#Film criticism

[sapphiresaphics]

The biggest misunderstanding about Caitlyn from fans actually comes from season 1, not 2. Fans see Caitlyn break Vi out of prison and talk to Ekko about empathy and think that she’s learning and growing as a character and then when season 2 hits they think all that growth was somehow “abandoned” or “reversed.”

But that’s not true.

Caitlyn has ALWAYS been a spoiled little rich girl who came from a family of rich people who are so used to how much power they have in the city that they don’t regard ANYONE’S feelings or respect ANY rules. Both Marcus and Salow spell this out to us.

Marcus: “She’s a Kiramman! Just like them she does what she wants! I can’t control her!”

Salow: “It’s the name! It bewitches people.”

Time skip Caitlyn is introduced investigating the botched Jinx job at the shipping docks. She is not an official detective and Marcus makes it clear she isn’t supposed to be there. She’s supposed to be guarding her family’s pavilion, but she ignored both her mother’s AND the sheriff’s wishes to investigate a crime because she’s bored.

She breaks Vi out of prison AFTER she’s been effectively laid-off by Marcus, using her connections to Jayce to forge her release papers. Reminder: at this point in the story she is technically not a cop anymore. She’s doing all this stuff with noble intentions of trying to uncover Silco and bring Jinx to justice… but what she’s doing is technically illegal. And the only reason she’s able to get away with it is because she’s a spoiled rich BRAT.

Her privilege shields her from repercussions in season 1, just as they do in season 2.

The difference is that she’s now been traumatized by Jinx. Her bodily autonomy was violated by Jinx kidnapping her when she was literally naked in the shower, she was most likely tortured by Jinx, was tied up and painted on, threatened to be executed at gun point by Jinx, and then to top it all off Jinx murders her mother in a terrorist attack.

And Caitlyn tries to hold it all in. She tries to confide with Vi, she tries to let her hatred go… but both times she is denied her the ability to grieve properly. First by her privilege and not understanding that asking Vi to become an Enforcer would be rejected. And then by Ambessa by funding the attack on the memorial service.

She has no parental figure to guide her, her rage and hatred for Jinx is boiling over… so she resorts to what she always does and what she did back in season 1. She just does what she wants to get her way. She convinces Jayce to develop hextech weapons, she assumes the role of leader for house Kiramman, and she uses her unique position in power to bend systems her family put in place to protect Zaun against them.

Caitlyn in season 2 is very much the same Caitlyn we’ve always known from season 1. The difference is that in season 1 we were rooting for her because we like Vi. She exhausted the same disrespect for authority and people back then but they were in service of things we, the audience, liked. So we gave her a pass. We excused her rule breaking. We ignored her unique brand of privilege because we liked what her privilege could unlock for us.

Season 2 slams that door shut and tells us “no, actually, you weren’t supposed to like this because nobody in power is innocent.”

But rather than learn more about Caitlyn and understand her character better… people are dismiss this all as “bad writing” or “character assassination.”

And what’s more frustrating is the whole “dictator arc.” Because frankly I would argue that by that point Caitlyn HAS learned her lesson about privilege and power, but it’s too late to stop things now. Just as Jayce going vigilante in season 1 was the start of a cataclysmic event, Caitlyn gassing Zaun to look for Jinx results in Caitlyn losing everyone she trusts and respects. Broken up with Vi and alone, she is suddenly granted even MORE power than she’s ever had by Ambessa. And you can see it affect her. In that moment she realizes that Ambessa is the one who spearheaded the attack on the memorial. After seeing what happened between her and Vi, she realizes that by taking this role she will be responsible for even greater atrocities.

She has 2 choices. Let it all go, or use the position of power to her advantage. And just like before in season 1… she chooses the later. Her goal may still be to get Jinx, but she does NOT want to be a part of Ambessa’s dictatorship. This is why she’s so reluctant to join even with all the peer pressure. This is why she’s so slow and hesitant to walk forward. And she only accepts the cape she is crowned with once Ambessa says “your mother will have justice.”

What’s most important about this scene is that SHE KNOWS Ambessa is using her. That’s why when we see her in Act 2 she’s already trying to counter Ambessa’s plans. That’s why she’s constantly challenging Ambessa with “why is peace always the excuse for violence?” That’s why when Ambessa says “you don’t trust me?” Caitlyn responds with a resounding “no.” And that’s why when Vi drops back into her life she realizes she has an opportunity to correct her mistakes. She doesn’t switch on a dime because Vi fluttered her eyes and called her “cupcake.” She switches because she was already looking for an out. And this is why when Vi confronts her in Act 3 she screams “I KNOW.”

Caitlyn’s arc is that of someone who always had privilege and power coming to realize too late how dangerous and harmful that power is. By the time she learns her lesson she’s already entrenched with Ambessa and stuck in this hateful miasma for Jinx. Season 1 was setup for what was going to follow with how her character was going to learn and atone for her mistakes.

And what’s so god damn frustrating about all the discourse around Caitlyn is how reductive and dismissive it all is. So much of the discourse completely ignores the actions she takes to fix things in favor of trumping up the actions she took to get there. All of her transgressions in season 1 are ignored and her own internalized growth is reduced to a joke about Vi calling her cupcake. It’s MADDENING.

[humanoidhistory]

Mad Max 2, aka The Road Warrior. Critics seem to like it!

[enbycrip]

YES.

ALL OF THIS.

THIS is why this film still hits so hard after all these years.

It’s not some sugary BS about “you can think yourself out of suicidal depression by just learning to appreciate what you’ve got”.

It’s about the fact that people who work really fucking hard for their communities experience active, targeted, criminal pushback from exploiters.

About the fact that caring, in all its manifestations, is incredibly physically and mentally taxing and is often done by disabled people - YES, George Bailey is a disabled protagonist. His impairment prevents him from military service and actively causes him chronic pain that, as a person who lives with it, *will* affect his energy levels and fatigue constantly.

Notably, IAWL actually has a bunch of disabled characters. Not only is George disabled, but I’d put money on his uncle who loses the money being ADHD and very possibly having other learning disabilities and the film *actively* flagging that fact to the audience, even if it doesn’t necessarily know what ADHD is.

Which casts a whole new light on its principal villain being disabled. Instead of Old Man Potter being a flat caricature of “disability = evil”, what he *actually* is is a fantastic example of the fact that marginalisation in one axis does not prevent someone being an active oppressor - and wealth and class privilege, in particular, tend to mean a person actively acting to oppress other people who share their marginalisation in order to privilege the interests of their own class as a whole. Sometimes even damaging their own individual interests to do so.

It’s also super interesting that the *material* miracle in the film is not the appearance of an angel to show George what life would have been like if he had never existed, but the *community solidarity* that saves him from jail and his family from penury. The supernatural intervention can change his *mindset*, and that is *incredibly* important, given it *literally* stops him killing himself, but the *material* intervention is mutual aid from his own community that he has given so much to.

Which is incredibly radical as a message. It’s not saying “faith is worthless”; it’s saying “faith can be an incredibly important factor in creating resilience in moments of despair, but we can’t, and *need not*, wait for a supernatural miracle to save us; we have the capacity to save ourselves and each other in our hands right now”.

[davidhudson]

Roger Ebert, June 18, 1942 – April 4, 2013.

[forthegothicheroine]

Thinking long and hard about why we dislike what we dislike can be just as crucial to the formation of a distinctive and articulate sensibility as thinking through why we love what we love. Helpful criticism is criticism that leads us into interesting territory, and negative territory can be plenty interesting. Attending to negative criticism helps us avoid complacency. Over time, we develop habits for engaging with art. We focus on certain elements but ignore others, interpret films from certain directors more charitably than others, internalize cultural dogma without realizing it, and so on. Reading negative criticism about movies we are disposed to view charitably can shake us out of our complacency and disrupt our habitual strategies for engagement. Although this can damage our liking for a particular movie, it stands to enhance our relationship with the medium overall. Getting too entrenched in our habits can cause our relationship with film to stagnate, as we become so comfortable in our established outlook that we stop growing.

Matthew Strohl, Hard to Watch: How to Fall in Love With Difficult Movies

[vital-information]

Meditative TV

Tales from the Loop // Mushishi // Joe Pera Talks with You

“Many films diminish us. They cheapen us, masturbate our senses, hammer us with shabby thrills, diminish the value of life. Some few films evoke the wonderment of life's experience, and those I consider a form of prayer. Not prayer "to" anyone or anything, but prayer "about" everyone and everything. I believe prayer that makes requests is pointless. What will be, will be. But I value the kind of prayer when you stand at the edge of the sea, or beneath a tree, or smell a flower, or love someone, or do a good thing. Those prayers validate existence and snatch it away from meaningless routine.”

—Roger Ebert, “A Prayer Beneath the Tree of Life”

[thefugitivesaint]

In case you didn't know dear reader, 'Every Frame A Painting' has returned with a new video essay (it's been about 8 years since Taylor Ramos and Tony Zhou put a video essay together outside of some special features they crafted for The Criterion Collection [examples one & two], Filmstruck, and for the Netflix series Voir). It seems like this return is set to be a "limited series" of video essays. The series will be followed by a short film called "The Second," starring Paul Sun-Hyung Lee & Ethan Hwang (which is briefly described as being about "an alternate version of today’s world where dueling is still acceptable Philip, a man of tradition, must perform the role of “Second” on the day of his only son’s duel.") if you enjoy movies and you have an interest in video essays, then I highly suggest giving 'Every Frame' a watch. The essays are concise, insightful, and well crafted. The duo of Zhou and Ramos are often credited for establishing video essays as a "legitimate" medium on Youtube. Whether or not this claim is valid is besides the point, all I know is that their channel was one of the few channels I subscribed to and was always happy to watch. Glad to have more from them to enjoy.

[courseyoulovemeyoudontknowme]

Peter Pan (1953, Hamilton Luske, Clyde Geronimi and Wilfred Jackson)

16/09/2024

[kaccvcate]

A great work of art should illicit an emotional response. Cannibal Holocaust (1980), one of the most infamous movies ever made, does exactly this, in spades. The creative leads were Italian, but the majority of the actors are Yanomami, the same ethnicity as most of the actors in Boorman's The Emerald Forest (1985.)

The beginning of the movie establishes that a group of young people researching cannibalism went missing after a expedition into the Amazon to contact previously isolated tribes. After a search, their bodies and footage are recovered, and this found footage makes up the majority of the film. It reveals that the young filmmakers were extremely prejudiced, and when they find the tribe they’re looking for, they terrify them with guns and violence, and burn their entire village. The jungle people rightfully murder the townies, and then just to be extra cool, they eat them, too.

Cannibalism is a controversial topic. In most human cultures, it’s extremely taboo; in some it’s abstracted and ritualized (such as in Catholicism); and to some chads still living out in the bush it’s highly sacred. I think European people are extremely oversensitive about culturally diverse funereal practices – for example, thanks to the colonial government occupying my country, I’ll be unable to keep my father’s bones after he dies, an ancient Choctaw tradition that we both would prefer to follow. To the Fore people of Papua New Guinea, the only respectful way of handling your loved one’s corpse is to eat their brains. Most cultures that practice cannibalism eat their enemies after defeating them in battle, which is similar to the culture of our cousins, the Chimpanzees. There’s also evidence of the practice by some early hominids in Europe. This leads me to think battlefield cannibalism was once universally practiced by our shared ancestors, and then dropped by certain cultures over time, so really you anti-cannibals are the freaks. Cannibalism is an especially controversial topic among some indigenous activists, because historically some North American tribes were accused of practicing it who never did, to justify European conquest (most of us always had a taboo similar to Europeans.) Personally, I think it would be better to rest in the warm belly of a friend, than to spend eternity in the cold, hard ground. Maybe if colonizers had to eat what they killed, they would kill less people. Human flesh makes good food for thought, at any rate.

Aside from the staged cannibalism, this movie contains footage of real war atrocities, and multiple real hunting scenes. They butcher and eat every animal killed on film. If the abstract thought of killing an animal to eat it is disgusting to you, I think you are probably extremely out of touch with reality. Colonial society separates people from food production so thoroughly that extremely normal things are frightening and strange to adults, as they ought only to be to young children. Even if you’re vegan, the fact of the matter is that without animal products our ancestors would not have survived, and animal products are indispensable to the future of sustainable living (if you think “vegan leather,” aka plastic, is better for the environment, you are a fucking moron, and don’t even get me started on the detrimental effects of synthetic fabrics, dyes, and scents, not to mention their byproducts.) “Wah wah, I don’t want want to look, dead animals are yucky.” Actually dead animals are beautiful and delicious, but have fun living in la-la fantasy land I guess. Non-human animals kill and eat each other all the time, even supposedly herbivorous deer and cows will eat meat when they have a chance. The idea that it's somehow immoral for humans to do so is anthropocentric elitism, which contributes to colonialism and environmental destruction. You will never survive the glorious people’s revolution.

Another reason this movie is so effective is the groundbreaking special effects, which are extremely convincing, especially given that they're placed alongside real animal violence. There's also several rape scenes - the one most commented on by mainstream reviewers is the one committed by a Yanomami man, but the European characters actually rape more women and break rules of consent in more varied contexts throughout the movie. During one of the only two times characters have sex and it isn't assault, it's filmed without the woman's consent, and the other time the Yanomami are forced to watch, so there's actually no consensual sex in the entire movie.

Most movies are about how the world is really a good place, and kindness wins out in the end. To me, the world has not always been so nice, and I’ve seen many real life examples where good people did not win, so horror movies are actually life-affirming in a very satisfying way. I’m not trying to say the tribe portrayed by the Yanomami are worse than the European characters (far from it) but what makes this a great horror movie is that there aren’t actually any “good” characters. We’re shown some pretty violent traditions the fictional tribe keeps, and I think some of the inhuman, barbaric practices of our “modern civilization” would be equally offensive to an isolated jungle nation, such as industrial pollution and prison slavery (not to mention the actions of the European characters in the movie.) Frankly, if you don’t like seeing racist white people get torn apart and eaten by some tribal-ass cannibal dudes, I think you probably just have bad taste.

[sasheneskywalker]

This video is not about The Batman | Renegade Cut

Transcript [emphasis added by me]:

"Okay, stop me if you've heard this a million times before. Why doesn't Batman use his wealth to solve poverty instead of punching criminals? That's a pretty loaded question huh. The most common counter argument is: Batman has the Wayne Foundation. Don't you read the comic books? The statement in this counter argument is technically true. The fictional narrative of Batman in the comic books and sometimes other media references the Caped Crusader’s charitable donations. But this counter is only meaningful if we're talking about whether or not the fictional Bruce Wayne gives some of his fictional money to a fictional city which we're probably not. The question “why doesn't Batman use his wealth to solve poverty instead of punching criminals” is not a condemnation of Batman as if he were real, like a real guy. It's not some righteous indignation about some man, some bibatted man who doesn't exist. It's only a question about our values in the real world. This question about Batman is not about Batman. The question is really “can there be justice under capitalism”? 

Capitalism does not resolve poverty. Capitalism simultaneously enforces poverty through stratified economic classes and income disparity all the while criminalizing poverty to protect private property interests of the ruling class. Marginally improving conditions under capitalism does not serve to resolve capitalism but to stabilize the labor class enough to continue labor. Furthermore many crimes are the products of poverty and crime cannot be resolved under a system that enforces and criminalizes its own poverty. The contradictions of capitalism cannot be resolved. This question about Batman is not really about judging or exonerating Batman. Thus the answer to this question cannot be about judging or exonerating Batman either. 

I mean I think we all love Batman. Or we all hate Batman, I can't keep up. The Wayne Foundation counter-argument applied to the real world is simply another way of saying that this is the best we can hope for. Capitalism with a somewhat more socially conscious ruling class. A teeny tiny bit less Jeff Bezos and a centimeter more Oprah Winfrey. And that's it. Isn't this perspective the result of capitalist realism? Thinking that this is as good as it gets and we should all ever expect. We enter into our viewing of The Batman with this cultural bias about our relationship with wealth and the wealthy. A presupposition that helps hold up the narrative and a presupposition that could be deconstructed. Isn't this fun? Talking about art, seeing how art relates to reality, trying not to get too defensive about it. I enjoy this.

Let's talk about film criticism.

A structuralist approach to film criticism puts more emphasis on the fixed nature of language conventions and code to convey particular information. A structuralist analysis relies on the premise that communication has a specific goal or meaning and that finding that meaning through signifiers and the signified is the essence of analysis. Here is that tree you've seen before. A structuralist analysis of The Batman would emphasize how Batman's character arc fits into the pre-existing conventions of film, how well it adheres to this and how much it subverts it. 

A post-structuralist analysis to film criticism recognizes that words and images we choose to convey information are imperfect and that this communication contains contradictions. A post-structuralist approach to film criticism might emphasize the pre-existing cultural biases of the creators of the film as well as the presumption of those cultural biases in the audience. For example the Batman addresses race and class but spends more time ignoring grievances related to race and class than it does acknowledging these grievances. Mere absence is not immediately meaningful but absence as contrast might be. For example the absence of a floating pink elephant in The Batman might not be meaningful to a post-structuralist because there is no opposite of this, no signifier of its contrast. But the absence of significant commentary on criminogenic conditions in a film that frequently references crime and comes to its own conclusion about how to resolve crime might be meaningful to a post-structuralist. 

At the risk of being reductive a structuralist analysis of a film places greater emphasis on the author signifiers and signified as the primary subjects of examination whereas post-structuralist analysis of a film places greater emphasis on the viewer, the existence of the viewer, and the viewer's world between the signifiers and signified. Just to be clear this is not a complete definition of post-structuralism or a proper lesson. Also, in reducing these terms this way I run the risk of inaccuracy but this is also, you know, a youtube video.

Here is a structuralist approach to explaining The Batman. In the beginning of the film Batman's inner monologue mythologizes crime in Gotham City. We experience it as a force of nature or human nature, something in the air or something in our blood, but in either case inevitable. Batman is skeptical of our humanity and believes more should be done to fight crime. Batman is visually represented as shadow, as the darkness of night. His first targets are thrill-seeker criminals performing unambiguously vindictive acts on complete strangers. Randomized violence with no goal except the act itself and perpetrated by a stylized evil visage that is completely dehumanized. When his voice over monologue is complete, his first spoken words are “I'm vengeance”. At the climax of the film Batman recognizes that vengeance is not the same as justice. Batman leads his people out of darkness and toward the light, visually represented by his torch and finally by the dawn that shines on them on this new day.

A structuralist analysis might conclude that justice outweighing vengeance is the authorial point of the film or the message of the film or the meaning of the film because it has laid bare at the climax where it's supposed to be and because it is foreshadowed many times and that this is the progression of the protagonist's character arc. It was dark but now there is dawn. Justice has been served, Batman is a hero, a pseudo-biblical figure that leads his people from bondage and sends them towards the heavens. Whatever else this is, rest assured that this is justice. This is what the movie is trying to say.

A post-structuralist approach might say that at the end of the film Batman uses different words to describe Gotham City and his mission and he is visually represented differently but he still mythologizes crime as a force of nature or human nature. Within the film there are multiple explicit references to income inequality and a passing reference to a comorbidity of racial inequality and income inequality. But this is all practically suppressed by what Batman tells the audience, both before and after his character arc is complete. The audience for The Batman is expected to have a cultural bias about criminogenic conditions, the circumstances that produce crime. The Batman ritualistically moralizes crime and speaks in platitudes that are originally dark, eventually uplifting but always vague and most importantly: apolitical. 

The passing reference to the conditions that create crime are covered under the banner of an apolitical unity that tends to ignore disparate racial and economic power dynamics. 

In the film the company called the Gotham Renewal Corporation, originally intended to assist Gotham City, has been corrupted by a series of criminals. In the end these criminals are exposed or pushed out and the day is saved. This relies on the presupposition that our systems are good and are only corrupted by bad apples. What is vengeance in The Batman anyway? Is Batman saying he simply needs to exercise a lighter touch? Because it feels like what Batman is instead pushing back against is corruption and radicalism. Corruption in the form of Renewal and radicalism in the form of those who oppose Renewal. The Riddler and his people and Catwoman's willingness to use more violence than Batman is willing to use. Radicals are portrayed as only seeking vengeance instead of justice and the audience's presuppositions about our systems and about radicalism are what makes this ring true to them in the end. 

In The Batman justice seems to be working within our institutions. The Batman recognizes corruption and acknowledges corruption but recognizing corruption is not a condemnation of our institutions because corruption is the institution not working as intended. Recognizing corruption only condemns corruption and may still tacitly endorse the institution. But what if the institutions working as intended create and enforce poverty? What if they create and enforce injustice? What if they must be replaced by something more than reform, something that requires more than voting? Well, that's radicalism and in The Batman that is portrayed as vengeance not justice. For only within our institutions can justice be found, no matter how much evidence exists to the contrary. The mayor was dirty but the new mayor will not be dirty. The bad politician is bad but the good politician is good. Trust in liberal democracy.

The police initially do not trust Batman and there are dirty cops but Batman tells Jim Gordon that he's a good cop. The bad police are bad but the good police are good. Trust the police. The wealthy criminals control much of Gotham but Bruce Wayne has sway in Gotham as well and Alfred reminds him of his responsibilities. The bad billionaires are bad but the good billionaires are good. Trust in capitalism. 

Batman also operates outside the system but in the end he is part of the system, an ally of the system with all that that implies. Trust in our institutions. Corruption and radical politics are both outside of the system in equal measure and in the center an apolitical unity that ignores the actual causes of crime and indeed the causes of injustice.

Is this a good take? Is this a bad take? I  don't know. As always that is entirely for Twitter to decide. To clarify, I'm not judging who is right within the confines of the narrative that they made. The Riddler kills a bunch of people and floods a city. I'm analyzing why the narrative looks like this in the first place and what it says about our culture. The Riddler is not right but the Riddler is also not real. The portrayal of his fight for the downtrodden perspective as radical, dangerous, terroristic, and motivated only by vengeance and not justice is a choice by the filmmakers. The conclusion of the film that basically serves as a love letter to the good people who reinforce our ultimately good institutions that exist to serve justice is also a choice. These choices do not necessarily have these intentions but finding authorial intention is not the goal here. These choices are worth thinking about because they reveal cultural biases and presuppositions that existed prior to the creation of the film and outside of the industry of film."

[sapphiresaphics]

Here’s the thing. Arcane season 2 was finished being written back in 2020. It was completed before the first season of Arcane even aired on Netflix in the first place. Before they even knew if it was going to be a hit or not. Before any of the fans had hot takes about the characters.

Which means that all of these “new subplots” (such as the black rose) weren’t just added in on a whim. They have an intentional purpose in the story they’re trying to tell.

It also means that the pacing was always going to increase and become faster as the two seasons went on.

I think a lot of fans are coming at this show from the perspective of a lot of live action shows where the writers see how fans respond to certain things so they add them into the story or focus on fan favorites to grab your attention and keep you engaged. And live action shows can do this because they’re filmed relatively close to when the series airs and so they’re aware of what the reactions are on social media (for good or ill).

But this is animation. Very TIME CONSUMING animation at that. It took 4 years to finish animating the 9 episodes of Season 2. If you include the 6 years of development and production of Season 1, that’s almost a full DECADE of working on this show.

My point is that they literally (and logistically) can’t respond to fan input and make changes in the show based on the way it was received on social media. Like it or not, these specific characters beats and storylines were always the plan from the start.

This is a long winded way of trying to say… if you have problems with the way certain characters are behaving, or certain plot points feeling rushed, or feel overwhelmed by the number of added subplots that need to get resolved before the end of the show… I strongly suggest rather than saying the writing is “bad” or that the writers “don’t know what they’re doing” or just complain about anything really… I suggest you take a step back and ask yourself “why are these the stories and actions they chose for this 2 season arc?”

I think that’s a far more productive thing to do than to go online and whine about things you didn’t like. I find it’s better to try and understand WHY they chose to do these things rather than write them off. More often than not when you look into the why, or try to come up with reasons why the writers would take certain characters down the paths they do, you end up coming out appreciating the media more. Even if you still don’t were with their narrative choices, learning and understanding the WHY is far more rewarding I think.

I’ll give you an example of something I don’t like, but that I understand why. Isha. I don’t like that Isha was introduced and then killed off in the latest episode. If I were to look at it just from a surface level reading, it seems pointless to add this cute mute kid character only to take her away a few episodes later. But NARRATIVELY she’s extraordinarily important. She is what Jinx needed to become more empathetic to her sister and reach out to fix their family. She helps push Jinx into the role of Vander for season 2. And her heroically framed sacrifice is probably going to be the push Jinx needs to stop trying to commit suicide.

Would I have liked to see more of her and Jinx’s relationship? Yes. Would I liked to have learned more about where she came from and why she’s mute? Yes. But at the end of the day, this is not a show about Isha. Isha is a narrative device to help forward the character development of Jinx. And so, while I do not like that she sacrificed herself… I understand it. And that understanding helps me appreciate the writing and the level of depth the writers are willing to go to push their characters around where they need to be by the end of the series.

At the end of the day, Arcane is just another show on Netflix. It is not beyond criticism. There are a lot of legitimate criticisms you can have against the show. But I’ve found that recently the number of bad takes and people refusing to engage with the narrative has resulted in a bit of a backlash against the show and I do not think that’s ultimately very productive. Please… if you’re going to criticize the show, please try to do better than just write off anything you don’t like as “the writers just suck” or “they changed X character for no reason!”

Because I guarantee you, there IS a reason for everything in this show. No matter how small and trivial it might be, this show was put together with love and an extraordinary attention to detail. There are reasons for why characters do and say the things they say. The writers often make these into intentional parallels, foreshadowing, and callbacks.

Please… take the time to actually stop and dissect what you see. Even something upsets you. I implore you… try to understand why. Try to understand what the writers are saying. Try to understand how certain plot points and events could have a bearing on different characters.

Please just…. Try?

[everything-in-retrospect]

Thought I’d contribute this to the discussion :)

[capricorn-0mnikorn]

Artists (mostly musicians, but not always) on YouTube that I always click on, when I see they've uploaded a new video:

Note: Not all of these are their newest, but I've chosen the older ones for being among my favorites:

ViHart (Mathemusician):

David Grubb (Jazz composer, band leader, violinist):

Rhiannon Giddens (Folk singer/songwriter, music historian):

Every Frame a Painting (short video essays on film-making):

El Pony Pisador (folk music band out of Catalonia, Spain):

[jjr1971]

So my main beef with The Lord of the Rings: The War of the Rohirrim is why the FUCK didn't anyone proclaim her QUEEN HERA THE FIRST OF ROHAN after a certain pivotal point in the movie?! It would've been so goddamn EPIC! Such a drama FAIL, my goodness. I'm told by more hardcore Tolkien connoisseurs that Rohan is described as extremely patriarchal and the only way you get to be Queen in Rohan is by being married to the King. The former Queen died giving birth to Hera, the youngest child. But in the drama of this film, the Crown Prince dies in battle, his brother gets taken prisoner then executed before Hera & the King's very eyes by Wulf himself. The King and Hera retreat to the Fortress Keep. The King goes mad and wanders out of the Keep alone, almost like a ghost, going full barbarian assassin on Wulf's forces, picking them off one by one and undermining their morale. Hera goes after him, discovering the King escaped by means of a hidden door. But there's no way back into the Keep other than using the front gate, which the soldiers manage to open wide enough to let Hera through but not the Great King Helm Hammerhand, who makes his last stand just outside the gates. How much more EPIC would this movie have been had the King, knowing he was going to die, proclaimed "ALL HAIL QUEEN HERA THE FIRST OF ROHAN!"; tradition be damned, that man had the force of charisma and will and noone inside would've questioned him or disobeyed. Because that's how royal succession is supposed to work. The retainers should've switched over from calling her "my Lady" and "child"(!?).....it's YOUR MAJESTY now, dammit. Even though Hera didn't want the Crown....sorry child but you must rise to the occasion. And by her actions she does but she should have been proclaimed as QUEEN at that point and especially in the pivotal scene above where she becomes the last Shield Maiden for her people as well, their Warrior Queen and Champion. Naming that matters and failure to do so is a failure of storytelling in this movie. Maybe that's how J.R.R. Tolkien intended it, but it's okay to deviate from his urtexte if it crafts a better story to do so, which it would have. She can formally abdicate the throne to her Cousin AFTER the battle, which makes sense because she never intends to wed or produce heirs to the throne and that's within her rights as a royal. But for that night and day she was Queen Hera the First of Rohan and nothing can take that from her in my mind. Naming the new Queen would've been such a morale boost to her tired soldiers and frightened subjects. All modern caveats aside regarding the inherent silliness of monarchies generally, it's impossible to understate the psychological impact of this kind of royal proclamation. The Queen is With Us and we are with Her. It gives the people something to rally around. It's a shame this movie didn't exploit that properly.

[billyrussoapologist]

Challenging Challengers - why one of the most popular films of the year is also one of the most divisive

I don’t get the criticism for Challengers. I get just disliking it, that’s valid, personal preference and all. But some of the hate is so bizarre. I’ve seen people saying it glamorizes cheating (considering all three characters are miserable, pretty objectively terrible people, I don’t see it), that it’s gay p*rn (there’s not a single s*x scene in this movie), that the character arcs are incomplete (those last few shots say a lot. Besides, it’s not like they were suddenly going to become great people after being toxic for so long).

The most baffling criticism I’ve seen is calling this movie a chick flick, geared towards women, a woman’s fantasy. I can assure you that no remotely sane woman is watching this film and seriously wants to be like Tashi. The characters are complex, the cinematography is insane, the score is the best I’ve heard in a while. It’s not even like the central protagonist is a woman (although even if that was the case, I don’t see how that would automatically make it geared towards women). While all three are main characters, I would argue if there was one central protagonist, it would be Art. The movie starts with his daily routine, seen through his lens. Although they’re all morally questionable, he’s arguably the most relatable and has the strongest conscience. Also, both of the male leads are attractive, but in a realistic way. Sure, they’re shredded, but that fits in context with their characters as professional athletes. Otherwise, they’re attractive in a very real, obtainable way, which is nice to see. If this was a “woman’s fantasy,” then surely they would have the more stereotypical razor sharp features of types like Rob Lowe or Zac Efron. There are films with similar relationships that aren’t seen as strictly “for women.” Match Point, Vicki Cristina Barcelona, Y Tu Mama Tambien, The Dreamers (which contains explicit scenes of incest in addition to the threesome relationship), all of which are heavier on the s*x/romance than Challengers, and none of which are seen as geared specifically towards women.

So why does Challengers get this treatment? As far as I can tell, it’s just because a lot of young women have very vocally praised this film. When women, especially young women it seems, latch onto something, the perceived total value goes down. It also raises the question of why it’s seen as an insult that a movie would be geared towards women, like it’s somehow inferior and less prestigious than movies geared towards men. I believe a lot of men have watched women latch onto this film without knowing much about it or understanding it much, and think that women must be glamorizing cheating or leading men on. When in reality, women just love a great movie.

If you read some of all of this post, thank you. It was lengthy, but I had to get this out. I’m always up for a discussion, if you agree or disagree, feel free to share. Just please keep it civil and polite.