset where people can, in a sense, exist in a moral purgatory; where life and, more specifically, morality, is not so black and white. Where something that should be inherently evil can have the possibility of being viewed as something else. And Laveyan Satanism caters to that by turning Satan into a symbol of acceptance.

As for teenage rebellion and religious importance, which can also be tied into each other, Satan is only an example of an outlet for children to rebel against an ‘unjust authoritarian figure,’ aka their parents (which correlates to the very symbolism this figure has within the religion). With Satan being such a prominent figure for being on the opposite end of the spectrum of conventional thinking and beliefs, teens are drawn to him for shock value. Plus, with how he is portrayed as this symbol of freedom, free thinking, and a live-for-yourself mentality, it is no surprise that teens wouldn’t see him as something entirely evil for they see a piece of themselves within the illusionary mask of the devil. And, if religion plays an important role within their upbringing, it is more likely for them to follow this path in order to spite their parents and drift away from family-set expectations.

[vdoesbookrecs]

Mini analysis - A Long Way Down

Blurb: ‘Can I explain why I wanted to jump off the top of a tower block?’

For disgraced TV presenter Martin Sharp the answer’s pretty simple: he has, in his own words, ‘pissed his life away’. And on New Year’s Eve he’s going to end it all ... but not, as it happens, alone. Because first single-mum Maureen, then eighteen-year-old Jess and lastly American rock-god JJ turn up and crash martin’s private party. They’ve stolen his idea- but brought their own reasons.

Yet it’s hard to jump when you’ve got an audience queuing impatiently behind you. A few heated words and some slices of pizza later and these four strangers are suddenly allies. But is their unlikely friendship a good enough reason to carry on living?

‘Extremely funny ...and wise’ -Sunday Times

‘A page-turning plot and rich, funny characters with several big laughs on every page...Hornby’s best yet.” -Library Review

‘Hornby pins down the age in which we live with precision and comic brilliance’ -Guardian

‘Hugely enjoyable’ -Irish Times

‘Masterful ...some of the finest writing, and some of the most outstanding characters I’ve ever had the pleasure of reading’ -Johnny Depp

‘Impossible to put down... enthralling’ -Ruth Rendell, Guardian

‘Hilarious yet heartbreaking’ -In Style

‘Generous and wise. Right rom the opening pages, a smile played continually across my face’ -GQ

‘Darkly comic’ -San Francisco Chronicle

‘Brilliant, smart and funny... a cello suite about how to go on living. It’s hard to imagine a novel more darkly and sublimely devoted to life’ -Boston Globe

‘Hornby’s portrayal of four characters who accidentally meet on top of a tower block, all ready to jump to their death on New Year’s Eve, manages to be sensitive and emphatic, but damn funny as well. My new Hornby favourite’ -Adam Philips, Observer

I’ve always been suspicious of books that have more reviews than blurb printed on the cover, and this confirms all my darkest fears and theories.

Structure and Intention: There are no chapters, instead the book is divided into three parts of about equal length. These three parts are further divided into sections where each of the four characters narrates a part. These individual narrations are between a half and about five pages long, change frequently, and are indicated by the name of the character set over the text in all capitals. The events of the book roughly follow Aristotele’s model for the ideal drama:

(note: I wanted to link the source and the website this is from apparently doesn’t exist anymore, sorry) At the very beginning we’ve got our exposition - four characters who all want to commit suicide meet. We are informed about the place (Topper’s House, London), the time (around midnight), the characters (Maureen, Martin, Jess, JJ) and get first information about them (mostly their motivations for trying to throw themselves off a building). Then we’ve got our falling action - at the end of the first part, a pact is formed: The characters agree to meet again on Valentine’s Day, and not kill themselves until then. Then we’ve got our climax (the witnessed suicide on Valentine’s) at the very end of the second part, after quite a bit of rising action (the newspaper fiasco, the interview on Martin’s show, the vacation...). Then one could argue that Maureen and Jess’ visit to Martin’s ex-wife can be seen as an element of retardation. I personally don’t, because that whole thing can be seen as leading up to The Intervention, leading us directly to our conclusion (which is a happy one and thus, if this was a play, would make the book a comedy, which I find very fitting.) What’s interesting about the structure is also that part I and II both end with a turning point: In part I we’ve got the Valentine’s Day Pact delaying the suicide, in part II they witness a suicide and subsequently realize that they aren’t capable of killing themselves. The author’s intention becomes clear in the last part of the book: the characters all slowly get better. The last sentence sums this up perfectly: JJ says about the London Eye that “It didn’t look as though it was moving, but it must have been, I suppose”, which can also be applied to the characters dire situations throughout the whole book: It doesn’t look like it’s getting better, but it is. 

Characters:

1) Martin (age: probably mid-forties)

Family situation: Was married to Cindy, with whom he has two daughters (Polly and Maise), currently together with Penny Chambers, his old co-host. Martin is a serial adulterer who’s marriage ended because he was caught having sex with a fifteen-year old girl who was under the influence of cocain. His type is described as blond, young, and big-breasted.

Character traits: Martin is educated and a member of the upper bourgeoise (rich enough to afford a BMW and a very nice flat in London, not rich enough to lose his job and still uphold his standard of living without any problems). He is pessimistic, but at the same time has a very media-friendly personality (egoistic, likes to be the center of positive attention, charismatic, vain, self-assured). Though he is very shallow and lazy, he has a strong sense of obligation.

Situation: Had sex with a fifteen-year-old and went to prison for an unspecified amount of time (my best guess is about two to three months - he’ s still recognized on the street, he mentions recent articles about himself, his girlfriend was still waiting for him when he got out, so it couldn’t have been that long). As a consequence to his...sexual escapades....he lost his job as a breakfast TV presenter (his show was called Rise and Shine With Penny and Martin). He also has an alcohol problem.

Secret wish: To not have to be held accountable for his wrongdoings

Seeks: Redemption 

2) Maureen (age: 51)

Family situation: Is a single mom (her fiancé broke off the engagement before she even knew she was pregnant, and she never had or even wanted another romantic or sexual encounter). She is the sole caretaker of her son Matty (19), who is wheelchair-bound and so severely (mentally?) disabled that he cannot communicate with anyone and basically just...vegitates.

Character traits: Maureen is deeply religious, but often doubts the teachings of the catholic church. As a consequence of her faith she has a strong sense of guilt and duty, and sees her son as the punishment for all of her sins (but mainly for the premaritial sex). She is very timid and has low self-esteem and cries very easily. Some passages allude to her being diagnosed with depression. 

Situation: Maureen has absolutely no friends and isolated from all aspects of social life (except for Sunday church) due to her family situation.

Secret wish: To be free from Matty. 

Seeks: Human contact

3) Jess Crichton (age: 18)

Family situation: Is the daughter of the Junior Minister of Education; her older sister, Jennifer, disappeared shortly after obtaining her driver’s license and is presumed dead. The car she was driving was found at a popular suicide spot and her body was never found. Jess’ relationship with her parents is very tense, as she blames herself for Jen’s disappearance and, consequently, for her parents’ misery.

Character traits: Jess has a hard facade and often acts unpredictable or crazy. Underneath that facade she is a vulnerable and grieving young girl who feels deeply guilty because she is convinced she is the reason her sister left the family and clings to any and all human contact. She is deathly afraid of people leaving her. She is very insecure and often ‘reinvents’ herself in order to please those around her. Despite this she is not afraid to speak her mind, often in vulgar terms. She describes herself as ‘fucked up’ and self harms. 

Situation: Jess is convinced her sister isn’t dead and is living a happy life somewhere without her. She is very detached from her parents, though she secretly longs for a happy family life. She is starved for affection and clings to it wherever she can find it, which leads to her stalking Chas, the boy who took her virginity. She in convinced that they had a deep and meaningful relationship that he destroyed, despite only ever going on two dates and Chas not even defining their relationship as boyfriend-girlfriend type.  

Secret wish: For her parents to swoop in and magically fix everything that’s been going wrong since Jen disappeared.

Seeks: Reassurance

4) John Julius a.k.a. JJ (age: mid twenties to early thirties maybe? it’s pretty unclear)

Family situation: JJ’s family situation is unknown; the only meaningful relationships mentioned in his past are his ex girlfriend, Lizzie, for whom he immigrated to England from the US, and Ed, his former bandmate and childhood friend, who quit the band and is living in the US. 

Character traits: JJ is an introspective, melancholic and philosophical artistic personality. He is very philosophical despite being a relatively uneducated high school dropout and enjoys intellectual stimulation, particularly in the form of books. He loves four things: music, books, his bandmates, and his ex, three of which have left him. 

Situation: JJ is an illegal immigrant. His band broke up despite obvious success and his girlfriend, who was the reason he came to the UK in the first place, broke up with him.

Secret wish: To be famous with his band

Seeks: Self-expression

Language: All four characters use typical language in their monologues. Martin typically uses words from the fields MEDIA. LAW and PROFANITY and very long and elaborate adjectives and adverbs. He uses rather long sentences with multiple subclauses and often employs rhetorical questions. His educated, engaging and cynical tone stands in contrast to his frequent use of profanity. Overall Martin’s tone is rather sophisticated, sometimes lofty, but not implausible as spoken English.  Maureen typically uses words from the fields RELIGION and OUTDATED SLANG. Striking is her complete lack of profanity. She uses rather simple syntax, lots of insertions, often ends her sentences with ‘isn’t it’ and there are often periods instead of question marks at the end of her questions. This leads to her seeming slow (as in slow-moving), old-fashioned, uptight and prudish. Overall her style is rather standard but seems stiff in comparison to the others.  Jess typically uses words from the fields PROFANITY and SLANG. She uses lots of ellipses, rhetorical questions, and relatively short sentences. Her language sees fast-paced, intense, and often jumpy. Her style is somewhere between colloquial, which she is a bit too structured for, and standard, which she is a bit too jumpy for.  JJ typically uses words from the fields LITERATURE, BAND/MUSIC, and PROFANITY. He uses very long sentences with elaborate subclauses which often feature rhetorical questions, and questions and literal speech or his thoughts as insertions. His language is philosophical, thoughtful and ‘deep’, the style is standard to colloquial. 

Personal Opinion: It’s shit don’t read it. 

Ok but in all honesty this book is shallow, doesn’t accurately portray depression or being suicidal, features a character whos only regret about sleeping with a minor who was unable to give consent due to being drugged out of her mind, and also, fifteen, (this is what they call rape fellas!) is that he didn’t get away with it (also this is never addressed? there is no outside perspective given on this? no one ever says anything about this in their parts, everyone seems ok with Martin being a convicted and guilty sex offender? what the f), and, in all honesty, the writing is...rather mediocre. Like, it isn’t bad per se, but in my opinion it’s on no way deserving the praise it gets. 

Note: I...have so much more stuff I could say about this book. If you want a series of very detailed diagrams depicting character relationships or something like that, let me know because I’ve got it all. 

[courage-a-word-of-justice]

Zombieland Saga 7 - 8 | Merc Storia 6 | SSSS.Gridman 7 | Double Decker! 9 | Golden Kamuy 19

Zombieland Saga 7

As much as I worry about Junko…where’s Ai?

Parts of the OP have changed since I last paid attention to it, huh? Now there’s a segment where all the zombified (i.e. undead) versions of the girls appear. Then there’s a new bit where you see Romero looking at Kotaro, wagging his tail. Then there’s a bit with the zombie-idol girls together in an AKB48 sort of pose in a 70s-style room…I think that’s all the new stuff, really.

Come to think of it, last time the episode was Datte Sentimental Saga, this time the episode is Keredo Zombiemental Saga. Both somehow become “Because It’s [fill in blank with appropriate word] Saga”.

I’ve noticed a pattern – every idol show I watch causes me a considerable amount of stress as I worry about whether the characters will be able to deal with their problems. It’s nice that they develop their characters so much, but it’s bad for me…

I feel like hearing Miyano’s delivery over the lines “Kicky blammo!” kind of softenend the funniness factor of the line. (i.e. It was funnier when I had the volume off.) But his mouth-wide-open face is funny.

I wonder…as touching as it is to have Kotaro give this pep speech, it almost seems out of character for him. Maybe it might’ve been better to have Junko come to the realisation herself, rather than have something to grow mushrooms over? But that’s just the opinion of someone who thinks ranty Kotaro is how he is 100% of the time. I’m also fine with more sensitive Kotaro, I just wish I could’ve seen that side when he was dealing with just Sakura.

So Ai didn’t die at Saga Rock…hmm. I take my words from the previous episode back.

Truck-kun Strikes Back, this show should be called. Truck-kun Strikes Back.

I just noticed that’s the Cygames building…and Cygames is a sponsor of Zombieland Saga.

Well…we’re back with the CGI it seems. It’s not entirely bad, but could be a lot worse.

Merc Storia 6

Well…I think this Halloween special is a few weeks too late…

This stuff about carrying a rock…just make Bright Stone necklaces. That way you free up your hands!

Cosette? Like Les Miserables?!

Interestingly, in stories like this, parents always get pulled into the dreamland after their kids do (see Junkers Come Here for another example).

Tatsuhisa Suzuki? Takehito Koyasu? Man, I so didn’t pay attention to the voices this episode…

SSSS.Gridman 7

RIP Special Dog…round 2.

“I think nothing.” – See, Samurai Calibur is best boi!

Why does Alexis meeting Yuuta look like a Meeting with the Parents (y’know, one of those meeting you have with a girlfriend’s parents to see if the boyfriend is suitable for their little darling)?

This pointy thing in the air reminds me of Eva…like an Angel, y’know?

I think the pause for Vit’s reaction went a little too long…I thought my video was glitching, but reacted slightly too late to pause it.

The blood of Anti was way too orange…but I guess that’s better than having red blood which makes people puke…and gets the BPO to complain, to boot…

Update: The missile movements looked familiar…that’s because they were an Itano Circus (which is the same as the Macross Missile Massacre I believe I mentioned in a previous episode).

Update 2: I just watched the source short and there was a bit of animation copied from there! The bit where the bike rattles in its bindings!

Double Decker! 9

(something along the lines of “you’re just going to use the view hack to peep on us, right?”) - Owwch, I can feel the Apple Bieber burn from here!...But why does Sophie slur her words slightly so that they come out as “Twavis” etc….?

Randomly, Doug has a moustache! Wahaha…sorry, this isn’t very informative, huh? I only have two sets of reactions: the insightful ones which have all my knowledge behind them, or the reactive ones which don’t amount to much…

I find it interesting Kirill says “Ore ga idea ga aru”. Why? Because 1) Kirill uses “ore”, likely as a way to assert his masculinity even with his feminine-looking face and 2) there is a kanji for “idea” (teian), but he uses the katakana version, likely to indicate how young he is in comparison to (most of) the other investigators (he’s 20 remember). Or alternatively, he’s meant to be speaking English. Or both those reasons.

Well, that’s (the rollerskate getaway) a getaway I thought I’d never see in a cop show…it looks almost as if it would work better in Cardcaptor Sakura than here! (I’m laughing, but also engrossed in the show, don’t worry.)

I still can’t tell what the lyrics are to Buntline Special…but if I’m not mistaken, some of the initial lyrics are “Don’t give a s*** now”. Or…I could’ve just misheard that. We won’t know until official lyrics are out, y’know?

Oh dear, they’re going into biology territory next time! Time for my biology contact to strut their stuff! (See WordPress for more on that...the info I’m talking about is in one of the roundups.)

Golden Kamuy 19

I find it interesting that only now Sugimoto is exploring the nature of greed…both the living and the dead’s meaning of it.

As much as I find it entertaining that Koito seems to be getting flustered (in what way? *raises eyebrows*) about Tsurumi praising him…why does the 7th always seem to opt for making the skins they get into shirts? I thought that stuff was over after Edogai died and the earless twin got his ear  made into a thing he wears on his head…

Monkfish.

Once again…a character I thought was “pure” (in the context of this series anyway) turns out to have been a killer since he was young. For some reason, Ogata is popular with the ladies in Japan though…I don’t quite get it myself, but hey. What can I do for stats outside my control?

Apparently the ED visual, where Asirpa listens to Sugimoto’s heartbeat, was Noda-sensei’s idea.

Zombieland Saga 8

Ooh, I’ve read enough spoilers about Lily to only want to know the portrayal of how it goes down at this point…

I just realised the onsen was called Ureshino Onsen = ureshii no onsen (happy onsen, i.e. an onsen that brings/gives happiness).

Franchouchou ad for Drive-In Tori on the TV, I see…

Even if I don’t know the lyrics of the OP all that much, I definitely know when to join in with a SA-GAAAAAAAAAAA! at the end, right? That OP’s grown on me, but it’s nowhere near my favourite.

Kyoseki Park. It literally means “giant rock park”, so that’s where the boulders come from.

Have you noticed Kotaro isn’t actually blowing into the shell and he’s verbalising the noise he thinks will come out of the shell? That’s a silly touch, but one I appreciate.

A yak…? Oh right, a yakuza!

I love the rolling sobat so much, I found it again on Reddit!

Lily actually uses the word “Pappy”, which is uncommon for Japan…they tend to use “dad”, ��father” or “papa” instead.

Tiny Kotaro really sells that first eyecatch.

Nyoki is the sound effect of something popping out of the earth. It’s the same for mushrooms, y’know. I love mushrooms. (Even Tae’s going nyoki…haha!)

When the SFX went “twang”, I thought that was the end of that, but Kotaro is actually holding an instrument to make his own SFX again! Genius, man, you’re an absolute genius!

I’m sorry for laughing during a dramatic moment, but if Takeo’s face can be covered by his hand like that…he has darned Yaoi Hands! Hahaha! Okay, I’m sorry. Carry on.

I remember reading on the official site Lily died in 2011, so…more recent than Sakura. So a TV-hating man like him would be pretty obvious in a day and age like that.

Aw…I shed a tear or two for Lily, too. Update: Or 10. I’m not crying. You’re crying…

Wait, does this mean Kotaro is also a lyricist? And/or a songwriter? That is a man of many talents!...Aaaaaaaaaaand now I need a tissue box. Brb.

Oh wow, that next episode title has a lotta words! I thought it was going to be about Yuugiri, but it could be about Saki…hmm…or anyone we haven’t seen in the spotlight yet. Who knows? Only those who watch it or make it! Oh, now that I’ve watched it through, it does seem to be about Saki!

[themtmshow]

hey I'm a teenage girl and I'm just getting into this show and I feel like I'm not understanding how big it is/was? is there any modern day comparison you can make to help me understand? thanks! I love your blog!

First of all, I’m very sorry for the delay in answering you. Secondly, I’m so glad you like my blog and the show! I hope you are still enjoying both. And thirdly, I’m posting under a cut because this got ridiculously long, for which I apologize. I tried to give you a concise answer, I really did, but the question deserved so much more. If you hate reading long things, just ignore all my stuff and only read the quotes, which are blocked off. That should give you a pretty good idea anyway.

Your question is really good, but it’s a little tricky for me to answer, because I wasn’t actually alive when the show was first on the air. It’s also hard to answer because I assume you’re talking about the show’s cultural impact, and it’s sort of impossible to know what current show or movie is going to have that kind of impact 40 years from now.

But I think I would have to compare it to Wonder Woman. One of the reasons Wonder Woman is considered so important is that it had such a strong and well-rounded female protagonist, whose narrative revolves around her personal journey and not that of a man. It’s also  the first really successful superhero movie about a woman, and that’s not a genre where you see very many female main characters, so the movie is sort of groundbreaking in that way. The Mary Tyler Moore Show is similar because, as far as I know, it was the first time a working woman was portrayed on television as the lead of her own sitcom, which was quite revolutionary. And Mary herself is really important because although she wasn’t perfect, she was a strong, mature, rounded female character who carried her own story - not unlike Diana Prince.

Here’s a quote about Wonder Woman from an article by Carrie Witmer:

The thing that matters most about “Wonder Woman” is the portrayal of Wonder Woman/Diana Prince herself. Gal Gadot’s Wonder Woman is a fully realized character. She’s emotional, confident, yet also insecure. She has hope and she has fear. She can love and lust and she can feel sadness and joy. She’s not just a beautiful face or hot body kicking ass.

Compare that to this quote about The Mary Tyler Moore Show, from a blog post by Erika Schmidt:

The Mary Tyler Moore Show was about a woman in her thirties living her life. Not within the context of her perfect marriage, or her continued wacky attempts to sneak into her husband’s show, or her quirky adventures as a mom/witch. It was, comparatively speaking, real. She worked, she dated. She threw terrible parties. Her friendships were of obvious and incalculable value. She was graceful, clumsy, timid, brave. She developed before our eyes. Mary Richards can’t be described in one sentence. And that is the point. That is what makes her a feminine icon.

The Wonder Woman comparison does break down a bit for a couple reasons: One, The Mary Tyler Moore Show actually drew a lot of heat from the feminist movement at the time, because people didn’t think it was going far enough. I haven’t seen any criticism of that sort about Wonder Woman, which doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist, but it doesn’t seem to be as common. Two, Wonder Woman is a movie set in World War 1, and The Mary Tyler Moore Show is a sitcom set in the decade in which it originally aired. So it’s not a good comparison in terms of format.

I don’t actually watch that many TV shows, but one of the few shows I do enjoy is Brooklyn Nine-Nine. B99 is a sitcom set in the workplace that regularly brings up social issues in a sort of low-key, subtle way, and that’s also what The Mary Tyler Moore Show did. The Mary Tyler Moore Show brought up issues like equal pay and birth control, whereas Brooklyn Nine-Nine brings up things like transphobia and racial profiling, but on either show, it’s rarely done in a way that makes the issue the focus of the episode. And that can be very powerful.

Here’s a quote from an article about Brooklyn Nine-Nine by Alyssa Rosenberg:

“Brooklyn Nine-Nine” has always been unusual in the series’ ability to find unpredictable routes into a wide range of issues in contemporary policing. In four seasons, it’s tackled everything from the New York Police Department’s history of racism and homophobia, to the abuse of internal affairs investigations, to how different city agencies work together, to how overzealousness can influence even a good cop’s judgement.

Compare that to this quote from an article about The Mary Tyler Moore Show by Alexis Sottile:

Over the course of the show’s seven seasons, Mary evolved with the times, tackling infidelity, birth control, sex, job promotions and the general human condition with the same mix of pluckiness, aplomb and oh-shit-do-I-really-have-to-do-this that made her an accessible role model for the new woman – and a sympathetic character for those that were scared of this new breed.

I’ll give a specific example: In season 3, there’s a brief reference to Mary taking the birth control pill. It was just a tiny snippet of dialogue, but it helped shift societal opinions on women being sexually active outside of marriage, which was still very controversial in the 70s’. The book “Mary and Lou and Rhoda and Ted” by Jennifer Keishin Armstrong includes this quote (p. 172) by Treva Silverman, who was one of the head writers on the show:

Mary was a “nice girl,” in quotation marks… If Mary was taking the Pill, it gave the stamp of approval for sexuality.

Treva Silverman, in case you didn’t know, is a woman. And that’s another huge impact the show had: It actively sought out female writers at a time when there was still a huge stigma against women in television production. (Here’s a good article about that.)

The show actually motivated lots of women to enter the field of television, and not just the women they hired to write for the show. Mary Richards was a very inspiring figure. Here’s a quote from TV journalist Katie Couric:

I don’t think I’d have this job if it weren’t for Mary Richards, and I mean that. They say if you can’t see it, you can’t be it, and when I saw Mary Richards make it on her own, driving that Mustang to that TV station in Minneapolis, I was in junior high, I thought, “Wow, I can have a career too.”

Oprah Winfrey, who was the first ever female African American billionaire, credits Mary Tyler Moore with having “more influence on [her] career than any other single person or force.” And “Mary and Lou and Rhoda and Ted” includes this quote from her (p. 283):

[The Mary Tyler Moore Show] was a light in my life, and Mary was a trailblazer for my generation. She’s the reason I wanted my own production company.

Even beyond the world of television and journalism, women were inspired. Here’s a quote from former First Lady Michelle Obama:

She was one of the few single working women depicted on television at the time. She wasn’t married. She wasn’t looking to get married… I was probably 10 or 11 when I saw that, and sort of started thinking, “You know what? Marriage is an option. Having a family is an option. And going to school and getting your education and building your career is another really viable option that can lead to happiness and fulfillment.”

And here’s a quote from another of the shows’ writers, Sybil Adelman Sage:

Before Mary Tyler Moore, it was acceptable to be a secretary, but not to be unmarried. Suddenly it was fine to be unmarried, and we were reaching for better jobs. Along with that blue beret, the rules had been thrown in the air. The show was arguably the most transformative sitcom in television history, forever changing how women were perceived.

Another notable, although less talked-about, influence the show had is that it revolutionized the sitcom format in general.  If you’ve ever seen a realistic, character-driven comedy show with a strong cast of secondary characters, then you can thank The Mary Tyler Moore Show for making that format so popular. You can see that influence today in shows like The Office, Parks and Recreation, 30 Rock, The Mindy Project, Friends, and probably any other sitcom you can think of. (Here’s a good article about that.) I actually can’t think of a good modern-day comparison here because every sitcom I don’t know of anything that is visibly changing the television landscape as much as The Mary Tyler Moore show did in its time.

Here’s a quote from an article written by Jerry Buck as the show was entering its 4th season:

“The Mary Tyler Moore Show” took 20 years of pointless, insipid television situation comedy and spun it on its heels. The Moore show, going into its fourth year on CBS, pioneered reality comedy and the establishment of clearly defined and motivated secondary characters.

And according to this quote from a more recent article by Todd VanDerWerff:

Like [The Dick Van Dyke Show], Mary Tyler Moore would derive much of its comedy from its characters, rather than its punchlines. Where Moore went beyond Van Dyke came in just how thoroughly it embraced that template… [This] method of sitcom writing would, over time, become the dominant one. Even the least sophisticated sitcoms on TV now must at least pay lip-service to character complexity.

Another impact that the show had, and continues to have, is that it makes people happy. It’s just a really nice, positive, feel-good show. And that can be really important too. Here’s a quote from fashion designer Isaac Mizrahi:

[Mary Richards] proved to us again and again that if you put yourself into your world in the right way, if you pay attention to your own story, you can find the right people and the right place and be happy… The Mary Tyler Moore Show was one of the first examples of someone choosing her own family that we saw on television.

Honestly, I feel like I’ve only scratched the surface here. In case you’re not totally exhausted from reading all this and you’d like to read more on the subject, I’ve gone back through my blog and added an “impact” tag for you to look through if you’re interested. I should warn you that some of the posts reference specific episodes and that might be spoilers for you depending on where you’re at in the series.

Thanks again for your excellent question! If you have more questions or if you just want to chat, my askbox and private messaging system are always open for that.

[yowetremmle]

oh my god not another lwymmd thinkpiece

I haven’t even posted on this account in MONTHS, but (fun fact!) I used to be a pop music writer and watching all the discourse around Look What You Made Me Do has me amused, so HERE I AM.

I think most analyses  of the song and video completely miss the point, which is that Swift isn’t actually playing the victim. She portrays herself as a zombie clawing her way out of a grave, then burying her old self in it, but the old self is smiling and perfectly okay with being in there. Plus, “[she] rose up from the dead, [she does] it all the time,” right? Right. Okay. This is the theme for most of the video- she’s not actually positioned as the victim in most of the depicted situations. This is important, because it provides context for the times when she is framed as the victim- specifically in the car crash scene. 

Let’s get something straight here- cheetah-print Taylor in the car is not Katy Perry. She is also not Kim Kardashian. In fact, she goes out of her way to show that she is, in fact, Taylor herself- first by holding up a Grammy (Katy and Kim don’t have Grammys, so why would they hold one?), and second by hanging the number 13 around the cat’s neck. 13 is Taylor’s lucky number, it’s a number she identifies with herself and with good luck- why would she plaster it on someone else? If you slow the video down right before the crash, you can see the initials TS on the front of the car- why would someone else be driving Taylor’s car? Furthermore, why would there be so many Taylors and just one non-Taylor in the final scene of the video? I’ll admit that I don’t fully understand the reciepts/editing comment at the end in light of that character being Taylor herself, but the idea that she’s playing a character other than herself in that costume doesn’t make sense. Much like how Taylor’s played with duality in the past- for example, by playing both the “cheer captain” and the girl “on the bleachers” in You Belong with Me, she’s playing with her own image, not someone else’s.

This scene is about the danger of the paparazzi, and their power. The fact that she holds up her Grammy the first time she says “Look what you made me do,” while the paparazzi snaps a million pictures is kind of the key to the whole video- they did this. They gave her the massive press coverage that allowed her to win a zillion awards and rise to the top of the food chain. The “what” that Taylor “does” is become massively successful. She’s not playing the victim, she’s winning the game. Later, when Taylor walks away from the accident unscathed, they’re so busy watching her walk away that they forget about the danger beside them, which literally blows up in their faces.

With that in mind, I want to draw a parallel between the line “Look what you made me do,” and The Weeknd’s “Look what you’ve done” in Starboy, another song in which the singer points a sarcastic finger at the media for giving them a platform only to complain that the singer got popular. Similar to LWYMMD, Starboy’s video opens with a current version of the singer murdering their past self, then destroying stuff (including things related to their own fame), only to drive off in a ridiculously expensive car with a jungle cat riding shotgun. Now combine that with the fact that some people see Taylor’s crash scene as an homage to Madonna’s “What It Feels Like For a Girl” video, a song about how men and women are held to different standards... go ahead. Draw your own conclusions. I’m not here to think for you.

I know I’m going out of order here, but now I want to jump back to the bathtub scene. Again, Swift is not being Kim Kardashian, nor do I think she’s mocking Kim (and anyone who says she’s mocking Kim’s Paris robbery- you do realize what a heavy accusation that is, right?). The hair and makeup makes it really obvious she’s playing her Blank Space character- which, as she’s explained in interviews, is a character she invented based on the media’s portrayal of her maneating ways, and which she’s always called a joke, saying that her fans understand that it’s just a parody. It’s almost like she wanted a litmus test to see who’s really paying attention- here’s this super well-known fictional character I’ve not only played in the past, but who I’ve point-blank explained was fictional and is representative of a media portrayal of who I am and not my real self. Let’s see who did their homework.

And this is the point where I as the author of this essay jump in and say I’m not exactly a Taylor megafan. I was into country music when she first debuted- I remember the first time they played Tim McGraw (her song, not the person Tim McGraw) on my local country radio station, actually- but I’ve never paid a whole lot of attention to her, and I’ve never owned any of her music or merchandise. I don’t say any of this to distance myself from her- I just want to point out that I know all this stuff about her without actually trying very hard. When I saw the big number 13 on her hand in the final scene, I Googled “Taylor Swift 13″ and found out very quickly what it meant. Her whole professional life is out there and easy to research, so anyone who’s written about her and misses major stuff like this... why are you writing about her, exactly? What purpose does it serve when you write what you don’t know?

Ahem. Back to the main attraction.

So people keep accusing the video of ripping of Beyonce, which I almost don’t want to address because it seems pretty groundless to me? If anything, the initial teaser images were maybe supposed to give the illusion of ripping of Beyonce (playing with the idea that Taylor somehow “stole something” from Beyonce by winning that infamous VMA over her), but the actual performance isn’t very Lemonade-like at all. I don’t know- maybe it’s just because I’ve been into K-Pop for so long, but the image of a bunch of dancers in a V-formation dancing in heels and crop tops just doesn’t really belong to Beyonce in my mind. To me, it seemed like another Madonna reference. As far as the bat in the heist scene? I mean it might be a Beyonce reference, but it seems a bit far-fetched- it could probably just as easily be argued as a Harley Quinn reference? I don’t think it actually is a Harley Quinn reference, I just want to point out that bats as weapons are, you know, everywhere. Other than the fact that she’s using a bat as a weapon, I don’t see anything else in this scene that calls back to Lemonade at all. (I believe the scene in the bridge where she stands on a pile of past Taylors is also a Madonna reference, with a capital T standing in for the crosses Madonna has hung herself on and and danced in front of, etc. I feel like this is also a reference to an old painting of Jesus hanging on a cross with demons or people or something crawling up the bottom of it, but for the life of me I can’t remember who the painter is or what it’s called and Google isn’t helping but I can’t be the only one who sees this, someone help me!!!  Ahem.)

People also seem to read this scene as a dig at Tom Hiddleston- just like they took the Nils Sjöberg gravestone at the beginning to be a dig at Calvin Harris. Look, I mean- it’s possible. It’s all possible. I’ve seen some convincing posts about how the positions of the necklaces on the floor beside the bathtub and an empty ring box in the heist scene are also references to her relationship with Harris, and I’m not going to say there are no direct references to her famous rivalries hidden in the video. I mean, the dollar in the bathtub is VERY CLEARLY a reference to the dollar she won in her recent legal battle. But, it still seems to me that the gravestone and shirt have more to do with her own image than with the guys she references. Taylor reportedly wrote “This Is What You Came For” under a pseudonym to see if she could write a hit without having her name attached to it- and yes, while having Calvin Harris and Rhianna on the track definitely tipped the odds in her favor, she’s still proven her point to herself and she’s done hiding behind a fake name.

The idea that she’s be “calling out” Tom Hiddleston is a bit funny- as far as anyone knows, that was an amicable breakup, right? She’s not mocking him, she’s mocking the assumptions people made about their relationship, which reached peak ridiculousness when he wore the “I <3 TS” shirt. Now, while I didn’t draw this conclusion myself (believe it or not, I don’t pay enough attention to Taylor’s love life to know how many famous exes she has), some people have mentioned that the eight dancers might be a reference to Taylor’s eight publicly known exes. That, combined with the “I <3 Taylor” shirt as a symbol of peak ridiculousness in relationship speculation, may be a dig at the media for caring so much about her love life.

I’m not a Taylor apologist- like I said before, I’m the most casual of fans. I could be all kinds of wrong about this. That said, people have this weird thing where they think everything Taylor does is a ploy to both make herself the center of attention while putting everyone else at fault for her problems. I think LWYMMD is Taylor turning the camera around on the media and reminding them that if they’re so sick of hearing about her narrative, they could put an end to it any time they want- they just won’t. 

[robedisimo]

Spider-Man: Homecoming [SPOILER-FREE REVIEW]

[Disclaimer: this review is based on the Italian dub of the film. As such, all opinions on the quality of dialogues and acting are subjective and partial.]

I think it’s safe to say that if there’s an idea more instinctively wrong than a reboot, that has to be a reboot of a reboot. So when the Amazing Spider-Man franchise crashed and burned, many rightfully thought that the Spider-brand had become a minefield: the character is way too popular with audiences not to exploit, but a third origin story, retreading the same tired story beats at such a short interval, felt like a death sentence to all involved.

It’s the reason why resurrecting the property in the solid-footed house built by the Marvel Cinematic Universe made so much sense, and why people were instantly more excited than worried at the prospect. Could the MCU’s stability balance out the inherent toxicity of a franchise “threeboot”? The character’s debut in last year’s Captain America: Civil War seemed to suggest as much, but a solo film is a different matter entirely.

Fortunately, I’m happy to report that all is well in the House of Ideas. Under its roof, Spider-Man: Homecoming not only brings the wall-crawler back home to reconnect him to the comic roots of his past, but projects him with gusto into a promising future. Firmly planting itself on the top tier of Marvel film adaptations, Homecoming is made better by its MCU connections and in turn makes the shared universe itself better by taking place in it. It is, surprisingly, the best Spider-Man movie to date – while obviously not as archetypal as Sam Raimi’s seminal first adaptation way back in 2002 – and I  wouldn’t be surprised if it ended up becoming many viewers’ new favourite movie in the Marvel Studios canon.

What’s clear from this film is that Marvel had a lot of ideas as to how to do Spider-Man right, resulting in one of the more inventive takes on the character ever committed to screen. The key, however, was to take Peter Parker back to his native environment: a coming-of-age story in a high school environment, with a teen-drama flavour that makes the storytelling more intimate. This is a younger Spider-Man than we’re used to see on film, cobbled together as an inspired amalgam of different incarnations of the character in recent years, most notably both iterations of the Ultimate Spider-Man comic franchise and the short-lived Spectacular Spider-Man television show.

There are three main consequences to this: one, this is a more energetic film than even the already-lively standards of Marvel movies so far have made us used to. This new Spider-Man hits theatre screens with a definite spring in his step, delivering a peppy, fast-talking adventure whose comedic focus has more in common – ironically appropriate, given the obvious insect-themed parallels – with Ant-Man’s Edgar Wright-esque cues than any other MCU instalment so far. What’s more, the tone here is young and hip but not juvenile: pretty much all jokes in the film land successfully, and it’s hard to resist the temptation to consider the whole project Marvel’s attempt at a cleaner, more family-friendly (and high-budget) version of the same irreverent, franchise-referencing metahumour of last year’s Deadpool, especially in light of a couple idiosyncratic choices in the end credits graphics and post-credits scenes.

Two, a younger Peter Parker means that his classic high school setting needs to be updated to a more contemporary approach. Queens is no longer the same New York City borough it was fifty years ago, now being hailed as the most ethnically diverse area in the American metropolis: the film’s cast has therefore accordingly been given a spin in the mixer, marrying modern needs of representation to yet another chance at differentiating this new reboot from previous renditions of the franchise. Spider-Man: Homecoming is a tapestry of all-race classrooms and bodega cats, and while it may feel a tad strange to comic purists – especially in the face of a couple debatable character choices – it’s hard to argue with the precise balance achieved by the film between looking back at comic tradition and moving forward into modernity.

And three, a younger Spider-Man means that, almost ten years into Marvel’s mega-franchise, we finally get to see a side of its narrative universe thus far mostly kept from our eyes. A more immature, less experienced Peter means lower stakes – there’s no “saving the planet” business in store for him yet, which is compensated by upping the ante on the personal and emotional stakes front – and a smaller scope: this is, finally, a “friendly neighbourhood Spider-Man”, one whose street-level adventures take place among the common people of the MCU. Through his eyes we’re finally able to take a look at how the superheroic age has changed the environment and culture of Marvelverse residents, something that wasn’t accomplished by the Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. TV series – whose characters are conspicuously never seen going about their daily lives outside the workplace – nor by the Marvel/Netflix shows, whose nature to this date remains too insular to indulge in heavy cross-over material.

Homecoming’s plot makes a point of that, musing on the remoteness of the Avengers-tier heroes and their status as little more than talking heads on television screens to most of the general population. These are the celebrities and divas of the Marvel universe, but times change; and as sci-fi technology starts finding its way to petty criminals rather than world-conquering masterminds, so too heroes need to keep an eye on the common folk. It’s an age of vigilantes and secret identities, something that’s been conspicuously absent from the MCU so far. Which, to be honest, makes me lament the fact that, if it weren’t for the obviously different levels of violence allowed in the two franchises – and Marvel constantly shooting itself in the foot with broken promises of deeper ties between the Netflix line-up and the rest of the canon – it would be pretty great to see this Spider-Man go toe-to-toe with Daredevil’s Kingpin.

So it’s especially fitting that this new generation of heroes should be heralded by such a young Peter Parker, literally a second-generation character who grew up in the brave new world of superheroes and was inspired by their costumed exploits – to the point where putting together a colourful crime-fighting getup feels like the natural thing to do to a teenager who just got superpowers. Marvel evidently knows this, as they made the thematically perfect choice to turn Iron Man into Peter’s mentor: Tony Stark is arguably the least “adult” of Marvel heroes, characterised as he is by a dangerous obsession with high-tech toys and a general inability to get his emotional life together. His immaturity is a great counterpoint to Peter’s classic – and fantastically understated, in this origin story-skipping reboot – theme of responsibility, and his wish for the next generation to be better than the previous one leaves me with high hopes for Spider-Man’s future role in the Avengers franchise.

Of course, the other (read: primary) reason for adding Tony to the mix was the obvious added traction Robert Downey Jr.’s involvement would add to the movie, but then who could complain about that? Especially as his supporting role stands in the midst of one of Marvel’s most star-studded casts to date, from the film’s young protagonists – Holland’s take on the character is sufficiently fresh that it doesn’t invite comparisons to Maguire or Garfield, but he’d win in both cases – to Marisa Tomei’s excellent take on aunt May, to a number of big and small cameos interspersed throughout the story.

A particular nod must go to Michael Keaton, here finally coming full-circle and playing a literal Birdman: his portrayal of Adrian Toomes/the Vulture is a heavily reworked take on the comic character that works remarkably well, for the most part avoiding the disappointing treatment of many Marvel movie villains. His performance in the role is in many ways an extension of his excellent turn in last year’s The Founder, and in part an ironic counterpoint to Ant-Man’s Darren Cross, another technological villain harbouring a grudge towards our protagonist’s superhero mentor. It’s a bit of a shame that a couple of Toomes’s best scenes in the film seem designed to directly pay homage to Willem Dafoe’s Norman Osborn, which makes the character a shade less unique, but for the most part it all works.

What works slightly less well is the film’s action, which alternates inconsistently between excellent, creative set pieces and some inventive but rather chaotic stuff – at least on a theatre screen – near the climax, due both to overwhelming visual effects and some occasionally dodgy editing. I’d say about 75% of it clicks, but it’s a pity that the least-excellent action sequence is the decisive one. And, if you want to nitpick (why not), the plot honestly keeps itself together through a series of coincidences that would be pretty hard to believe in a realistic setting.

Other than that, Spider-Man: Homecoming is a superbly entertaining flick and a marvelous reintroduction to the character, paving the way for more great content in the near future. Who knows, maybe this could even cause something to change for the ill-fated Fantastic Four franchise. Only time will tell. 

[Verdict: VERY POSITIVE]

[raystart]

I Post, Therefore I Am (Please Follow Me)

I don’t keep track of how much time I spend on social media, but I know it adds up.

Before the internet, my creative progress was easily measured. I spent most of my day alone in my office, bringing ideas to life, or doing something ancillary that enabled my work—interviewing, filling out expense accounts, prospecting new jobs. In any case, something would be started or finished or added to. Something on my to-do list would be checked. Honest effort would be expended and I’d see the result.

Now, at the end of a work day—which never really ends until I scroll one last time thru the platforms, send an appropriately ironic goodnight Bitmoji to my son, and turn my cellphone face down on the night table—I sometimes strain to remember what I’ve accomplished during the previous hours.

With a lifetime of accomplishments as fuel, my star may be as bright as ever, but my universe has expanded to such an extent that keeping my head down and doing killer work is no longer an option—not if I want my stuff to be seen, not if I want further employment. And definitely not if I want to maintain my own self esteem.

We are all of us judged by the clicks we receive. By our Google rankings, our numbers of friends and followers; our hearts, wows and thumbs up—and our shares, most especially our shares: the hardest to come by and the most telling. To like is no investment. Even to love. But to share is to take someone else onto our own timeline, to truly support, yea, even to advertise for them. (Or to steal a little of their thunder.)

You might have a boffo blurb from The New York Times Book Review, a photo show at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, or a three-car garage courtesy of happy clients, but if you don’t get enough good customer reviews to trip Amazon’s algorithm, you’d better learn to be happy being the very best artist nobody’s ever heard of.

I post, therefore I am. Please follow me.

***

Before the internet, the media universe was very small.

It wasn’t hard to know which magazines, newspapers and television shows were the most popular and important, or which stories were making the most impact. All you had to do was step up to one of those iconic newsstands that, according to a Google search, once occupied more than 1,300 street corners across the great city of Manhattan, which itself was once the central axis of world communication. Compact and convenient, fashioned of plywood, each newsstand displayed a nearly identical collage of riotous photographs and screaming headlines, an ever-evolving portrayal of the American zeitgeist.

To be published in one of these titles, or in a book—or to appear on a television or radio show on one of the finite number of broadcast networks operating over the airwaves—was an obvious indication that your work, your talent, had been recognized and was valuable to the culture at large. Usually, it took years of dues, practice and salesmanship to break into one of these arenas, though a talented first-timer, given a little luck and the right rabbi, could land there, too.

In any case, you couldn’t just post something yourself. Which also meant you couldn’t publicize yourself, either—unless you wanted to hire a publicist. Or buy a lot of Xerox copies and an industrial stapler.

For the most part, the publicity part was up to the client, the news organization, the network, the studio—whoever paid for the work. As the creative, all you could do was hunker down and make the best product you could come up with. If it was really good, it got noticed. Or it didn’t. Whatever. Basically, I always believed that my every effort was created with only three people in mind. My subject, Myself and The Guy Who Authorizes the Checks.

Day to day, alone in my room, nobody else mattered.

***

Among the greatest guilty pleasures I’ve experienced during my forty-year career have been the several times I actually spotted people in the act of reading something I wrote. It’s happened on a beach. On a plane. At a newsstand, my piece on the cover, an actual reader’s nose buried in something I did. But I never—not for even one second—did I think about tapping the person on the shoulder and saying, “Hey! Look at me! I wrote that!”

Now I do it all the time.

According to Google, there are only 300 newsstands left in Manhattan. But there are so many outlets where one can publish, broadcast or otherwise exhibit one’s work or ideas that aggregating services are thriving. Even though I’m entering my fifth decade in the biz, when I receive my various emailed lists of best new stories, there are always publications (and writers) of whom I’ve never heard. And it’s a pretty good possibility they’ve never heard of me, either.

So now we post, we like, we share. We hope for shares back. We jump up and down: Hey! Look at me! I did that! And sometimes, even after months of labor, we swallow the bitter pill of indifference. Four impressions. One thumb up. One heart…from my mother. 

And then there’s the reach. Years ago, I wrote for a newspaper with a Sunday circulation of about one million—it seemed huge. Most major glossy magazines, up through the 2008 economic downturn, hovered at about 700,000. This past summer I wrote a sports story that got 200k likes in one hour. Remember the first time you went viral? Holy crap.

 ***

In some ways the internet is like an opiate. You use it and develop a tolerance. You need more and more to maintain. And even more to get high.  

Recently, I wrote a whole section for a major magazine. I was proud of the work. A Father’s Day special, it featured stories about some pretty special guys— the fathers of a trans woman and a multi-racial son, an American-Muslim man raising his son in difficult political times, and another dad with two severely disabled twenty-somethings. For reasons having to do with marketing strategy (something about wanting to sell actual magazines?), it wasn’t featured online.

Being a magazine devoted to men’s health,  a copy of the new issue was easily found at the local drugstore. Seeing it there on the shelf, stacked with the others like days of yore, I felt…weirdly unfulfilled. Even after buying the usual four copies.

So I went home, tore the pages out of one of the magazines, and photographed each of with my iPhone.

I post, therefore I am. Please, follow me?