#1 person with 1 coherent vision? like i think pretty much everything every woman in asoiaf does is like

[smallhatlogan]

you don't need to hate on a female character for doing something seemingly foolish or cruel but you also don't always need to try to justify it, sometimes you can just say "Oh she acted this way because the writers sucked"

but sometimes her actions are perfectly justifiable and you're just bad at sympathizing with her or giving her the benefit of the doubt

[barbicha-imaginaria]

The cycle of Villanelle: an essay

In this essay, I will delve into Villanelle’s mental state and study the cyclical patterns of behavior that she seems to exhibit in relation to the emotional attachments she forms. All information taken from the show will focus on Phoebe Waller-Bridge’s version of Killing Eve (the first season), to maintain coherence. I will also consider events in Villanelle’s past that are uncovered in later seasons, as it has been stated several times that PWB already had Villanelle’s backstory defined and so it is likely that she contributed her vision to the events of, for example, S03E05.

“I know you’re a psychopath” - definition of psychopathy

First of all, a disclaimer: mental disorders are not neatly compartmentalized things, where someone is diagnosed when they fit every single criterium. These disorders manifest differently in each person, and often combine (for example, there are several disorders that increase the likelihood of developing anxiety) to form a set of symptoms that will resemble the “ideal” profile of a disorder but usually deviate in one way or another. This is why a diagnosis typically occurs when at least a certain number of the total symptoms is present, rather than only when they all occur. This is not a deviation from how the disorder manifests, but rather one of the many ways in which it can manifest.

This is particularly evident in the case of personality disorders, characterized by enduring maladaptive patterns of behavior, cognition, and inner experience, exhibited across many contexts and deviating from those accepted by the individual's culture. You will notice that there is a large internal component to this, a necessary internal logic, coherent to the individual but not consistent with social norms, which will of course be very difficult to define objectively by an external observer.

Psychopathy, which would be such a personality disorder, is not an actual diagnosis sanctioned by any psychiatric or psychological organization. In the DSM, we have its counterpart in antisocial personality disorder (ASPD), whose criteria for diagnosis focus more on behaviors than personality traits, as the former are easier to identify objectively. ASPD is characterized by a long-term pattern of disregard for, or violation of, the rights of others, a low moral sense or conscience, as well as a history of crime, legal problems, or impulsive and aggressive behavior. It seems pretty clear that Villanelle would perfectly fit this profile.

As psychopathy isn’t an actual diagnosis, we find that its definition is subjective and in fact, there are several different tests, checklists and definitions for it. One particularly interesting definition in this case is the separation of primary and secondary psychopaths. Taken directly from Wikipedia, and based on the paper [Vaughn, M. G., Edens, J. F., Howard, M. O., & Smith, S. T. (2009). An Investigation of Primary and Secondary Psychopathy in a Statewide Sample of Incarcerated Youth. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 7(3), 172–188]

The subtype known as "primary" psychopathy refers to individuals who are completely rational, lack anxiety and have high levels of interpersonal charm. Whilst these behaviours appear incredibly adaptive, primary psychopaths are also prone to dysfunctional and pathological traits such as an inability to learn from past mistakes and a lack of responsibility

"Secondary" psychopaths are individuals not dissimilar to primary psychopaths in the sense that they still share many of the same characteristics and traits. However, unlike the primary psychopath, the secondary psychopath is more likely to suffer from intense emotional arousal and psychological issues. As well as this, research conducted on adult psychopaths has suggested that secondary psychopaths are more prone participate in drug abuse, suicide and interpersonal aggression. Overall, what differentiates secondary psychopaths from primary psychopaths is their destructive behaviour as well an increased reactivity and impulsivity and an inability to control their emotions effectively.

Recalling that Villanelle is a fictional character and we can assume a certain leeway to her characterization in the name of entertainment, as well as the vague nature of all psychopathy diagnoses that has been established, we can arrive at a tentative description: Villanelle is mainly a primary psychopath, with diminished emotional reactions and a comfortable, stable personality, but a secondary psychopath pattern of behavior can be triggered by specific conditions. These triggers are studied in the next section.

“I know something happened to you” - timeline of Oksana / Villanelle

Based on the information given to us over the course of the show (under the conditions mentioned in the introduction above), we can establish a timeline for Oksana’s (and later, Villanelle’s) life.

1) Early childhood

Spent with parents and brother. Clearly already exhibited traits of psychopathy, as evidenced several times in S03E05. 

Tatiana (mother): “The orphanage phone me and say… you burn place down.”

Oksana: “Why didn’t you leave [Pyotr at the orphanage]? All he did was cry.”

Pyotr (brother): “Look, Oksana. You punching me in face.” 

Showed no affection for her mother or brother, but seemed attached to her father.

P: “What was he like?” O: “Funny. Strong. Taught me how to fight. He was much better.” P: “Than what?” O: “She was mean.” P: “You were mean.” O: “You were annoying.”

Villanelle believes she had a good relationship with her father, but her mother saw it differently.

T: “You took everything from me. You took him. You could control him. He would do anything for you because you had a darkness! (...) He thought you would do something to us.” 

O: “You are the darkness. You have always been the darkness. He wasn't scared of me. He was sick of you.” 

Seems to have been left in an orphanage by her mother after her father left the family in some way. Her brother believes that he died, but it is never mentioned how. In S01E07, Anna mentions that “Her mother was dead. Her father was a drunk”, which suggests he never died but rather became an alcoholic and left the family, but in S02E08, Villanelle says that her family "are all dead". In the orphanage, she was later told the rest of her family died. 

2) Adolescence

Spent the next years getting into trouble with the authorities. Arrest sheet (seen in S01E05) shows that she was in a juvenile delinquents centre, 2001-2006 (ages 8-13). After this, she entered the school where Anna taught. Their history is revealed mainly in S01E07 and S01E08

Anna: “We were told a new student was coming. History of violence. Antisocial behavior. (...) She arrived at the school and… everyone stepped back. Everyone. So I stepped forward. Extra time. Extra lessons. Extra love.”

Oksana exhibited typical manipulative behavior in getting more and more attention from Anna, moving on to demanding time alone with her and becoming jealous of her husband, who was seen as a rival for Anna’s affection. 

Eve: “This... isn't "a few" letters, Anna. This is…” Anna: “She had a... fixation.”

A: “Well, then she wanted more lessons after school. She was good at making you feel bad, so she was here a lot. And it was clear that she didn't like Max, but I thought it was because she didn't trust men.”

A: “No, but she sent me gifts. Clothes, perfume. She must have stolen them. Expensive French designers.”

Anna presents this as one-sided fixation in her conversation with Eve in S01E07.

A: “He said he was aware of my relationship with Oksana - she had been spinning lies again.”

E: “Did you ever have sex with Oksana?” A: “No!”

However, in her confrontation with Villanelle in S01E08 it becomes clear that the feelings were reciprocated in some way.

Villanelle: “The best sex we ever had was on that chair.”

Irina: “Did you two use to go out?” V&A: “She seduced me.”

Eventually, Oksana removed the obstacle in their relationship, Anna’s husband, by castrating and killing him. She expected this to be taken well, but it naturally led Anna to turn on her and she was arrested.

Anna: “There were balloons everywhere and a huge cake, and she was jumping around and... then she showed me what she had done. And she said it like it was a good thing. I went mad. I told her she was evil and crazy and... and then she was picked up by the police... and arrested.”

3) Rebirth as Villanelle

After 3 years in jail, Oksana was recruited by Konstantin to work for the Twelve (revealed by Nadia in S01E06). The organization faked her death and she moved to Paris to work as the assassin Villanelle. Konstantin became her handler, the only person with whom she had a continued relationship. This seems to have created a sort of attachment that differs from the usual fixation by being much less intense, becoming rather the psychopath’s version of a friendship.

In the course of her work, Villanelle met Eve. At first, her obsession with her seems caused by transference: her hair, very similar to Anna’s, caused the woman to fixate, as seen in S01E02.

Jerome: “So, Villanelle... [in Russian] Do you still have dreams about Anna?” Villanelle: (distressed) “That’s not Anna.”

As Eve is revealed to be in charge of the task force devoted to finding her, Villanelle became more interested, and over the course of Season 1, Eve’s actions further fueled her fixation. Eve clearly admired her, wanted to become closer to her and was able to surprise and challenge her. This both fed her ego and maintained her interest.

The season comes to a close with their confrontation in Villanelle’s Paris apartment. When Villanelle was certain that she had drawn in Eve, as she did with previous fixations, she was instead stabbed in the stomach. In a rage, she fired her gun at Eve then ran away.

“I think about you too” - Villanelle and emotional attachment

Circling back to the first section, where we established that there are certain triggers that lead Villanelle to a more emotional and unstable psychopathic profile, the timeline of the previous section seems to establish quite clearly that these triggers are the rare emotional attachments she forms: to her father, to Anna and then to Eve. These attachments take the form of a deep and obsessive fixation, which is still marked by lack of remorse or empathy, but which causes her to feel emotions deeply.

Either because the emotions are indeed felt to an extreme, or because she is simply not experienced with emotions and thus is easily overwhelmed, anything she feels due to these attachments is felt too intensely too ignore or process healthily, and in this way, she comes closer to the behavior of an extreme narcissist, in that she considers herself and her feelings as the most important thing at all times. This can also lead to a feeling of insecurity in the relationship, or like she isn't getting what she deserves, a fair treatment. Because she still lacks empathy and remorse, she will lack intrinsic motivation to make her attachment happy, and will only try to do so when not distracted by her own wants and desires in the relationship. She will also usually act from her own perspective, rather than try to think of what the other would want. 

Actions which a neurotypical individual clearly sees as wrong and to be avoidable, on one level because it would hurt their partner, and on another because it is simply not ethical, seem perfectly fine to her if motivated by her own internal logic. For example, hurting the members of the family that she doesn’t care about or forcing them away so that they won’t compete for her father’s attention, stealing expensive clothing to offer it as a gift, killing Anna’s husband or Eve’s partner Bill. Not only is she not bothered by guilt or remorse over it, she most likely sees nothing wrong with it in the first place: if she is as important to her attachments as they are to her, they won’t have a problem with her actions, as they only serve to deepen their bond. If her attachments react negatively, due to concern for other people, she will be hurt and betrayed, and feel that her deep feelings are not returned.

In this way, Villanelle is indeed capable of feelings, and of being hurt and even crying, but she will most likely never make a healthy partner, and will have no problem engaging in toxic and manipulative behaviors if they are in line with her goals. 

“I really liked you” - the cycle of Villanelle

Now looking back on her past relationships with her father and Anna, we find a common evolution in all of them: Villanelle develops an interest, which is returned. Her obsessive attachment grows, which puts a strain on the relationship. She is possessive, needs all her gestures of affection to be appreciated and returned. At some point she crosses a line which pushes the other away, and on both cases this leads to her being forcefully separated from them. 

This creates in her mind a narrative that the people she loves disappoint or betray her, so that every time she opens her heart, it leads to heartbreak. Add to that the fact that she gets no closure (or, more likely, revenge) and you get someone who is very volatile around love, liable to explode at any rejection, but also insecure from past experiences and thus more likely to see something as rejection.

Part of Oksana's rebirth as Villanelle, which marked her escape from her troubled past and transition to a life where she is in control and wants for nothing, was to bury the part of herself that “fell in love”. Oksana was fragile and Villanelle is not, and this is one of the ways in which Villanelle wants to manifest that. In the terms we use in this essay, she wants to fully become a primary psychopath, finding refuge in the stability of that unemotional mindspace. 

Unfortunately for Villanelle, she does not actually have control over which facet of her psychopathy manifests. Thus, when her attachment to Anna (never resolved, as mentioned above) transfers to Eve and is then reinforced through several interactions and encounters, Villanelle doesn't really seem capable of or interested in resisting. Rather, due to Eve's particularly reckless behavior, she is more encouraged than ever before, and will easily be given to believe that Eve will be "different" - a belief that the audience is more and more likely to share as the season progresses and especially towards the end of S01E08.

The end of Season 1 completes the cycle of Villanelle's emotional connections by having Eve do the same as her past attachments: betray her. As they come to a moment of intimacy, where Villanelle has let her guard down, Eve stabs her. The shock of the rejection is compounded with past experience and trauma to create an instant and intense feeling of betrayal that does not allow for any form of reasoning or further processing. Thus, it makes perfect sense that Villanelle would then revolt against her, try to shoot her, and finally run away, regardless of the fact that Eve immediately regrets her actions and tries to help her. 

“I want to kill her” - the aftermath

The case of Eve has one crucial difference from those of Villanelle’s father and of Anna. As mentioned in the previous section, in both cases, Villanelle’s attachment was forcefully ended and she was immediately removed from the situation. She has never been able to avenge herself of the wrongdoing she suffered, or come to terms with the situation in any way. She claims to move on, and later on seems perfectly capable of killing Anna, saying that she no longer loves her, but it is more likely that she has simply internalized both rejections rather than processed them.

In this case, breaking the pattern, she has not been taken from Eve and Eve has not been taken from her. She can get her closure as soon as she is recovered. This would be a way to step away from her cycle of emotional attachment and possibly set free some hangup in Villanelle's mind that has lingered since her childhood, and so it is very probable that Villanelle herself would latch on to the idea. In addition to the desire for revenge naturally originating from Eve’s betrayal, which would most likely be enough to make her fixate on returning to Eve, there would also be the desire for recovery, fueled by the belief that she can become a better version of herself (more Villanelle-like, less Oksana-like) by going through the ritual of closure, not only from Eve, but from all past rejections.

This leads us to the final conclusion of this essay. At the end of Season 1, we are at the final and lowest point of Villanelle’s cycle, and through analysis of the character of Villanelle, find a strong prediction for how she would behave in the aftermath: to seek revenge as soon as possible, almost as a fixation, due to past trauma on the subject. The way in which this revenge is sought would define Villanelle’s trajectory for the rest of her life, determining in one way or another the end to the pattern of behavior and experiences that has marked her first 25 years.

In this way, the narrative followed in Season 2 becomes unsatisfying in two ways: its beginning and its end. 

The beginning: Villanelle does not desire revenge, but instead believes that Eve hurt her because she loves her. This deviates from a pattern of 25 years for no evident reason, and thus seems to hinge on a lack of internal consistency of the character of Villanelle. However, we have established that even someone with a personality disorder will show this consistency, although in a way that isn’t compatible with the outside world. Psychopaths are not erratic, and would not change their minds on something as fundamental to their development, and a belief so emotionally charged, unless they were significantly challenged.

The end: As the season progresses, Eve and Villanelle are pulled tighter and tighter together, until the explosive finale, when Villanelle opens up in a moment of vulnerability and Eve rejects her. Then, she does seek revenge as soon as possible, by shooting Eve. You will notice that, thematically, this is the exact same progression as the end of Season 1. Inevitably, the viewer is left with the feeling that the showrunner simply ran the plot line of Season 2 through a loop to finish the season at the same point as it started, in order to avoid having to deal with the fallout of such a confrontation.

[copperbadge]

Infinity War: A Review As Long As The Movie Itself

Okay, so I saw Infinity War a second time and most of my thoughts were unchanged plus I had one cool new one, and I have had a lot more sleep now than I had in the early part of the week. So I think now I’m good to talk about it. 

This is mostly a series of observations rather than a coherent review. Spoilers, very obviously, below the cut. If you are on mobile and can’t see a cut below before a massive wall of text, please scroll fast if you don’t want to be spoiled. 

1. I mentioned this before but this movie does feel like a series of video game cut scenes. Part of that is visual -- more than any other MCU movie, there are times when Infinity War is an animated film. There are a lot of moments where it’s just straight-up CGI with maybe Josh Brolin’s eyeballs. The two most noticeable ones are Thanos waking up with the soul stone and Thanos and Iron Man fighting on Titan, probably because Thanos is, uh, he’s not always very convincingly animated and the new model for Iron Man is a bit on the uncanny-valley side (the head in particular is weird). 

But also, there is so much to cram into the movie that every scene has to dump a lot of info pretty quickly. Which is not necessarily bad -- they do it very deftly -- but it means we get a series of tastes rather than a good main course. We get hints of where Steve, Sam, Wanda, and Natasha have been, but no real information, and it’s treated as if it’s basically irrelevant. We see Wanda and Vision in a secret-romance situation, but we never really see anything about why their relationship works or how they got there. The same with Peter and Gamora. There’s been bedrock laid down for these relationships in previous films, but there’s no building on that bedrock. And when you get to non-romantic relationships that gets even thinner because it’s difficult to no-homo a male friendship in the time allotted and 90% of the characters in these movies are male so there’s a shitload of relationships that fall by the wayside. 

I had some interesting conversations about how Peter Parker’s death scene was really dramatic and carried a ton of impact for Tony, and that’s good, but that is a scene I think Bucky and Steve should also have gotten and couldn’t because the no-homo in a very obviously parent-child relationship is much easier to convey. (Also because of a later point I’ll get to, see 10, where Tony and Peter in the Death Scene have to stand in for literally every other relationship.) 

2. A thirtysomething heterosexual white boy mad about his girlfriend doomed half the universe. Peter Quill’s lack of self-control indirectly caused the death of trillions when he punched Thanos, and that’s all I could think about during that scene. It’s so funny and so unfunny at the same time, because while it’s a (perhaps unintended) commentary on a lot of recent mass violence in America I am 100% sure that he will not suffer consequences for it. I mean, yes, he’s dead as a consequence, but LBR he’s not staying dead and when he’s back alive again he will suffer no ill will from anyone lasting longer than five minutes of Tony yelling, maybe. 

Also, I get that Thanos is big and strong but surely cutting his arm off would have been faster than pulling the glove off. I would imagine there are all kinds of arguments against it (he can still control it if his hand’s still in it, cutting his arm off would wake him, etc), but I’m pretty sure “narrative necessity” is the top one. 

3. I’m uncomfortable with all the Holocaust-y blown-to-ash imagery in the Death Scene following hard on the heels of, and then being followed itself by, a bunch of scenes that really seem to want to make us sympathize with the person who caused it, including one where he walks on water. (I can already hear people saying “It’s dust not ash” and that’s a conversation people can have if they want but in a moment that Gamora explicitly describes as a genocide in which trillions of people die because of a so-called lack of resources, which was, you know, a real Hitler talking point in the thirties, I’m not only reading it as ash, I’m reading it as a very specific kind of ash, and that’s not gonna change.) 

There is so much time spent on trying to make Thanos sympathetic in this movie. I get that they want him to come off as if he believes he’s the hero, because that’s basic good-villain writing 101. But less sympathy for the devil could have allowed room for the actual heroes to get some more character development. Thanos is so ludicrously over-powered by the time we meet him that I don’t really give a shit why he does what he does, and if the story IS a commentary on the brutality of genocide, then like, we don’t really want to be sympathizing with the guy committing it.

But because of all this, what I am hoping for in part two is a real hardcore demonstration of how evil he truly is to balance how sympathetic they tried to play him here. We see hints of his monstrosity under a veil of self-assumed virtue in this movie, occasionally. There’s the torture of Nebula, of course, and Eitri’s hands are also evidence. We have enough to see that he’s not just a crusader, he’s also able and eager to torment and maim. So I’m hopeful for more of that and less of his Purple Man’s Burden in part two. 

Related to this is a scene where Thanos says one thing that I think is really vital to his monstrosity, though I doubt this was intentional: he says it will be an objective genocide, “Rich and poor alike.” Really, we know that wealth causes excess consumption and hoarding of resources; you don’t have to kill half the population to balance its resources. You just have to kill the richest. However you feel about capitalism or wealth accumulation, whether you think killing the rich is justifiable, if you’re going to just slaughter a bunch of people in order to fix shit, you slaughter fewer for a much higher ROI if you slaughter the rich. That’s just....accounting. And the fact that Thanos doesn’t acknowledge this says to me that at the end of the day he wants the power of life and death, and he has no justification for it. But the problem is that I don’t believe the writers examined that line themselves or even thought of it, which makes me worried about whether we will get an expression of Thanos’s evil without a justification of his actions in part two. 

4. I’ve never seen Peter Dinklage in anything other than this, and after seeing the film for the first time I asked a friend, “IS he a terrible actor in everything? I didn’t think so, people seem to like him, but he’s dreadful in this.” The second time round, it was pointed out to me that they’re artificially slowing his voice, which makes him seem ludicrously overacted. Sorry, Peter Dinklage, I misjudged you, and this movie done wrong by you. 

5. Normally I don’t fully enjoy Rocket in the Guardians movies because there’s just a lot of him and the 2-3 jokes (what is he, he likes to murder, he’s a jerk) get old fast. I enjoyed him in this, because he got what I feel is the appropriate amount of screen time vis a vis the rest of the movie, and also Bucky picking him up was super funny. 

6. Bucky’s face when he sees the arm and asks where the fight is, weep loudly if you agree. Sebastian Stan can say more with his face than some actors can with a full on monologue. Also I am writing a fanfic about Bucky’s time on a Wakandan farm, working title: “My Dumb Goats.”

7. Literally nobody saw Sam Wilson die and I’m circulating a petition about it. Come on, at least give him a witness. Fuck. I think Sam’s death actually hit me the hardest because there wasn’t even anyone there to say goodbye to him. 

8. I gasped when Red Skull pulled his cowl down, oh my Jesus what a moment.

9. The first time I saw Captain America: Winter Soldier, when Bucky stood up without the mask, a woman behind me said, “Oh my god, it’s his BEST FRIEND,” with amazement in her voice. Watching Infinity War, when Gamora started going off about how Thanos doesn’t love anything, the guy in the seat next to me said, “Oh no, IT’S YOU.” I sometimes really enjoy going to movies surrounded by people who aren’t in fandom and don’t read subtext as quickly as fandom does. 

10. Here’s my new theory that is maybe not new and has been super obvious to everyone else forever. Preface: it’s not that I didn’t know Iron Man is in a shitload of the Marvel movies, or that I didn’t find that significant. We know that “I am Iron Man” is frequently considered the start of the MCU timeline even though Steve Rogers was the first avenger, and the first Iron Man film is iconic within the MCU (though they have never gone back to it for visual or thematic inspiration which is frustrating). 

But it seems really evident now, having seen part one of two and having seen Tony Stark in it, that not only is this “his” film in many ways, but the MCU to date is Tony Stark’s saga. Maybe I’m just slow to pick this up, but when he says Thanos has been in his head for six years, it was an indicator -- inadequate, see my Cut Scene theory, but still, it made me realize -- that the Avengers films and even many of the character films post-Avengers (Civil War and Homecoming, most obviously) are the story of Tony’s struggle with the shadow of Thanos up through his face-to-face confrontation with him. 

Like, we’ve seen that it’s something Tony grapples with, but I hadn’t realized that grappling was the entire point. In Age of Ultron, Ultron actually become a macguffin, he becomes a secondary indicator of Tony’s obsession with Thanos rather than a villain in his own right, which almost makes me want to watch that movie again even though I hated it. The vision of death and destruction Wanda gives Tony is Thanos-driven, and all his actions in every film post-Avengers are motivated by his fear of and antipathy for Thanos, even if he doesn’t yet know his name or face. And this is why Strange gives up the Time stone to save Tony, because that one win in fourteen million losses depends on Tony Stark. 

This is also why Peter Parker and Tony get a lot of time to bicker like family about nothing in particular throughout this film, leading up to the one true dramatic death scene in the Death Scene -- because for time’s sake they could really only pick one death to fully engage with, and it had to be the one affecting Tony, and we had to see them bonding to see WHY it affected Tony. He’s got to be the one to end Thanos, one way or another, and will likely be some form of uniting factor among the surviving heroes in the climax of part two. Which, I have a significant level of admiration for how deftly that process has taken place, even if I know that it will 99% likely lead to Tony’s permadeath in part two. 

It also makes me wonder about RDJ’s guiding hand in these films. I’m given to understand that even on movies where he’s not producer he often brings in his own script doctors to ensure he’s getting the best possible role he can get. I wonder if he and Kevin Feige had some kind of offer-you-can’t-refuse meeting once it became evident that the franchise was going to really come together as a single, if heavily branching, narrative. It also makes me wonder how much of the “RDJ is the Godfather of the Marvel Universe” we’ve seen in recent media is a talking point the actors were given in their press-interview briefing packets. 

11. Okay in the credits at one point it says “Character from Arrested Development courtesy of 20th Century Fox.” What....is up with that? What character? I don’t watch the show. 

12. SUPER EXCITED FOR CAROL DANVERS IN A GENERAL SENSE AND ALSO SEVERAL SPECIFIC SENSES. 

So those are my thoughts. Go ye and engage with them, I guess. :D

Did you enjoy this review or find it insightful? Consider buying me a buttery tub of popcorn at my Ko-Fi or via my Paypal!

[mailorderfictionalcharacter]

a list of semi coherent thoughts I’ve had about mcu wanda maximoff

0.5 this post is open to discourse. if u are unwilling to see viewpoints that are pro wanda or anti wanda this is not the post 4 u.

1. wanda runs off of very powerful emotions and that’s an a + character trait. her rage fueled grief and power is just fascinating to watch.

2. ew whitewashing why do you do this to me mcu. stop. enough.

3. yeah it’s kind of ridiculous to kill the ex-ceo of a weapons company that killed your parents as compared to whoever fired the missiles or whoever ordered said military action but it’s not that ridiculous if you apply the barest modicum of generous interpretation to it.

Tony Stark was emblematic of the very destructive American ideal of we’re great and right and coming with guns. Going off of IM2, even as he was doing great things (”I’ve successfully privatized world peace”) his performance was still very um American (”no one’s man enough to go [against me]”). Like as audience members we get it but I could see how that sort of look-at-me attitude would not ring like redemption to someone in that much emotional pain. Like, you could easily read their actions as being about attacking every American/foreign influence figure head, which is sort of supported by the fact that the twins wanted the avengers down not just Tony Stark.

If the weapons were illegally sold there’s no guarantee the twins knew that Tony wasn’t responsible. It’s possible Tony leaked the truth about Obadiah after the “I Am Iron Man” press conference, but the original plan was a SHIELD coverup.

I’m not inclined to conflate profiting of our wrongs or moral ambiguities on the same moral level as instigating wrongs, but it’s also up in the air whether or not Stark Industries cared about collateral damage in the design of their weapons and that’s something the twins could legitimately blame them for. IM1 canon is a mixed bag - we have intellicrops (concern for philanthropy) but we also have, y’know the Jericho (the weapon that levels mountains)

(read more under the cut)

tl;dr: wanda is a fascinating flawed character who suffers from writing problems but she’s also wearing the name of a jewish/romani woman even though marvel studios is too much of a coward to translate that to film & i’m perpetually bitter and indecisive about everything.

4. the twins had enormous social factors encouraging them to hate the avengers/america. even american media was questioning the avengers; shield had fell; people were putting up anti avengers graffiti

5. considering the twins spent their formative years in a country at war and lost their parents I’m assuming they went through quite a few economic hardships.

6. what sort of access did the twins have to media or education?

7. I’m not inclined to blame the twins for their desire to get revenge but it is worth noting that they seemed to have very little concern for collateral damage even though the only thing we as an audience knows for certain is that the whole reason they’re seeking revenge is because of collateral damage.

8. there’s a gap of 8-12 years between the death of their parents and their attack on the avengers. no matter what mitigating circumstances there were (and I think there were a lot) that’s a premeditated crime

9. there’s a lot of parallels between wanda maximoff and kira nerys except the writers on Star Trek: Deep Space Nine actually cared about Kira Nerys.

10. both of Wanda’s major fuck ups (willingly unleashing the Hulk on Johannesburg and failing to protect everyone in Lagos) happened in African countries. I believe in some suspension of belief for superhero movies but I’m not sure it’s entirely appropriate to be like hey! look at Wanda! the whitewashed character who fucks things up in African countries! such girl power! great anti-imperialism message!

(I mean, the same disregard applies to all the avengers though. I’m pretty sure the safest interpretation of Lagos is “the avengers could have done better by not fighting in proximity with a bunch of civilians” which is on Steve. And unless I fever dreamed this Steve tosses his cowl at the feet of anti-avengers graffiti in the beginning of aou and there is nothing appropriate about that).

11. Wanda was introduced in AOU, a movie with sub par dialogue and tbh I have a feeling Whedon et.al never thought through the implications of Johannesburg bc he just wanted a convenient way to introduce a hulkbuster fight.

12. tbh I really want a scarlet witch movie to fix all of this but I also really want a recast and I know I won’t get either (fanon wanda is the best because we can fix all of this with a hammer).

13. CA:CW seemed to draw on a lot of Wanda’s comic history (specifically in the oppression metaphors) but since it followed the clusterfuck that was AOU I can’t exactly give them a standing ovation for that.

14. ca:cw did a very bad job following through wanda’s plot threads from aou. tbh I’m not even team we need to stretch Wanda’s redemption arc further but idk, it might be nice if she mentioned her dead brother or tied the Lagos incident/Sokovia accords to, idk, her past living in a war zone.

15. ca:cw could’ve given me wanda wryly commenting on how luxurious the compound was compared to sokovia but instead it gave the should-be-jewish character a cross in her bedroom and fuck that marvel why don’t you just stake me through the heart so I don’t have to deal with your bullshit

16. I wish wanda in the airport scene was more about her desire to do good (go stop the supersoldiers) than the awkward oppression metaphor

17. although push come to shove I would’ve focused on poverty/american foreign intervention over calling the powers she volunteered for the source of her oppression the whole raft scene does demonstrate that people whose powers (or even training) cannot be separated like say Sam and the Falcon or Tony and the suits face a special criminal justice risk.

but this isn’t really relevant to the accords, which are not the SHRA and honestly the same ethical problem of how to incarcerate enhanced people exists whether or not someone is acting as a superhero (is it ethical to put a psychic murderer in solitary confinement if that’s the only way to prevent them from using their powers to escape or assault guards?)

18. according to beta canon/film subtext wanda & pietro did not willingly sign up to work with hydra. Just good to remember.

19. I will forever be attached to the idea of wanda liking Vision’s company because he is both practically invulnerable (not going to get shot 7 times on a floating city) and emotionally dependent on her support (just like Pietro). (this is not implying twincest btw)

20. I think wanda’s house arrest in ca:cw is not completely unreasonable (she’s probably awaiting investigation & is at risk of being hurt/hurting others from mob violence) but definitely steve (and probably natasha & sam) should be under house arrest as well. but they aren’t, and I think it’s fair to say that in universe that’s xenophobia/anti-immigrant sentiment. why be afraid of the american icon when you can be afraid of the poor sokovian woman?

21. antis make way too much of the whole “she’s just a kid line”. like steve was responding to tony calling her, a human being, a weapon of mass destruction. like, he was just trying to humanize her and calling the youngest person in a group a kid even when they’re an adult isn’t that strange.

22. in lagos wanda was trying so damn hard to stop that bomb and yes she didn’t manage it but blaming her instead of steve? uh gross.

23. how much experience does she have? yes tony stark throwing himself into superheroics worked out surprisingly well but superheroes need training

24. I insist marvel release a 22 page dissertation on wanda’s mind powers but also if I don’t like it I’ll call it not canon. (my initial theory was that she produces ptsd symptoms - even if the person normally doesn’t suffer from ptsd - but something in the confidence that she can manipulate tony before entering his mind makes me think she has slight suggestive abilities beyond fear and also thor’s vision arguably followed a different vein)

25. antis like to argue that the maximoffs only turned on ultron because it benefited them but let’s be clear the maximoffs fought ultron because they thought he was wrong and wanted to personally help. they could’ve just tipped off the avengers and left or left ultron to do whatever ultron was going to do and only fought him if he directly came after them okay the twins had options and they chose the most altruistic option.

26. ppl who say wanda isn’t really whitewashed because marvel’s decades of retcons have whitewashed her at past points are pretty much using a two-wrongs argumentative fallacy.