#I haven't seen enough asians being critical of this. let's talk about it more.

[thekissandcry]

[this tweet] from tariye peterside reflects a lot of what I’ve been thinking about re: the whole cynthia kao situation (esp. those two points at the end)

[stina-is-a-punk-rocker]

'birds of prey': a cinematic masterpiece

It's been a little over a year since Birds of Prey came out, a couple of months since I watched in on a whim, and I'm still not over this film.

Too many men people get pressed whenever you say you like this movie. "It's objectively bad," they say. "It's campy. It's too divergent from the canon. It's SJW propaganda."

Who gives a fuck, Richard? Who gives a single flying fuck?

I'll preface this by saying, my knowledge of the DCU is flimsy, at best. I've watched a couple of movies. My mum used to watch Smallville. I watched the pilot episode of Gotham. And I know enough about it to get the few references sprinkled in other media. But I draw a complete blank when it comes to the comics. So the canon of the comics had no effect on my enjoyment of the movie. Which I did. A lot.

I walked in blind when I watched Birds of Prey for the first time. I was unaware of the controversy surrounding it, and the only reason I even gave it the time of day was because I was bored.

I watched Suicide Squad circa 2016, and positively abhorred it- the only good thing about it was the soundtrack (the best songs are always wasted on the worst movies. Case in point: Twilight). And the not-so-casual misogyny was just... Yikes.

And then, we got Birds of Prey.

Since watching the film, I did a bit of research (see: Googling 'birds of prey movie reviews' and clicking on the first few results that popped up). The response was mixed- which honestly came as a surprise, since I thought it was great, and mine is the only opinion that holds weight.

I've read and watched a lot of those reviews. I watched the CinemaSins video. I watched the CinemaWins video, because CinemaSins has taken a major nosedive since I first started watching them.

Were all the negative reviews not-so-subtly indicative of the (predominantly male) critics' misogyny? I dunno; how did they talk about similar male-centered action films? I don't think it's fair to scream, "SEXIST!" just because someone didn't like the movie. Critics hated Venom (which was admittedly pretty meh. I still enjoyed it, though), but it was still pretty well-received by viewers.

I saw one review say that Birds of Prey was 'for the birds'... I'll let you unpack that yourself.

And yet, though I try to keep an open mind, I find it unfathomable how anyone can dislike Birds of Prey.

One of my favorite parts about the movie was the female gaze present throughout its entirety. I've seen people bring up the obvious change in Harley's costume- which I'm a bit iffy about, to be honest. Don't get me wrong- I love her choppy bangs and fun pigtails and the whole fluffy top thing she's got going on, but a whole lot of the critique towards her getup in Suicide Squad comes off a tad too slut-shamey (that isn't a word? Well, it is now).

Her outfit wasn't the issue. It's how she was framed.

In Suicide Squad, we get loads of shots of men leering at Harley, and a little too much emphasis on her breasts and arse in almost every scene she's in. As opposed to Birds of Prey, where Harley's still sexy (I'm seriously concerned for the straight men who found Harley unattractive in this film... You good, Pete?), but we focus on her face instead.

That part where Harley gives Canary a hair tie in the middle of a fight scene? Brilliant.

The characters have depth (a lot of reviews disagree with me. Well, what do I know? I am but a lowly STEM student). One of my favorites was Canary (and not just because I found her insanely attractive)- I love, love, love her arc in the film.

I've seen people complain that the villain didn't really get all villainy until towards the end of the film; which, if Sionis had to put on the mask for you to finally see him as the bad guy, then you've clearly missed most of the film. He's literally introduced while he's peeling the skin off of someone's face. Not to mention that one particular scene at the club- I won't go into too much detail, because it could be triggering to a lot of people- but it chilled me to the bone.

Following up with the villains: "All the men are bad guys," they say. "The whole film is feminist propaganda," they say.

And me posting this on International Women's Day is a bit on-the-nose, I'll admit, but this particular critique bothers me. Because those men aren't unrealistic. They aren't caricatures of men in the real world. We all know men just like them. A lot of them hit a little too close to home for me.

I've seen people complain that women touting the film as feminist turned them off from it- which, I dunno about you, but seems problematic to me on so many levels. Sure, not everything has to have a political agenda, but it's hardly like Harley & Co. scream, "GIRL POWER!" every three minutes.

(Also: it's funny how way more people get mad about poorly executed feminism than actual issues a lot of women in the world face, but that's a topic for another day.)

The diversity was just- wow. Getting not only one but FOUR Asian characters with lines? Hollywood, am I dreaming? The LGBTQ+ representation (not going into Sionis and Zsasz being queer coded)? Holy shit, yes! Maybe I'm getting too excited about this- Hollywood's a lot kinder to us minorities as of late- but it still fills me with joy whenever I see people like me onscreen.

Another complaint that springs up with regards to Birds of Prey is the skewed order in which Harley narrates the events. Which is kind of one of her defining traits- she's an unreliable narrator. And she makes it pretty obvious (this video explains it better than I can). The cartooned beginning was engaging, as corny as some of it was (loved the style, too).

The fight scenes were thrilling to watch. Not a single minute passed by where I was bored (my eyes usually glaze over during prolonged action scenes in films, which did not happen in this case). The comedy was well-timed and bold; the cartoonishness added to its charm.

And this is probably not even significant, but I adored the color scheme. I loved the bright, shocking colors; the emphasis on the pinks, reds and blacks.

And, finally, how could I go without mentioning the soundtrack? It was divine- I listen to the Birds of Prey album on Spotify almost every day; Lonely Gun and Experiment On Me are among my most-played songs, and the rest of the music is just as delightful.

In conclusion: go watch Birds of Prey if you haven't already. It's the closest thing to a spiritual experience I had last year.

[normal-thoughts-official]

Fandom racism anon here and yeah absolutely (I didn't realise I had anon on lol)

Because while LOTR has problems within its themes (ie the orcs can be seen as to be coded as people of colour, especially since they ride elephants) the explicit message of the book is evil bad

Because the only people who work for sauron are evil. There are no morally grey people, they aren't misguided or tricked they just are evil and want to take over the world

And yeah I totally agree that this is more of a literal take on like empirical war (is that the word) and that makes total sense considering Tolkiens history

Whereas I would say that the allegories in shaowhunters is way more based on racial conflict within a country itself especially slavery, I can't remember if this is show Canon but is it that they have the warlock tropheys? I remember that in the books magnus talks about shadowhunters hanging warlock marks on their walls? (sorry to bring the books up)

Idk it's very hollow to me, unlike with LOTR though it's a different allegory it's totally irritating to show many of these supremecists as morally misled. LOTR says bad guys are bad guys, shadowhunters says well yeah they did follow a guy which thinks that downworlders are subhuman and should be eradicated but they just made a mistake

I want to compare this to tfatws which while it isn't really fantasy I just feel like it shows how the priorities of the writer can impact the message of the show so powerfully (I know u aren't up to date so I'm gonna be pretty vague)

There's a scene in tfatws where the new white perfect captain America does something bad and doesn't pay for the consequences - done to comment on white privelege and how America condones white supremacy and how Sam is in comparison to that

Mayrse and Robert revealed to be part of the circle! And paid no consequences Shock horror my parents were the bad guys (even rho they were either implicitly or explicitly extremely racist the entire time) also I haven't finished the seires but do the lightwoods ever try to get their parents to face the consequences?)

Only one actual really critiques the situation and the reality behind it whereas the other one is just to centre the white characters once again and present them in a further sympathetic light

AND ANOTHER THING! I was mostly talking about show Canon here and I'm sorry to bring up the books but I literally can't believe I hadn't picked up in this before.

So like downworlders = people of colour, Simon is a vampire so is coded as a person of colour. However in the books in the last one he stops being a vampire and becomes a shadowhunters instead, coincidentally that's also when he starts dating Izzy HOW IS THIS ABLE TO HAPPEN!!????

I mean I know cassandra clare is lazy right? The original seires is by far the worst of all her writings but come ON!!!!! By the allegory has he become the white man!????? These books made no fuckin sense when I read them at 15 and they make no sense now I'm digressing anyways

I don't know man I wrote this ask because I was trying to find some fantasy book recommendations on booktube and SO MANY of them were about slavery or general ly extrême préjudice with à White protagonist to save this 'poor souls'.

Also I was watching guardians of the galexy the other day and realised nearly every movie set in space is just bigger stakes imperialism - planets instead of countries. Literally star wars, star trek, guardians of the galexy 2, avengers infinity war - all are facing genocidal imperialistic villains without actually paying much, if any attention to those effected

Just writing this ask made me exhausted I'm so tired of lazy writing and exploiting other people's struggle. I'm white and I'm trying to be more critical about the movies, shows and books I watch and read but let me know if I said something off here❤️❤️ you gotta get up to date with tfatws man, Sambucky nation is THRIVING!!!!

i'm not sure i agree that the whole "the evil people are evil" thing is a good thing, because i feel like more often than not making the bad characters just like... unidimensionally evil just means that the reader will be like "lol i could NEVER be that guy" and when it comes to racism that is a dangerous road to take because white people already believe that racism is something that Only The Most Evil People, Ergo, Not Me, Can Do, which makes discussions of stuff like subconscious racial bias and active antiracist work become more difficult because people don't believe they CAN be racist unless they're like, Lord Voldemort

which is not to say that racism should be treated as morally ambiguous, just that the workings of racism should be represented as something that is not done only by the Most Hardcore And Evil, but rather as a part of a system of oppression that affects the way everyone sees the world and interacts with it and lives in it

yes the warlock trophies are mentioned in the show, albeit very quickly (there is a circle member who tells magnus that his cat eyes will make "a nice addition to his collection" and then it's never mentioned again because this is sh and we love using racism for shock value but then not actually treating it as a serious plot point or something that affects oppressed ppl). and you are absolutely right, shadowhunters (and hp, and most fantasy books) has genocide as its core conflict and treats it, like you said, in a very hollow way, treating racism as both not a big deal and not something that is part of a system of oppression, but really the actions of a few Very Bad People. it's almost impressive how they manage to do both at the same time tbh

i think you hit the nail right on the head with this comment, actually. for most of these works, racism is SHOCK VALUE. it's just like "lol isn't it bad that this bad guy wants to kill a gazillion people just because they are muggles? now that is fucked up" but it's not actually an issue. in fact, when this guy is defeated, the whole problem is over! racism is not something that is embedded into that world, it's not a systemic issue, it's not even actually part of what drives the plot. the things that led to this person not only existing but rising to power and gathering enough followers to be a real threat to the whole world are never mentioned. it's like racists are born out of thin air, which is dangerously close to implying that racism is just a natural part of life, tbh

anyway my point is, it is never supposed to be questioned, it is never part of a deeper plot or story, its implications are barely addressed except for a few fleeting comments them and there; so, it's not a critique, it's shock value, even though it is frequently disguised as a critique (which is always empty and shallow anyway. like what is the REAL critique in works like hp or sh/tsc other than "genocide is bad"? wow such a groundbreaking take evelyn)

about simon and the book thing: i actually knew about this and the weird thing about this is that, like... simon is jewish, and he's implied to be ashkenazi (calls his grandma bubbe which is yiddish, which is a language spoken by the ashkenazi ppl), and it seems like cc is always toeing the line between him being accepted by shadowhunters and then not accepted by them, which sounds a lot like antisemitic tropes and history of swinging between (ashkenazi) jewish ppl being seen as the model minority myth and thus used as an example by white christians, and being hated and persecuted. i'm not super qualified to talk about this since i'm not jewish and i'm still learning about/unlearning antisemitism and its tropes, and i don't really have a fully formed thought on that, tbh; it just reminds me of the whole "model minority" swinging, where one second simon is part of the majority, the other he's not, but always he is supposed to give up a part of himself and his identity in other to be "assimilated" by shadowhunter culture. this article (link) covers a book on jewish people and assimilationism into USan culture, this article (link) covers british jews' relationship with being considered an ethnic group, and this article (link) talks a bit about the model minority myth from the perspective of an asian jewish woman

it just really calls to my attention that cc chose to make her ashkenazi jewish character start off as a downworlder and then become a shadowhunter. i don't think she made that decision as a conscious nod to this history, because it would require being informed on antisemitism lol but it's incredible how you can always see bigoted stereotypes shining through her narrative choices completely by accident. it just really shows how ingrained it is in our collective minds and culture

and anyway, making a character go from the oppressed group to just suddenly become the oppressor is just. wtf. not how oppression works, but most of all, really disrespectful, especially because she clearly treats it as an "upgrade"/"glowup" that earns him the Love Of His Life

also, out of curiosity, are you french? it seems like your autocorrect changed a few words and i'm pretty sure extrême and préjudice are the french versions of these words, and since u said ur white, that's where my money would be lol

[sschmendrick]

Wow I can"t believe I've finished this beautiful movie.

Mister John Logn this is one of the best modern spaghetti westerns I've seen so far. I am in love with the story. I would like to thank all the production companies that believed in this story and helped make it happen. And also thank you to Gore Verbinski for directing it.

I am amazed by the end credits sequence, the animation and the vibrant colours that so well represent this movie, even though the far west is portrayed as a beige and mostly dust-coloured world.

The last scene encapsulates the tone of the movie so well : the epicness of the sunset setting, the last speech of hope and perseverance, the goofiness of our protagonist.

However, let's be a little bit more critical of the movie. I might be wrong about a lot of the things I'm going to say but this is the first thoughts I'm having right after viewing the movie, they might change when I get to think about it for a little more.

First of, the moment it happenned I was a bit pissed but it was solved a little bit after, but I think that having your native american-coded character being the only good guy to be hurt on screen was bad taste. But don't worry they survive, just a broken leg. But still. Though you can also point out that they are the only one that have enough courage and sympathy for Rango to risk their life against one of the most feared gunslinger of the region in order to help Rango. I guess there are two facets to this character and this scene (and maybe more) but I think it was worth pointing out.

Second, I don't know what to think of the Spirit of the West scene. The way they are portrayed, this character seems to be represented on film the same way you would God : almost no landscape around them, white blinding light surrounding the scene, and they are seen as this godly figure, this myth with all the answers. Therefore, to me (and I insist, to ME, personally, maybe you hold a different idea) it almost feels like in order to understand who you are, what is your deep purpose, it must come from "God". After his social humiliation, kind-of suicide and his loss at defining his identity, the answer comes from God and it's all it takes him to understand who he is, to find peace with himself. But to me, an agnostic, it kind of sound like, since I don't believe in any kind of deity, I will never find that answer.

I wanted to talk about this somewhere but I guess I'll just throw it here : one thing that I envy religious people is their faith. Like I've tried to be religious (well catholic since my mother is) but it was just stories, and still is. It was mythology the same way greek mythology is. I stopped early still because I was just pretending, there was no benefit in faking believing in God (not like I was going to get to heaven anyway). But more than envy I admire how a lot of people can find strength in their beliefs, whatever their religion. I talk more about God because I don't know much about the South American religions or Native American people's religion, or African religions or Asian religions, I didn't forget you guys I just don't know enough to talk about it. My point is when people say they can do it because God is giving them the strength or that they are doing things because they believe in God, I admire how they can find this kind of motivation in their strong beliefs. I wish I could believe enough in something, I would throw myself into it, body and soul.

Anyway back to the movie. I must say though that if Clint Eastwood were to give me a pep talk I too would try a little harder to believe in myself. Yes, I am a Clint Eastwood fan (a lot of my teachers have expressed how they don't like him and I don't know why but then again I don't follow the news so he might be a horrible person, I just don't know it).

Pardon me for I haven't watched that many spaghetti western while still being my favourite genre but in everything I've seen the investigation subplot isn't a must-have in spaghetti western, more the conflict between grey characters with morals that you might sometimes agree

with and sometimes not. Therefore, in Rango which has a big investigation plot, the morally grey characters are less examined. This leads to two conflict that feel mild. I'm sorry I don't know how to explain it but it's like there are these two great potential enemies but since they have so much potential they don't get enough time to be fully deepened. They could have benefited a little bit from more direct conflict (Jake's character feels under-used). However it's supposed to be a kid movie so it's perfectly appropriate to leave the political interpretation of the Mayor's plot on the side and explore a little more Rango's bond with his new friends. I guess it also makes Jake a little more mysterious for the kids.

It could also be just me projecting an idea of a character onto Jake but he isn't that archetype. Although he appears like this great rival for Rango; actual gunslinger, cocky yet malicious and strategic, he might just be a snake with a temper. His conflict with Rango is quickly solved (30 minutes in a 1 h 51 film so about a quarter of the movie) by a newly acquired respect for the lizard. But what if it's because, after all Jake isn't this great evil unredeemable villain I expected him to be ? What if he is a sensitive person, in love with his desert and his era, that is just looking for stimulation and has been faced by fear for so long, finding someone standing up to him gave him all the adrenaline he was longing for ? After all, though Angel Eyes can look like just an evil evil bastard he isn't. He is a little grey as well : he doesn't rat on Blondie when he sees Blondie and Tuco's stratagem and he always carries out his deals (which makes him fiercly loyal). Rattlesnake Jake is grey as well and not the epitom of evil I expected him to be.

So yeah...that last point about Jake wasn't exactly a critic, just me understanding how much of a great movie it is in its characterization and the exemple it gives to kids.

Anyway, I might not stop talking about it right away but I will calm down a little. I hope this wasn't too much, and I hope my posts weren't too much of an inconvenience.

Cowboy lizard's been on my mind all day long