#It wants to subvert the book but at it's core it walks in and says “Lucy's life doesn't matter because Mina thinks her killer is hot”.

[thefaeriefeatherdark]

A fundamental issue of all the Dracula adaptations that do the Dracula and Mina are in love thing is that they always do it in this stupid "Dracula's dark and alluring mysterious aura draws in Mina" instead of someone asking at a train station when the train for Liverpool is supposed to arrive with both Dracula and Mina answering at the exact same time in sync and then locking eyes across the station.

[greygilberti]

My main issue with flannagan is that Shirley Jacksons work is all about the perils of the nuclear family etc

And to me flannigan was like fuck that family is great

It just goes info the heart of what Jackson was saying and shits on it for no reason?

He kinda made the story more conventional and I hate that

Whatever walked there walked alone is like. Theee core of the story and to be like fuck that is shitty

Jackson isn't some hugely outdated bigoted writer who's ideas need subverting and challenging (at least not in this story. Idk about the rest of her work)

Jackson novel was about how people who don't fit are vunerable a chewed up and spat out by institutions like romance and family

And it's like flannigan didn't get that. Or idk thought yay family was a more radical take

Idk i haven't seen the show recently so I may be misremembering but I feel like the majority of the criticism was that he didn't get / ignored the really interesting thing the book was doing.

I completely understand and respect those views.

I guess to me he did adapt it and made it his own and to me he wanted there to be hope in something that is supposed to be the end all be all of one's support. I HEAR you and yes, agree that the ideals weren't exactly what Jackson had in mind when writing the book and setting the tones and ideas. But for a creator who DID change it as much as he did, I personally feel that he did his best to take the subject matter into consideration, unlike other things I've seen where they just completely disregard certain aspects.

Like, as a quick example: Theo's sexuality. He stated himself that it was important to him and Kate (Theo) to open with her in the night club hooking up with a woman to immediately recognize that part of the character whereas the 1999 movie more or less skated over. In the novel, Theo is very much hinted at being a lesbian (because of course when the book was published, things were a lot different). My point being that while he lost some aspects while filming, he tried hard to make something good. Did he succeed? That's up for debate and that's totally fine. The thing with art is that people interpret it differently. There's the possibility that we're seeing exactly what he was thinking when reading it himself. I'm not saying your analysis is wrong and that he's right for missing the mark in any way, just that he interpreted it differently

There's also the perils of the filmmaking process as a whole in the rewrites and what Netflix wanted and how the writing process actually went. I know that when they started filming they didn't have everything written out. Maybe there were other writers or the production company making changes (I do know there were several scenes cut that he didn't want to get rid of), I don't know. All we have is the final product, that's all we get to see. We don't know what got pushed, saved and cut.

It's been a few years since I've read the book and even though I remember a lot about it, the human mind is fallible and maybe I'm on the other side of you where the show is more prevalent in my mind so I'll definitely need a reread and to reexamine the show, do a side by side comparison. But thank you for pointing all of that out, I can understand your plight with him in that sense.

[I do not have an english degree and it has been years since I was in college (even more since I was in the class where we actively discussed the book itself) so there's a lot that I may misspeak on as far as themes of the book, etc. ]

Let me say this to close: separating the show from the book, in my personal opinion, the show is one of the best I have ever seen and greatly appreciate his work on it. KNOWING he did not initially come up with the ideas for the story and that he had a fuloundation to build upon, I still think he did really well. He could've done worse and not worked as hard to preserve as much of the original story as he did. (I think I made the distinction in my original post but to reiterate: I think I'm okay with a lot of it because I feel like this is a fanfic he's made of Jackson's work )

Thank you for your honest opinion, I like hearing others and why they have certain views

[stephaniespoiler]

Review: Buffy the Vampire Slayer Episode 1x01: “Welcome to the Hellmouth”

First Buffy review, with the one that started it all.  Note that I’m still experimenting what kind of format I want for these.

Notes: - This episode introduces us to the main cast of Sarah Michelle Gellar (Buffy), Nicholas Brendon (Xander), Alyson Hannigan (Willow), Charisma Carpenter (Cordelia) and Anthony Stewart Head (Giles). - This episode originally aired alongside “The Harvest” as a two-hour premier (even if the DVD box set has them on different dates).  I’m reviewing them separately for my own convenience.

Summary: After a nightmare, Buffy Summers is begins her first day at Sunnydale High School (transferring after being kicked out of her old school) and meets fellows students Xander, Willow, Jesse, and Cordelia (who humiliates/bullies the others), and librarian Giles, who attempts to give her a book on vampires.  After a man is found dead in a school locker and Buffy sees vampire bite marks (as seen in the episode’s first scene), she confronts Giles (who reveals himself to be her Watcher) and rejects her duties as the Slayer, as it got her kicked out of her old school.  On her way to the club “The Bronze,” Buffy’s confronted by a mysterious stranger who warns her of the “mouth of hell" and “the Harvest” and gives her a cross necklace.  After encouraging Willow to “seize the moment,” and being encouraged by Giles to hone her vampire sensing skills, Buffy realizes Willow is leaving with a vampire and goes after them.  Finding them, alongside Jesse and Darla (the vampire who killed the man in the opening), in a mausoleum, Buffy fights them only to then be subdued by another vampire, Luke, who explains the Harvest is coming to free an ancient vampire “The Master" and allow him to walk the earth again, before moving in to kill her as the episode ends.

My thoughts: For me, a pilot episode needs to explain the premise of the series and established the main character(s), both in a way that makes them engaging.  On that front, “Welcome to the Hellmouth” is an excellent pilot.

The idea of being subversive is built into the show’s premise, with Joss Whedon looking to subvert the horror trope of the blonde girl going into an alley and being killed, instead having her prepared to fight and killing the monster (according to DVD interviews).  Considering that philosophy is basically the show’s DNA, it’s good to be up-front with that, as this show is from the very first scene: A pressuring guy and a hesitant woman break into the school at night, the woman hears a noise, he assures her it’s fine, and then she turns around with her vampire-face and bites him (killing him, as we later learned).  I was caught off-guard when I first watched when I was 15, and it sets up the tone and some of what we can expect well.

You could also say that Buffy thinking someone is following her, so she positions herself to get the jump on him, is another example.

I’m aware that nowadays stuff like “woman fights monsters” isn’t particularly note-worthy or special, but in terms of general pop culture in the 90s I’d say it was.

Even in minor aspects the show offers some subversion of tropes, such as the usual stern, hard-assed principal being replaced by Principal Flutie, who’s nicer and promises she has a fresh start here regardless of her past (though upon seeing she burned down the gym of her old school, he begins taping her record back together, all while still assuring her things are fine.  Always gets a chuckle from me).

The theme song even fits into this, starting with classical organ music like one might expect in some horror before transitioning into rock music.  The theme’s a banger, for the record.

I also believe the episode does a good job introducing most of the core characters.  Buffy is the stand-out here: they immediately establish her conflict of knowing her abilities/calling as the Slayer but not wanting to follow it to avoid ruining her social life, and also a kindness behind her (being uncomfortable with humiliating Willow and befriending her) that forces her to go against her own desires (having to spring into action to help Willow when a vampire has her).  She’s immediately compelling and has this personal conflict, while not being too dragged down by it and still expressing personality through her wit (“I’m going to a club.”  “Will there be boys there?”  “No, mom.  It’s a nun’s club”).

The other main characters seem less interesting at first glance, coming off kind of stereotypical (ie Xander being an awkward geek, Willow a shy nerd, etc).  However, they still have some good lines that make them stand out as at least somewhat likable (Willow saying Buffy can’t legally hang out with her and Cordelia), and their dynamics with Buffy are very well-established right off the bat: Willow impressed by her attitude/outgoingness, Xander being awkwardly into her and shocked over the Slayer stuff, Giles trying to get her to accept her duties and dealing with the generational barrier, etc.  This was the most important thing to establish in a pilot, as later episodes can add more to them, so they did a good job.

The one exception I’d say is Cordelia, who doesn’t even have much dynamic with Buffy yet; she’s just a bitchy bully.  Which is what her character was at this stage, but considering everyone else in the main cast already has clear dynamics with Buffy, Cordelia seems an extraneous addition to the cast just from this episode.

As a side-note, the variety of humor in the dialogue you get among the cast stands out, from Buffy’s general wittiness to Willow’s awkward rambles to Cordelia blurting stuff out (“What is your childhood trauma!?”)

For one final thought from the perspective of having seen the whole show: I noticed Xander was introduced riding a skateboard, which was weird to see since to my memory he’s never shown on a skateboard again in the series.  I know the reason for this is that this was a very hard scene to film (according to the DVD commentary) and they didn’t want to do it again, but in-universe I’m going to headcanon that Xander felt so embarrassed by crashing into a stair rail in front of everyone he decided to give up skating.

Favorite small moment: I love the way Giles smiles and his voice voice slightly raises pitch as he tells Buffy, “I know what you’re looking for” and pulls out the “Vampyr” book.  He’s so excited and it’s adorable.

Overall: For all the out-dated fashion and campiness, “Welcome to the Hellmouth” does everything a pilot episode needs to do, teases the greatness the series would unfold into, and I struggle to think of other pilots that leave me as engaged as this one does.  This is a good episode!

[theoriginalcarnivorousmuffin]

Why do you think Tomarry would work? I see a lot of people hating on it and the only response I ever see is that they come from similar backgrounds or people just like enemies to lovers. Also which horcrux do you think Harry would go best with (including Voldemort)

So, this is probably a more complicated question than you intended, but that’s because I live in bizarre head canon lands that few ever dare venture towards.

With that, let’s get started.

But What Do You Really Ship, Muffin?

First, it probably bears saying that I’m not really a Tomarry shipper. I know, I’ve written more than one Tomarry story, so if that’s not Tomarry what is? Well, remember that those Tomarry pairing tags are a filthy lie. October I committed the grievous sin of breaking up the Tomarry and throwing Tom at Harry’s mother. Lily and the Art of Being Sisyphus is barely a Harry Potter fic in any capacity, and while the ship is the driving force of the fic, it’s also this nebulous, distant, thing that really shows up only in strange side stories where I try to make people laugh. When Harry Met Tom is probably the closest that I take seriously, but I also intentionally subvert all your typical Tomarry tropes for my own enjoyment. 

The only Tomarry story I’d say I’ve ever actually written is “The Burning Taste of Fire Whisky”. It’s a very popular story, sadly perhaps my most popular on Ao3, but I actually loathe it entirely. 

A lot of the time I feel like I just happen to have a Tomarry shirt on and then I suddenly became a subject matter expert. If you want the Tomarry opinions from real Tomarry people, I’m probably not the best person to ask. In fact, if you want really any standard answer about Harry Potter anything, I’m not the best person to ask.

Now, I’m not just saying this to be a hipster but to sort of give some background for why I’m going to give the answer I’m going to give and why it’s going to be 100% different from everyone else’s and yes, sometimes, I do think I came from Mars.

Will the Real Tomarry Please Stand Up?

So with that, the bottom line is: taking canon as JKR intended, completely at face value, Tomarry doesn’t work at all. This is because JKR fully intends a very flat, one-dimensional, and frankly quite boring Tom Riddle. Tom Riddle’s evil, Tom Riddle was born evil, Tom Riddle was evil in the womb because of rape. He is completely and utterly irredeemable and understands nothing of love.

Well, that sort of sinks the ship right out of the harbor, doesn’t it? A Tom Riddle incapable of love is one incapable of growth, especially in a romantic focused story. If you try to write it you just get weird sociopathic whump porn where Tom probably whips Harry in a closet somewhere.

Added onto this we get that, despite what she put down on paper, Harry is supposed to be a straight man. That aside, he’s also a righteous man whose understanding of things like love and friendship mean he’d never sully himself with gross Tom Riddle. Ew, what are you people thinking?

Well, what if we take canon just mostly as JKR intended? What if we just look at the characters the way she actually wrote them versus what she was trying to do? Still no dice.

Tom might now be capable of love, be a far more engaging character who can go somewhere, and be pulled out of a pit of rage and despair by someone but that someone ain’t Harry.

First, while I firmly believe Harry is gay (gay, not bisexual, compare his descriptions of Cho/Ginny to Tom Riddle/Sirius Balck/Cedric Diggory/Charlie Weasley, that boy pants after Tom Riddle and Cho’s kiss is “wet”) he’s also a much worse person and much dumber character than JKR intended. It’s really the first that damns the pairing.

I have a whole giant post on how Harry’s a little yikes but the long and short of it is that while Harry thinks he understands friendship and love he’s also someone who will cut out his friends at a moment’s notice if he feels remotely slighted, uses and sacrifices them for his own ends, gleefully uses unforgiveable curses when given the opportunity, and is the kind of guy who would cut someone up in the bathroom, leave them to bleed to death, and only really feel bad about it when it seems he might get in trouble for it.

This Harry ending up even with a Tom who could potentially be redeemed would more likely lead to, well, weird psychopathic whump porn where Harry tortures Tom in his basement to make him pay for all the horrible things he’s done while Harry claims he’s the most moral person ever because his mother loved him.

So, yeah, no Tomarry for you.

But Wait, Didn’t You Say You Believed in Tomarry?

What I believe in are archetypes.

Remove what Harry’s supposed to be, remove what I think he actually is (one maladjusted, violent, dude with a whole lot of anger issues), let’s make Harry what perhaps JKR didn’t even know she wanted: one of those rare fundamentally good heroes who warps an entire story with the strength of their inner nobility.

Harry Potter is meant to be a story about love and friendship. Now, it’s not actually, and we sort of end with Harry being Jesus and none of us are sure why. Except that he apparently forgives Dumbledore and Snape for brainwashing him to be a kamikaze agent. They’re the bravest men he knows. But let’s pretend it actually is a story about love and friendship.

To me, the strongest story of love we could possibly have had in this world is the redemption of Tom Riddle. Here is a man who was supposed to have been irredeemable since birth, he has done many horrific and unforgiveable things, grew up in extreme hardship in a society that spits on everything he ever was, and is mired in bitterness, despair, and rage. Beneath all that, Tom Riddle has given up hope in the world and is now content to burn it down himself.

Harry, through the nobility of his spirit and integrity of his character, somehow managing to redeem Tom Riddle is not only a fascinating story but a very good one at its core. The fact that they are tied together by destiny as well as tragedy, that Harry houses a shard of Tom’s soul (and I do so love horcruxes), only makes it more so.

This is the kind of story that carries epics, and that is why I gravitate towards it.

Now, do I change Harry up to do so? Good god, yes. I wouldn’t say any Harry Potter I have written is anything close to the Harry we know from canon. Some are closer than others, but they always in some way deviate. That said, from what I’ve seen almost nobody writes the actual Harry we remember from canon, so this is a very standard practice I can get away with, without too many people calling foul.

Ultimately ending in tragedy or in the full redemption of Tom: either works with these base characterizations and the world is your oyster.

What About All Those Other Arguments?

I’m not going to get into this too much except that I wouldn’t argue Tomarry works for the reasons you list. At all.

On the similar backgrounds, the fact is Harry and Tom don’t have similar backgrounds, JKR just says they do because she likes that trope (and so do many of the readers).

Harry and Tom have dark hair, they both came from abusive homes, but that’s where the similarities start and end. Upon entering the wizarding world Harry is treated very very very differently from Tom Riddle.

Harry, grows up in this weird sort of pseudo poverty where he dresses in rags because the Dursley’s hate him but he never actually has to worry about money. When he gets to the wizarding world he can afford everything he wants. He can buy a new wand, he can buy new supplies, he can buy all the candy off the trolly cart. Money’s not an object to Harry, is barely even a concept.

Tom Riddle is presumably on scholarship and money is everything to him. He buys a new wand but likely all his clothes and books are second hand. He can’t buy whatever candy he wants, probably can’t afford gifts for his peers, Tom is very aware of the haves and have nots.

Harry similarly never has to worry about a career. He never gets that far, fearing for his life so much, but the fact is that Harry has enough money that he doesn’t actually need to work. More, who would turn down the great Harry Potter? He wants to be an auror, is afraid he might not qualify, but it’s not really desperate.

Tom Riddle is to the world an impoverished muggle born. He tries for the Defense position and is turned down mostly because Dumbledore threw shade. Dumbledore tries to make it seem like Tom desperately wanted to work in this weird shop in London’s magical back alley, but probably that was the only position Tom could get (everything Dumbledore ever says, especially in those pensieve lessons, must be taken with a large grain of salt). Everything else goes to friends, family, and purebloods.

Adding to this, Harry has this glowing reputation. Now, Harry might not like it, he might want to be just Harry but the fact is that everyone has heard of him and most people worship the ground he walks on. Doors are open to him everywhere. His first introduction to the wizarding world is from a man who loves him and gushes about Harry as a baby.

Tom Riddle is someone with a muggle last name, who comes from a muggle orphanage, in other words he is nobody from nowhere. (For reasons I won’t get into here I find it very doubtful Tom ever revealed he was the heir of Slytherin until he became Voldemort and let Tom Riddle fade into obscurity). His first introduction to the wizarding world is some asshole lighting all his stuff on fire because the matron talked shit about him.

Harry wants to stay at Hogwarts because the Dursleys are abusive. Yes, this is terrible, but Tom wants to stay because Nazis are bombing London and Dippet says, “So sorry, Tom, no exceptions. Enjoy those luffas!” Harry’s concerns are never treated with the same disdain.

To make a long story short, they do not have similar backgrounds, at all. To say they do is utterly laughable and not much better than saying “they both have dark hair, they have so much in common!”

They both came from abusive homes, yes, but even the nature of those homes were very different and when they went to Hogwarts they were worlds apart.

... So much for not getting into it, eh?

As for Enemies to Lovers, well, it’s a trope and people enjoy it but it’s not my jam. I could go into why, but I think I’ve said enough.

Which Horcrux Do You Think Harry Would Go Best With?

We see so little of the individual horcruxes I’m not sure I can really take a stab at this. I sort of just make up their personalities as it suits me every time I write them.

With that I suppose I’m partial to the one in Harry’s head? Given that he has a front row seat to Harry, has seen Voldemort’s tragic demise, I think he’s in the best position to end up with Harry in a meaningful manner.

Especially as, if you think about it, he could represent the very last of Tom Riddle’s humanity. The single shard of humanity that remained in him until the bitter end.

[fatehbaz]

Sorry. This might be annoying and excessively long. Among people interested in psychogeography, ecology, folklore, bioregionalism, urban geography (and Empire, hegemony, anti-imperialism, to a lesser extent, I guess?) there is a quote that gets circulated from time to time. I’ve seen the quote in academic articles, sure, but also on the W0rdpress blogs of, like, birders, hikers, gardeners, “bioregional animists,” and “woods aesthetic” fans. But why do both academic authors and popular/mainstream writers and bloggers and such consistently remove the end of this sentence from Michel de Certeau’s memorable statement: “There is no place that is not haunted by many different spirits hidden there in silence, spirits one can “invoke” or not. Haunted places  are the only ones people can live in – and this inverts the schema of the panopticon.”

Gonna revel in the wonders of the garden, the forest, the landscape, the other-than-human lifeforms, and yet not willing to explicitly address the vulnerability, the cascading extinction, the tightening noose of imperial hegemony and carceral systems threatening it all, landscapes, lives, entire worlds? What de Certeau is referring to here is the way that imperial/dominant power structures (European modernity, Empire) try to subdue, erase, destroy smaller, alternate, and/or non-Western cosmologies, to make it seem like Empire is the only possible world that can be constructed. And so landscapes become sanitized, especially in cities, and de Certeau says that such sanitized places are “uninhabitable” because they are so cold, because Empire tries to standardize experience, rather than allowing localized connections tor regional landscape. But the alternative worldviews, the histories, have not been fully erased, and exist in the cracks and crevices of modernity, and so there are “ghosts” of alternative worlds which live on. And it is the remnants of other worlds, or the glimpses of other creatures (animals/plants/etc.) or other surviving worldviews (graffiti in the subway, which rejects order and control), or the hopes of possible better future worlds, crevices where the “failures” of modernity can be glimpsed, which make a place habitable. “Haunted geographies.”

Here’s a sentence fragment from a different author, writing about de Certeau:

“exotification and suppression, under a cloak of celebration”

This kinda thing.

This fragment comes from a criticism of early-20th-century Euro-American academia’s so-called “folklore studies” but I think it also describes much 21st-century academic interest in “ecological knowledge” and non-Western cultures. I have a feeling that this behavior is similar to what contemporary upper class careerist-academics in academic anthropology departments and those “studying the utility of traditional ecological knowledge” are doing when they superficially throw around words like “decolonial” or “Haraway’s Chthuluscene” in their article abstract for Cool Points without actually having given much through to the way they and their sponsoring institution, in their thirst for prestige or good optics or whatever, are in fact continuing to perpetuate dispossession and appropriation of Indigenous/non-Western knowledge. And on some level, it is deliberate and calculated, though not always a conscious act on the individual author/researcher’s part. Intentional power consolidation masked as passive chauvinism masked as benevolent paternalistic concern for “primitive peoples” masked as genuine respect. What’s happening is a recuperation, the subsuming of alternative cosmologies and ways of being. Hypothetical Nat/Geo article, variations of which you’ve probably seen before: “How can we utilize Indigenous knowledge? Can traditional knowledge help us battle climate change?” Empire, those in power, hegemonic institutions colonizing knowledge, thought, cosmology.

Plenty has been written, especially in recent years, of a “plurality/pluriverse of worlds in contrast to one imperial worldview/cosmology” and also the paternalistic attitudes of Euro-American anthropologists, but the mid-century work of Michel de Certeau, in my opinion, anticipated a lot of this disk horse. Here’s the fuller quote:

-----------------------

“In recent years, especially since 1960, scholarship in the service of popular culture has been of Marxist inspiration, or at least ‘populist’ in spirit,” de Certeau, Dominique Julia and Jacque Revel wrote in a 1980 essay, “but does the scientific operation it undertakes obey different laws than it did in the past? On the contrary, it seems to be dominated by the mechanisms of age-old excommunications…to conceal what it claims to show” (de Certeau 1986, 121). This opening statement encapsulates much of de Certeau’s thinking about the history of folklore studies. Tracing its development in successive stages from the late eighteenth century to the “heyday of folklore” in France’s Third Republic (1870-1940), the authors argue that the eighteenth century aristocratic vogue for “the popular” concealed a powerful movement toward the domination of the peasantry. This movement involved both exotification and suppression, under a cloak of celebration.“ The idealization of the “popular,” as they put it, “is made all the easier if it takes the form of a monologue. The people may not speak, but they can sing...The intent [of folklorists] is both to collect…and to reduce (de Certeau 1986, 122).[...] The governing ideologies driving the emergence of this obsession with the folk were not static, however, and therefore, in order to understand the development of the politics of culture in folklore studies, scholars must examine, at each point, its “subjacent postulates” (de Certeau 1986, 123). For instance, following the domination imbricated with the origins of folklore studies in the 18th century, by the mid-nineteenth century, the authors describe folklore as taking on a paternalist role vis-a-vis its subject. The collection of folklore by this time, embodied especially in the works of Charles Nisard (1808-1890), is not just a chronicle of its elimination by the elite, but a protective function executed by the elite on behalf of the incompetent peasant. In this view, de Certeau and his colleagues observe, “the people are children whose original purity it is befitting to preserve by guarding them against evil readings” (de Certeau 1986, 124, original emphasis). [...] This, then, is the basic outline of de Certeau’s historical critique of both the conceptualization of folklore and the discipline of folklore studies, as well as the core of his critique of cultural studies in the late 20th century. Interestingly, however, it is also the core of his larger understanding of the workings of modernity.

From: Anthony Bak Buccitelli. “Hybrid Tactics and Locative Legends: Re-reading de Certeau for the Future of Folkloristics.” Cultural Analysis, Volume 15.1. 2016.

--------------------------------

So there is a popular quote from Michel de Certeau (French interdisciplinary scholar, 1925-1986), which seems to have been yet more popular since, like:

(1) 2010-ish with elevation of Mark Fisher’s work; “object-oriented ontology”; “dark ecology”; apparent academic elevation of ontological turn in anthropology; and the white-washed Euro-American academic language of traditional ecological knowledge, “decolonization,” etc.,

And also since (2) 2014/2015 in “popular” media, with apparent mainstream-ing or “revival” of folk horror, alongside elevation of eco-horror, Anthropocene disk horse, etc.

(In my anecdotal experience, at least, reading about geography, folklore, psychogeography, etc. in online spaces from M.S.N chatroom days onwards.)

I’m of course very wary of de Certeau’s interest in and celebration of Freud (come on, bro) and also the implications of de Certeau’s Jesuit background and early interest in missionary stuff (gross). But de Certeau did write some thoughtful and nicely-phrased stuff (in my opinion) about the importance of subverting imperialist/hegemonic cosmologies; how Euro-American academic institutionalized knowledge reinforces power; imperative for combating hegemony/carceral thinking by connecting with landscape; the “memory” of places; the “hidden” histories of landscapes, etc. And he wrote this decades before academics started stealing from Indigenous people of Latin America and getting into pluriverse stuff.

Anyway, one quote in particular seems most popular. but almost every single instance where i’ve ever seen this quote shared, it always cuts out the last few words of the statement. The quote is from what might be his most widely-read work, the “Walking in the City” chapter of his 1984 book The Practice of Everyday Life. (it’s a pretty brief chapter which is available for free online; might take 30 minutes to read, if you’re interested.) The quote as translated by Steven Rendall: “There is no place that is not haunted by many different spirits hidden there in silence, spirits one can “invoke” or not. Haunted places  are the only ones people can live in – and this inverts the schema of the panopticon.”

The “inversion of the panopticon” portion is almost always left out of the quote. even in academic writing or in the writing/blogs/whatever of people who otherwise seem like they would be down with anti-imperialism or something.

So, it comes across to me as if contemporary (2005-2020) academics and activists interested in, like, folklore or local horticulture or psychogeography will like ... take the “cute” fragments of these excerpts, but don’t want to “stir the pot” by presenting these writings in their fuller context, a fuller context which calls-out knowledge appropriation and explicitly trash-talks Empire.

And de Certeau’s not just writing about folklore or geography. He’s writing about taking action, about practicing alternative ways to relate to landscape in direct contrast to imperial cosmologies, academic/institutionalized/gatekept knowledge, and carceral thinking. (He’s famous for this; he emphasized “tactics” and “action.”)

So this guy is, of course, human, and had disagreeable and/or outright problematique associations. You can argue with his writing extensively. his publications are a mix of great, cool, iffy, “meh” and “bad take bruh.” But de Certeau was ahead of the curve in anticipating the way ambitious US academics would see “the decolonial turn” happening in academic anthropology in the 1990s/2000s and then weaponize it in a way that preserved their power dynamic and institutional power while still paying lip-service to “decolonization.”

But besides dunking on the imperialist foundations of Western institutionalized knowledge systems and the cunning employment of geographic re-worlding and re-naming in creating propaganda and imperial cosmology, and besides being ahead of the curve in anticipating re-enchantment trends and folk horror ... One thing I like about de Certeau’s writing is the emphasis on action, practice, and doing things to counter dominant/powerful cosmology’s attempt to destroy folk/non-Western worldview. Encouraging something like:

Take action. Books are cool, but books are not a substitute for action. Girl, you wanna study landscape, place-based identity, folklore, and how to escape the panopticon? Gotta put the theory texts down occasionally. Please go walk around in the forest; if you’re in the major city, don’t despair, just look at the moss growing in crevices betwixt the cobblestones. Imagine the ghosts, the histories, the stories, who died, what was lost, what’s come before. Power is trying to subsume all, but Empire gets anxious and flails because they know that there are gaps in their cosmology, cracks and breakages where other worlds seep through or can be glimpsed, retrieved, renewed. They know their cosmology can’t account for the diversity of life, the plurality of experience. There is not one world, but many. Find the crevices, the cracks, in the dominant power structures, and break them further. You can help to escape the tightening noose, the planetary-scale plantation, by using your imagination, cooking a meal, taking a walk.

[imaginariumpod]

A Tapestry of Lace and Silk : the visual aesthetic and costume design of Crimson Peak (2015)

 In the dark corners of an ancient mansion, you hear the rustle of a long dress on the floor, there behind a closed door, lies some ghosts and secrets that should never be unearthed. 

A woman walks in the silence. 

Crimson Peak (2015) is a movie directed by Guillermo Del Toro, and is one of the most obvious mainstream examples of the gothic romance in cinema in the recent years. With a story full of ghosts, a secret, a haunted house and of visuals directly inspired by the mid-century gothic romance book covers. This movie is visually highly stylized and immersive in a way I think a lot of filmmakers and studios tend to shy away from. 

While Guillermo Del Toro’s movies tend to always be very stylized and visually cohesive, Crimson Peak is truly the one, in my opinion, where the production design was at its most compelling and beautiful. To me, it’s obvious how much care and attention has been given to even the slightest of details, to create the perfect visual identity for this film. I have read once that the gothic was very decorative, as a genre. From the dark mansions, and the flowing nightgowns to the flickering lights of the candles and the creaking floors. The ~aesthetic~ is something that is very important to a gothic romance story. It’s all in the atmosphere, as well as some important elements of the story in itself, that make a gothic romance. Gothic Romance is a genre that you have to lean into, and Guillermo Del Toro perfectly understood it when it came to Crimson Peak.

Before we go more into it, i just want to warn you all that there’s probably going to be spoilers in this article. I will try my best to avoid being overly blatant about what happens in the story in itself, because that is not my focus. My focus during this article will be on the production design of the movie, the way this movie looks and has been designed, especially when it comes to the costumes and the outfits the characters wear throughout the movie. I mostly want to go deep into the visual aesthetic of this film, from the decors and visual themes to the dresses and outfits that were created for this story. I want to talk about the visual aspect of the movie and how it translates within the genre of gothic and the medium of filmmaking.

Guillermo Del Toro : the cineast 

Guilerrmo del Toro is a mexican director mostly known for having a very distinct style of dark fantastical movies often featuring monsters, myths, the folklore and fairytales. His movies alternate between being made in spanish or english. His stories and movies often explore the dark side of the fantastical, of fairy tales and stories told after the dark.  and yet. they have a hopeful side to them . 

While a lot of his movies were successful, I do think it’s El Laberinto del fauno (2006) (Pan’s Labyrinth) that really established him as a thriving filmmaker, despite how niche a lot of his movies and stories are.   Which, by the way, as a quick aside, Pan’s Labyrinth is a very formative movie to me, I watched the year it came out, when I was 11 years old, my dad brought the DVD home, thinking it was a movie for children. And well. It was not. I ended up being TERRIFIED and yet mesmerized and this was my first contact with Guillermo Del Toro as a filmmaker but it certainly wouldn’t be the last. His movies are crystallized in my memory, and they awakened in me a love of this more gothic and fairy-tale inspired horror. He's definitely a movie director that brings his unique touch to whichever work he’s doing. 

The Gothic is a very prominent part of Del Toro’s work, which he calls Gothick (and is indeed a word that represents the genre that got started by Horace Walpole’s book The Castle of Otranto in 1764) and he describes the relationship he has with this genre as “a way to discover beauty in the monstrous”  The protagonists of Del Toro movies often embrace the darkness that exists around them and within themselves. For Del Toro, the gothic is the “only genre that teaches [us] to understand otherness.” You can see it in the narrative of so many of his movies, which culminates in The Shape of The Water, where the monster ends up being the victim of society, and the real monster is the character of Michael Shannon, who represents the pressure of society,  the norms and accepted and what can happen if you deviate from what is accepted. 

The narratives of Del Toro’s movies reject authorianism in any shape or form, whether the societal authorianism or the narrative ones, and this makes for a way of storytelling that often turns around all expected tropes.His movies are, at their core, anti-fascist and, in my very humble opinion, very relevant during our current political climate on an global level. I really do not feel like I am the right person to dive deep into this subject in a small article on the visual aesthetic of one of Del Toro’s movies, but I want to recommend the thesis The Dark Fantastic of Guillermo Del Toro : Myth, Fascism, and theopolitical Imagination in Cronos, The Devil’s Backbone, and Pan’s Labyrinth by Morgaan Sinclair. That thesis is widely informative and interesting to read and will probably dive deeper in those themes that are always somewhat present in every Del Toro movie. 

He loves using “typical” genre stories and making them his own. From folk tales, fairy tales, vampire stories, legends, he uses these narrative motifs as a template for his stories, but he always subverts them in one way or another, exploring the darkness within. And this is what he also did with Crimson Peak, but now with the gothic romance genre as his template. Gothic Romance is one of those genres that is very formulaic in some ways, it has very common tropes and themes that are often used.   For example, the way he explores the gothic house and its entire symbolism in his early movie The Devil’s Backbone (2001).

[These old-Gothic notions insinuate themselves in the Gothick terrain of del Toro’s films. The ­Devil’s Backbone, a ghost story set in a remote orphanage during the Spanish Civil War, seems at first glance to be a classic Gothick romance, which, as del Toro reminds us in his commentary, focuses on the house, the domicile, as an emblem and warped container of the human self.  This symbolically charged structure, he says, always conceals a “dark secret,” linked to a treasure and deep passions, “that is buried in the past and affects the people living in it.” At the center of the darkness stands “a very pure ­hero—a new set of eyes to explore the secret and through the purity of his heart unravel the mystery.”]

When it comes to his films, Del Toro tends to often use archetypes as a way to effectively communicate certain concepts, but more often than not, he will turn these archetypes upside down.  Del Toro tends to also use a lot of symbols in his movies, weaving a tapestry of overarching themes and meaning. He gives depth to his stories by a use of various artistic and literary references, historical references. building a story that contains layers upon layers. This depth also translates to the visual aspect of his movies, as Del Toro movies tend to be carefully and precisely crafted. The aesthetic is, as one might say, on point. From the somber and fantastical creativity of Pan’s Labyrinth to the epic and vibrants colors of Pacific Rim. Crimson Peak is, to me, one of the most visually beautiful and compelling movies of Del Toro, and this is what we’re going to get into a bit later. 

A ghost story: 

This story starts at the end. This is a narrative device Del Toro also used with Pan’s Labyrinth, the movie starts with the final scene, and we know that something terrible is going to happen, and it just keeps the tension and stakes high during the entirety of the movie, as we keep wondering when things will take a turn for the worse. 

We can see Edith Cushing (Mia Wasikowska ) wearing her white nightgown, in a scene of fog and piercing white. Her blond hair is flowing down on her shoulders, her face is pale, and her hands.

Her hands are drenched in blood. 

The first sentence of the movie is then spoken : “Ghosts are real. This much I know.” This immediately sets the tone for the rest of the movie. 

And then. It goes back to the beginning, when she was just a young child, at the moment her mother died, when the ghost of her mother, veiled in black lace,  came to warn her, to beware of Crimson Peak… 

Edith Cushing is a young woman living with her father and who dreams of becoming a writer. She keeps trying to publish her story, not a ghost story, but moreso a story with a ghost in it. “The ghost is a metaphor” she says. A metaphor for the past and for regrets and violence that still permeates a place. She then meets Thomas Sharpe (Tom Hiddleston), an english baronet without fortune, and his sister Lucille (Jessica Chastain). After the sudden (and suspicious) death of her father, she marries Thomas and follows him and his sister back to England, in their strange mansion that stands isolated in the midst of english hills, atop a source of red clay. The Sharpes are an aristocratic family with no fortune and a decrepit mansion where strange things happen, where ghosts roam. 

There’s also a social commentary here on the changing social norms and social classes. While the Sharpes are an aristocratic family, owning land and a title, they are not rich. Their clothes are good quality, made from good materials and hand crafted, but they are also old and not of the current fashion. They are in a very strange place socially, being higher up on the social class and yet, being broke and trying to figure out how to get money to take care of their crumbling estate.

Ghosts are real, we need to remember, and are a reminder of what has been forgotten and what has died. The past is still  lingering on in the present, and violence of the past will not go unpunished. The ghosts of Crimson Peak are terrifying. I do not want to say much about them, because it would reveal too much about the plot and the story, but I want to talk about them in terms of visual design. The ghosts of Crimson Peak are terrifying, they are skeleton-like, and red. Vibrant red. They are nothing like I have ever seen before in terms of ghosts, and this is yet another way Crimson Peak sets itself apart from other movies. 

Lucille says something at the end of the movie, and I will not say anything about the plot, so fear not for spoilers, she says “but the horror… the horror was for love” and I do think it says so much about the movie and about the genre. Gothic romance is not really a love story, but it’s not strictly a horror story either. It’s a blend of love and horror. And sometimes… the horror, the horror will be for the sake of love. 

The building of a haunted house

Production design, when it comes to movies, relates to everything that has to do with the visual identity of the movie. The look and the stylistic choices that are made to make the movie look the way it does. From the costumes, to the sets, to the decor, and all the small details, production design is one of the most important parts of  constructing a movie. It’s those elements that make out how the movie will  look and what it will communicate to its audience.

The production designer works on all the aspects that pertains to the visuals of the movies, along with the director of photography. They manage everything from the costume, the sets and the decor. And they work closely with the director to craft the visual identity of the movie. Guillermo Del Toro always draws from a very vast range of thematic and visual inspirations when it comes to his movies : from gothic architecture, symbolist art, the surrealists, but also more popular inspirations such as comic books and even video games. So many of these elements are brought and matched to visually create a layered look to the film.  

The visual storytelling, the ambiance, the atmosphere, all of these elements are a huge part of what makes Crimson Peak truly interesting. The visuals of the movies were not an afterthought to the script, but were an integral part of how the movie was constructed. Under the directives of Guilermo Del Toro, Thomas E. Sanders [Dracula (1992) ; Braveheart (1995)] constructed an intricate and vibrant appearance for Crimson Peak, which I think is one of the most memorable components of the film.

This movie takes the canons of gothic horror and gothic romance and embraces them, whether it is narratively speaking or visually speaking. I always love a story that leans heavily into its genre and its tropes and convention, only to make use of them in a different and new way. I can mention The Man From U.N.C.L.E. (2015) as another movie who embraces its genre, here the corny 1960s inspired spy movie, and just GOES WITH IT. I do so much appreciate when any type of storyteller and artist fully work within the genre and then try to expand the boundaries of that specific genre, all the while trying to create a work that is definitely recognizable as a certain genre. 

As I said, the visuals are obviously very much inspired by the canons of gothic romance, whether it's the illustrations that were in the book of the 19th century, as well as all the historical inspirations from the late 19th century in which the movie is set. There’s also the obvious references to the book covers of the gothic paperbacks of the mid 20th century, with their jewel tones, and their heroines escaping a dark and looming manor behind them. Or sometimes, she is exploring the dark winding corridors, with only the help of a few candles lighting her way.

There’s this dichotomy that sometimes occurs when it comes to movies, of style over substance or vice versa. Which to me is a moot and useless point, because style is a form of storytelling as well. The way you construct the visuals of the movies, the decors and the costumes, and the way the film is shot, all of this is a way of telling a story and is as essential to a good movie. Even a movie that doesn’t put the emphasis on “style” also makes a visual choice. Not focusing on the visual elements such as the costumes, or the decor, is also a stylistic choice in itself. Even if the choice is to make the movie devoid of any outlandish visual assets. Taking these decisions are what ultimately make the movie be the way it is visually. A film is a visual form of storytelling, 

When it comes to the sets, the movie is set mostly in two diametrically opposed houses, the airy and light house of the Cushings in Buffalo, homey and comfortable, and the cold gothic estate of the Sharpes : Allerdale Hall. Where the house in Bufallo was full of light and a warm color palette, Allerdale Hall is the opposite. That house is the typical gothic mansion, and one of the most important elements of any good gothic romance. Imposing, dark, with twisting corridors and actually decaying above them. Visually, it’s also distinctive with the colder colors that are used when filming there. It’s the ideal setting for the gothic romance story to happen. Sanders says that the only reference that he was given by Del Toro for the design of this house was the painting House by the Railroad (1925) by Edward Hopper. This painting was the beginning of a very long and arduous process as Sanders tried to create this perfect haunted house.

The house of the Sharpes, is atop a source of red clay, hence its name. It’s decrepit, falling apart, cold. “colder inside than out” says Edith when she first enters it. The house is slowly but surely sinking in the red clay that once used to be the source of the Sharpes’ fortune. Visually, it looks as if the house was bleeding, as if the house was alive. As Sanders says during an interview with Slate : 

“We felt that the clay is the blood of the earth, and it’s also the blood of the house, and that the house was a living thing that embodied the family over all those years.”

Within the genre of gothic horror and gothic romance, the house plays a very peculiar part. Whether it is haunted or not, the house is very much often an important character of the gothic story, on the same level as the heroine or the antagonist or the ghost. The spaces of Allerdale Hale are tight and menacing, the house is full of dangerous sharp angles. This is not a warm house. Del Toro said that he repeated the wooden pattern on the columns three or four times, so that it looks slightly out of focus, like something is wrong, but you cannot pinpoint what it is, exactly. 

Allerdale Hall is thus the perfect setting for this gothic romance to unfold, through the sharp and twisting corridors, with the gaping hole in the ceiling through which the snow falls and covers the red crimson blood of the house. 

A nightgown to explore strange corridors at night:

The main costume designer for this film was Costume Designer Kate Hawley, assisted by Cori Burchell. Even though they hadn’t worked specifically on period movies and historical movies or more fantastical movies prior to their job on Crimson Peak, I cannot help but think that they did a marvelous job when it came to the costume design for this particular movie. Hawley had previously worked on Pacific Rim with Del Toro, so she was familiar with the way he worked and envisioned things. Together, they truly created a wardrobe that was absolutely wonderful for the movie of Crimson Peak. Highly stylized. Imbued with the fashion and artistic trends of the era, without being exactly Literal to the clothing of the time. She used costume design as a vehicle to communicate ideas and moods that were intrinsical to the characters of the story. 

Hawley worked closely with  Del Toro to create the costumes that would be perfect to convey the personality of the characters and would help build the depth of the movie. In her interview with digital magazine JEZEBEL, she says that she definitely considers Crimson Peak to feel like an opera, a piece of music in which there’s two distinct acts, and so the costuming had to also follow those two distinct acts and those two distinct worlds that the characters inhabit. From the color scheme and mood, to the details of the historical period. But most importantly, especially for a Guillermo Del Toro movie, it was vital for Hawley to look at it thematically first. Del Toro movies are always chock full of references to art, folklore and literature, and there is no surprise that the costume design should follow the same direction.

The costumes are an important narrative device as well, the clothing a character wears reflects their personality as well as their narrative journey. It can inform on the status of the character, their place in society, it’s an effective tool of storytelling. A good costume designer will use the wardrobe of each character to say something about the character in themselves but also create a cohesive visual look for the ensemble. From the colors to the chosen fashion style and to the accessories, fashion is a silent mode of communication that we all inherently understand, even if not on a conscious level. The wardrobe of each different character is thought and designed, to fit the character but the movie as a whole. 

As our queen and icon, legendary costume designer and winner of eight separate academy awards for costume design, Edith Head says : “Fashion is not the primary thing, the primary effort in motion pictures is to tell a story”. And clothing do tell a story, whether or not you think they do. This is comes back to what I was saying earlier, that sometimes, people tend to not put any sort of importance on the clothing, considering it shallow and superficial, but I would argue that it’s a very subtle way of storytelling that says more about the character in a single outfit than a whole scene of exposition ever could. 

Edith’s clothes are all very modern and current to the era the movie is set in (ie. 1901) The silhouette of all the clothes she wears are very much within the fashionable silhouette of the era, with the gigantic sleeves, and the cinched waist and slightly flare-y skirt. All of the dresses she wears throughout the movie have the leg-of-mutton sleeves that were so fashionable during the late 1890s and early 1900s.  The color palette of Edith’s clothes is very much within a very soft and warm-toned palette, with a lot of soft yellows, ivories, creams, mustards and golds. this very much visually set her apart from the Sharpes. Hawley says she imagined Edith as a canary in a coal mine, her vibrant yellows and gold outfits in the dark and somber walls of Allerdale Hall. Hawley and Del Toro also used a pre-raphaelite portrait of Helen of Troy by Dante Gabriel Rossetti (1863) as a visual basis to work on Edith’s aesthetic. 

She’s a down to earth woman who is ready to make efforts and her dresses reflect this aspect of her personality, they are comfortable and practical, while still having that air of whimsy to them. From the gigantic buttons on her honey colored dress or the beautifully eccentric belt in the shape of hands. Kate Hawley, the movie’s costume designer, says that this belt is just an upscaled version of the small mourning jewelry in which a lock of hair of a loved one who passed away can be found in. “I took these little earrings, these little ivory hands, and we scaled them up so it was almost like a mother's hands clasped around her waist”. (I so desperately want a belt like that btw, it is creepy but i still want it, if any of you happen to find one, please do contact me, thank you so very much.) She matches her hat and gloves with her ensemble, and generally, Edith, is just very visually cohesive and coherent within her own style. 

During a very romantically and sensually charged scene, she wears a beautiful evening gown in ivory satin and ornamented with pearls. She enters the room dressed in this lovely dress and a long satin cape of the same color and a pleated collar, her hair delicately swept up.  This is Edith’s very own dramatic moment, where she gets to dance with her romantic lead and wears an outfit that is a bit fancier than her usual fare. This dress is still within the very soft and pale color palette that represents Edith. This particular dress is visibly inspired by a painting of  the italian artist Giovanni Boldini : The Black Sash (1905), which furthers the fact that this movie’s visual aesthetic is deeper than what first meets the eye. From the delicate color and stark black ribbon down her back. 

Edith, though, is our ingenue heroine of the gothic romance. One of the main archetypes in the gothic romance is the innocent heroine, a young woman thrown into a situation that’s claustrophobic, scary and dangerous. In every gothic romance, there comes a moment where the heroine leaves her bed in her nightgown, it’s a very striking visual that is the mark of the way we visualize gothic romance. She holds a candle, wearing only the lightest of clothing, and goes to explore the darkness within the walls she inhabits. Her nightgown ends up being the most significant outfit of the whole movie, it truly marks her as a gothic romance heroine, while she roams the corridors at night.

 «I’ve never done so many nighties and nightgowns! It’s all about running around in night dresses through long corridors. That also blended to the fabric. When Guillermo said to me, “It’s about a house that breathes,” that’s why we chose the lightest fabric, just a little thing to try and help the storytelling with the idea of the house.»

 Edith’s nightgown is striking, the movement of the heavily pleated garment fills the whole screen whenever she moves, it gives her a certain elegance and follows the cohesive silhouette and color palette that was established for her thus far, with its gigantic sleeves and the soft warm and earthy colors of the dressing gown she wears over her nightgown, as she goes down the dark stairs of Allerdale Hall. 

Where Edith is the innocent ingenue, Lucille is the woman hardened by life and misfortunes. She is all sharp angles and contrasts, where Edith is soft and kind, with a seamless color palette. Lucille’s outfits are stuck twenty years in the past and this is very much a narrative device and tool that’s used through the usage of dress and costume design. By showing her in these lavish but old-fashioned dresses. it serves both the purpose of showing how rich and noble the family of the Sharpes is but also, it effectively communicates how they do not have the means to actually follow the current fashionable trends. It shows that Lucille is not one to want to have something of lower quality or cheaper than she thinks her standing deserves. Lucille is a woman that is stuck in the past and is not truly living in the current times.  I think that even though these details often necessitate a basic knowledge of the dress silhouettes of the late 19th century and early 20th century, this tactic still visually works because it sets Lucille apart from the rest of the world. It expresses visually how she and her brother are distanced from the world outside.

Her dresses and outfits are dramatic and striking, with the sharp silhouette of the 1880s, with the bustles. The colors of her dresses are always in deep tones, like reds, blues or black. The colors are very rich and vivid. The first dress that we see Lucille wearing is the beautiful red dress during the scene where she plays piano. A silhouette typical of the 1880s with the bustles and the very extravagant detailing. That one dress is a striking red, with a skirt that has a long train. The one very important design detailing is the back of the dress, replicating a spine of sorts in the middle of her back. Those sharp angles forebode a sense of danger that is conveyed strictly through the construction of the dress, and the arrangement of the textiles, the various shades of red fabric intertwined to create this gorgeous pattern that goes down the skirt. Her hair is swept upward and decorated with fine red jewels, and the pale complexion of Jessica Chastain only make the whole ensemble more striking. 

Compared to the two other components of the main trio, Thomas Sharpe’s outfits seem much more muted and sober. His clothes, same as his sister’s, are also too old to be fashionable, but made of high quality materials. The color palettes of his clothes are very dark and deep, with touches of deep blues and greens. When you transpose him into Allerdale Hall, he fits seamlessly within the decor, meanwhile he seemed out of space and out of time in the sunny and modern decor of Buffalo. 

A desire for accuracy : 

Historical accuracy is always a point of contention when it comes to movies set in a particular historical setting, in this case in the early years of the 1900s. And before we go any further, is historical accuracy even That important when it comes to an effective costume design ? I honestly think historically accurate costumes are very important when it comes to setting your movie. The visual immersion and world building when your story is set in a specific time and place, like for example, in this movie, set in Buffalo, United-States, and England, during the year of 1901, depends on these important elements, such as the costume design and the decor. Especially when a movie is not tending toward the fantastical. For this reason, I really do think that having period accurate costuming, design and makeup is incredibly important when it comes to immersion and creating a visually cohesive world.

Nonetheless, to me, this part of the costume design is less important than what the costume design says about the story and the characters. As I said earlier, costume design is a very subtle but powerful narrative and visual tool to use in filmmaking. And for this reason, I personally think it’s more important for a costume to be efficient when it comes to storytelling than to try to achieve perfect accuracy. Simply put, a costume designer is not someone whose aim is to recreate historical garments perfectly (if this is your jam, I follow a bunch of creators on youtube who actually do that, using historical sewing techniques as well). Their aim is to use the clothing for a storytelling purpose.

There is this thread by fashion historian and curator Hilary Davidson on the subject of ahistorical costume design and this is what she has to say about Crimson Peak:  

“Kate Hawley's designs for Crimson Peak (2015) are immersed in artistic trends of the fin-de-siecle, making costumes that embody the period's aesthetic spirit without being completely literal” 

When it comes to Crimson Peak, are the costumes historically accurate. For the case of Crimson Peak, the answer is yes and no, at the same time. More than creating historically accurate costumes, Hawley wanted to create an atmosphere, with dreamy costumes that would serve a narrative purpose, and use historical sources as a guideline and inspiration Liberties will often need to be taken to complement the story and to serve the purpose of storytelling  nonetheless, I do think that the more researched and accurate the costuming is, the more complex and interesting it can be . and I do think it ended up being SO SO INTERESTING. 

Costume design is more than simply making historically accurate costumes, a costume designer needs to know fashion history and fashion trends, but ultimately, their job is not to recreate exact replicas of the clothing of a certain historical period. What a good costume designer has to do, is to create a wardrobe that fits the story that is being told, and fits within the general universe it's set in and gives you information on the character. What Hawley did was to respect the silhouette of the period, from the foundation garments to the outer garments, and then, when it came to the actual costumes, she could play around with the details to convey a certain mood and narrative. The underpinnings always do define the general structure and shape of a garment, and it’s one of the most important elements when someone wants to construct a historically accurate costume. Even if, like Hawley, liberties are then taken when it comes to the actual clothing, the “spirit” of the clothes is respected. From the corsets and to the petticoats and all the subsequent layers, it was important for Hawley to have all of these elements in a historical accurate way, because it would change the posture and the demeanors of the actors. It shapes the way they stand and the way they move through the different spaces. 

Visually, Crimson Peak is a masterpiece of a gothic romance. From the sweeping nightgowns to the imposing and sharp gothic mansions, and the scary ghosts behind the door, Del Toro and his team have created a movie that takes everything that is wonderful about gothic romance to the highest theatrical level, and I, for one, always enjoy this visual and cinematic experience. 

[omfgtrump]

Ready or Not, Here We Come!

With the events of this week so shocking, let’s not forget the greatest criminal act of The Don’s presidency is his perpetuation of a genocide of neglect when it comes to the response to Covid-19. We have now almost 360,000 deaths and in the last 9 days, 2 million new infections (that we know of) have been documented. The vaccine roll out is highly problematic and no matter how diligent Joe Biden and his crew is we are so behind the eight ball they some are now predicting as many as 1 million deaths by the end of May.

So here we have it. The extraordinary climax of the four- year reality show called: “Make America Great Again.”

You must admit it was a whopper. Cast of thousands, great costumes, violence, looting, profanity and in an ironic twist, endless incriminating selfies that will make finding the characters as easy as to find as one, two three. Rumor has it that the trials resulting from these arrests will spawn another “Law and Order” spinoff called: Law and Order: Sedition

With just a dozen more days to go to the end of The Don’s presidency, will there be another surprise episode? There is already talk in the ranks of loyalists about more actions to come before the inauguration of Joe Biden on January 20th, so stay tuned.

 I must admit I am hoping the networks will cover the F.B.I.’s midnight raids to the homes of the thugs who violated federal law. And please, pretty- please, make sure when they are arraigned, they are wearing those inspiring Viking costumes.

After weeks of The Don promulgating lies and conspiracies theories about election fraud, his continual unwillingness to concede, his refusal to participate in a peaceful transition of power and his urging of his supporters to show up to Washington D.C.  ready to “have a wild time,” why would anyone be shocked about what happened?

For four years we have heard how shocking The Don’s statements and actions have been.

For four years we have heard how the man was not fit for office.

For four years we have heard how he has defiled and stained the presidency.

For four years we have watched him dismantle the very government he was elected to lead in order to consolidate his power.

For four years he has used his office to profit in direct, in-your-face violations of the Emolument’s Clause.

For four years he has tried to subvert the constitution.

For four years he has embraced White Supremacists and espoused racist ideology.

For four years the Republican party made a bargain with him, placating his every whim, feeding his grandiosity. And for their final act, these traitorous Republicans allowed and supported the lie that the election was a fraud, stoking the flames of his supporters to the point that storming the Capitol to make things right made sense to them!

What was shocking was the ease at which the insurrectionists entered the Capitol. When one of my friends texted me, exhorting me to turn on the news, I must admit, the first thing I did was laugh. Laugh? In hindsight, I think the laughter was born of an inability to deal with the dread I felt, but my first impression was that I was watching a strange Toga party that matched that great scene in “Animal House.” Strange people walking around in costumes, taking selfies with police officers and general mayhem. All that was missing was the conga line!

Given the known threat, it was beyond comprehension that there wasn’t a massive police and National Guard presence to prevent this. It was like the police were standing at the door and asking people: “Do you have a ticket for this event?”

Comparisons by the right wing media to a BLM protest is outrageous but not surprising. It goes without saying, that if this insurrection was populated with blacks, it would have been a bloodbath.

The Don’s aspirations for the presidency started with the racist lie about Barack Obama’s legitimacy and ended with another lie- that the election was stolen, particularly by black people who voted illegitimately in battle ground states- inspiring an insurrection by White Supremacists.

A full accounting of the failure to protect the Capitol will show widespread complicity and collusion up the chain of command, including the Secretary of Defense, who would not order the National Guard to get involved.

Ultimately, when the history books are written, I hope those who are complicit with The Don, are treated with the same critical eye as The Don himself. In my mind, they are the ones truly responsible for what has happened these four years. The Don is just one profoundly disturbed man. He lacks empathy, and is amoral at his core. To be amoral means a complete absence of a conscience: there is just emptiness and a need to fulfill his desires without any concern about the consequences of his actions. His enablers, who at any point, could have stopped him, are immoral men and women who allowed an amoral man free reign. To be immoral is to know the different between right and wrong and decide that supporting what is unconscionable is worth the reward. You need go no further than to sit with the fact that an entire party was silent while The Don and his evil partner in crime, Stephen Miller, separated children from their parents- some never to be reunited.

After the madness of the insurrection, when calm was restored, our elected officials went back to the business of doing their jobs and certified Joe Biden’s election to be the 46th president.

One would assume that after their lives felt threatened and the house of our democracy was invaded on the orders of the president and his henchmen, with the marauders yelling “Hang Pence,” that the Republicans would finally take a stand and separate themselves from him. But still 6 senators and 120 members of the House of Representatives continued to challenge the veracity of the election.

And what of the right- wing media? Was this a bridge too far? (I know silly question.)

And what of Republicans in general? A snap YouGov poll found that 45 percent of Republicans approved of the storming of the Capitol.

New conspiracies spawned. If you look really carefully you can see that the majority of people in this rally were really ANTIFA. And for that matter, why stop at that? Maybe the rioters were BLM people wearing whiteface?

Our loveable and long lost hockey mom, Sarah Palin, even weighed in.

“To any insincere, fake DC ‘patriots’ used as PLANTS — you will be found out.”

We always knew that Mrs., “I can see Russia from my house,” isn’t the brightest, but shit she sure knows a plant when she sees one. When asked about what kind of plants were there, she responded: “You know, the usual ones. “The usual ones,” responded the reporter? “Yeah, those.” “Can you name one, asked the reporter?” I don’t know, umm, plants, a stupid plant, like Daisies. Now get out of my way. I need to text my kid who is ransacking Nancy Commie Pelosi’s desk as we speak. Want to see a selfie of him with one of the police offers who gave him the keys to Nancy’s office. God, I wish I could have been there.”

Which way do we go, America? Your guess is as good as mine.

Below some scenes from the insurrection.

from WordPress https://ift.tt/3oBlWl2 via IFTTT

[shortskirtsandsarcasm]

Feminism and Respectability in “Daddy’s Money” by Ricochet

I am decidedly not a fan of country music, but I did spend a good part of my rural childhood listening to country music radio and cassette mixtapes of country music that my mother made. An exception to my general distaste for the genre is “Daddy’s Money” (1996) by Ricochet. This song is about falling for a woman that has everything: she’s beautiful and rich, amongst other things that are not always valued in women. Not only is it catchy and fun to sing along to, but it gently subverts the misogyny long present in the greater tradition of country songs, and our contemporary patriarchal society. “Daddy’s Money” puts value on this woman’s fully-formed personality and independence, and is a contrast to other country songs like “Friends in Low Places” by Garth Brooks, which is essentially about a “country” guy showing up and to and ruining his ex-girlfriend’s “classy” party, which is deemed acceptable and even admirable. Other country music that might be deemed “love songs” overtly reinforce patriarchal gender values, such as “Firecracker” by Josh Turner, which is essentially about a woman being desirable because she is good at sex. This exploration will assume that the subjects are heterosexual, since the singer is a man and his ideal partner in question is clearly portraying a woman. Is “Daddy’s Money” the feminist country anthem that it seems? Let’s analyze.

The main praise of the woman in question is that

  She’s got her daddy’s money, her mama’s good looks/more laughs than a stack of comic books/a wild imagination, a college education/add it all up, it’s a deadly combination/She’s a good bass fisher, a dynamite kisser/country as a turnip green/she’s got her daddy’s money, her mama’s good looks/and look who’s lookin’ at me

The speaker here places value on this woman’s appearance and her money, but also on her being smart, educated, and funny. This is a departure from the common [but erroneous] notion that women aren’t funny, or that, if a woman is funny, she must also be unattractive. In addition to being funny, she’s also imaginative, which suggests she might have a creative career or an arty hobby that the speaker will value as their relationship progresses instead of writing it off as way to kill time or earn “pin money” before marriage. I would like to think that the reference to “comic books” means that the speaker is not here for any “fake geek girl” bullshit, but I think that one might be a stretch.

The speaker sees her tertiary education as a bonus along with her natural intelligence, which shows he is not looking for a woman who he thinks might be easier to control due to her lack of education, which flies in the face of that “Men Prefer Debt-Free Virgins Without Tattoos” article that went viral in 2018 for being a gross show of internalized misogyny, especially where “debt-free” was a not-so-subtle code for “without a university degree.” This man appreciates that that this woman has the intellectual capacity for critical thinking needed to obtain a degree and that she is independent enough to live on her own. It is of course entirely possible that she does not have student debt because her family’s wealth covered the cost of her tuition, but unsurprisingly this snappy bop does not specify.

Her talent at fishing is another implication that she is independent. Very literally, she can provide food for herself. Symbolically, she has taken a pursuit men have used to subtly signal that they are a “catch” (pun aggressively intended) in the dating arena and made it hers, thereby subverting the trope of men as providers. She doesn’t need a man, which makes her attraction to the speaker special. She is choosing a relationship with the speaker, and he is excited to be chosen. The flip side of her fishing skills can be taken to mean that she’s a “cool girl,” a fantasy of ideal womanhood that I find best described by Gillian Flynn in Gone Girl. This woman’s fishing prowess can be read as something “cool” and masculine which makes her “not like other girls,” which implies that women in general are weak and uncool. By having a “cool” hobby, she is special because she’s “one of the boys.” She appreciates good [read: masculine] hobbies and does not bother with frivolous [read: feminine] ones.

While these parts of the song subvert common misogynist beliefs about the desirability of women, other parts of “Daddy’s Money” are deeply entrenched in the conservative patriarchal respectability politics common in the United States. Church and God are brought up often in this tight three-minute song and signals the virtuousness, and therefore worthiness, of the woman in question. The first words of the song are “Can’t concentrate on the preacher preaching/my attention span done turned off/I’m honed in on that angel singing/up there in the choir loft,” which shows that both halves of the couple regularly attend the same church, and that the woman is very involved – enough to be in the choir. The speaker does not name church attendance or even Christianity specifically when listing the woman’s desirable attributes, but it is clear that her dedication to the Church is important. Desiring a partner to be from the same religious community is not necessarily a negative thing, but references to organized Christianity is a hallmark of the country genre. In this way, “Daddy’s Money” keeps to “traditional” values touted in country music. Further, the speaker appeals to God to help him win her, even though we know she is already into him: “Lord if you got any miracles handy/maybe you could grant me one/just let me walk down the aisle and say ‘I do’/to that angel with a choir robe on.” In short, she’s “wife material.”

The idea of “wife material” is often an impossible standard for women to determine whether or not they are worthy of the ultimate honor for a woman: heterosexual matrimony. “Wife material” means being simultaneously a strong, ambitious individual and a domestic goddess, attending to their man’s emotional and physical needs. A woman who is “wife material” will put her man first – above her own needs, fun hobbies, and of course, her career – and engage in unpaid labor over things that are not her job in the first place, like that man whose “girlfriend test” hinges on expecting his female partner to clean up a mess he made in his own apartment, entirely by himself. The speaker in “Daddy’s Money” is certainly using some of the attributes of “wife material,” but there is no evidence that he is expecting her to be his domestic or emotional caretaker. Through asking God to help him win her in marriage, he acknowledges that she could choose to be with someone else (or with no one at all), and that he would be lucky to be her husband. He is also acknowledging that he needs to work to be worthy of her – he is not operating from the mindset that he is a catch and that women should be working for his approval. He knows that she has an independent life and it is up to him to find a way to fit into her world; he is not expecting her to shrink for him.

“Wife material” also includes the assumption that the woman in question is not “promiscuous” or “slutty.” This behavior-policing seeks to keep women from owning their sexuality, and thereby control over their bodies. The woman in this song fits this aspect of “wife material” as well. There are multiple references to her being an “angel,” which signals she is not “promiscuous.” However, we also know she is “dynamite kisser” and is distracting the speaker in church, which signals that’s she’s not “frigid” or a “tease.” This woman walks the seemingly impossible tightrope of being sexually available while not being “slutty,” and is therefore worthy of becoming a wife. The speaker values her independence and wit, but ultimately, he is not seeking a partner that is too radically feminist. He enjoys her appeal as a “modern woman,” but still wants to uphold “traditional” values of respectability (and therefore heterosexual patriarchy) within this relationship.

I would love to hail this underrated and catchy country song as a radical anthem in which men discard toxic masculinity and patriarchal values to embrace a feminist utopia where women are appreciated as funny and as providers and in which the ideal [heterosexual] relationship is not predicated on gendered power hierarchies, but there is more to it. It makes no mention of violence, overt misogyny, or tractors, which makes it special and progressive in the context of country music, but it is not radically feminist at its core. It’s catchy and cute, and I still love it. As fellow subversive feminist musical legend Rebecca Bunch would say, “the situation is a lot more nuanced than that.”

[deathghost8]

Adventure school - Purpose

Education education - what education is. The radical mystic literally falls out of the matrix - he is not affected by the gravity of ideology. He has walked up the entire flight of Mind Craft steps- contemplation at the bottom, expression at the top. I was recently asked what inspired my thinking/feelings. I will include below the post that received the reply. The answer is that I was impacted by the authoritarian government and the cult religion as a young person. I was born within their rigid, non-expressive social institutions - The ideology pressed down on me, and all I could do was press back. Every coercion against what I found to be joyful and real just reinforced my pursuit of the XP of reality. Clearly education was what they opposed systematically and with false morals and authority structures. It sort of began with the rare and special imparting of wisdom by some of the only cultural elders available to the 15-18 year old me- Douglas Adams and George Carlin. The way was pointed out to me, ultimate pre-cognition. Plus the mystic rage, pure rebellion spoken by creatives slightly ahead of me, Marshall Mathers and Trent Reznor and Corey Taylor, Jonathan Davis, Marilyn Manson- then the interpolated voices of the crafters of the earliest game worlds, I was given the pure sensation knowledge in spaces like Super Mario 3 / 64, doom and diablo, myst and fallout, although I did not yet begin the process of EXPRESSING what these sensations contained. The information became part of me, but eventually I would observe the fact that it was already there, and I was actually gaining the interface to fully observe the nature of myself, a language and a translation protocal of physical truth. Original Post - Greetings from the adventure FooL - welcome to adventure schooL () adventurer philosophy / Adventure model of cognitive flow () [] This is a curriculum item of sorts i have been developing for the past year. [] The basic premise starts in the contemplation of what vexes us - the devil - that habit we can't defy, ... which ultimately destroys Self. Mind growth clearly occurs as sound is heard - repeated off and on states. Only one isn't heard. It must repeat. Addiction is a faulty pattern, a repetition flow that is undoing wellbeing, taking apart the organism - -yet this is how cognition works. The repetition is how cognition paths form. interesting similarity - working order necessarily also involves some of the contrary flow. There is no on without off. It is how we are wired, or when looking at the organism-environment perspective of self, it is how existence is. Vibration. So the faulty pattern is simply unbalanced, not inherently wrong. It's got the map upside down. The term Trip has come to represent Mindset alteration. But when considered in its literal meaning, we are talking about location. A single syllable to convey change, leaving a location and arriving at a different location which is differentiated by being somewhere that isn't already within the origin point. "If you don't know what it is, how do you know you want it?" If the outcome is already known, you've had it already. It's the past, you already know it. Knowledge is XP. Faster travel actually has made many locations more like the same location, by nature of being closer, and less of a change. The travel or the trip is what's been diminished. Difference IS identity. A trip is only possible to occur relatively. The motion of two objects in space can only be quantified as a relation between them. When i first grasped this cognitive flow equation, (the adventure basics), I called this first item Deciding. You are only where you are, until you experience a Decision to leave it. Then, there is Going. The experience of exiting and crossing the distance. And it leads to Doing. The experience of what is found at the different location. Basically the treasure. You. This is the adventure model. Now the greater interest of this model of cognitive flow comes in using it to talk about a social organism. It is clear to see that any organism denied its sovereignty cannot access growth. It's impossible to govern by ruling. Growth happens of itself when left free to happen. The desire or need to rule, to control and dominate a destiny by force, is a self frustrating game rule. The Tyrant authority suppresses growth and decays the social organism. The Fool innovator subverts the authority, revealing sovereignty, building it, and revealing the social organism in its growth flow. The interesting thing is how there is a trick, or a deception, in the core. The trick is the pivot point. The temporary bypass of Will / intent. Punchline is the flip where the deception becomes visible. This is because you cannot force. Subversion is the only option. Because this is how the mind is. A trick that suppresses you is tyranny / addiction. However, if it reveals you, it is innovation. That's what the Koan does. It reveals you, somehow against your will. Adventure is the Tool, it is the Koan. This is why Story is the tech structure, the original media. At the present moment of human history, we have leapt from story on the page or plays upon the arched stage to an elevated tier of adventure. We have all manner of play within all manner of imagined locations and settings. These experiences send you through terrain, across locations, canvassing either at sprinting pace or with relative slow movement and complete stillness alternating. There's an old saying, great books aren't read, but re-read. We are in a golden age of the spirit of this statement. A basically limitless number of mind open spaces now exist, and there is a value to either zooming around or thoughtfully wandering, the point is the repetition. Not to get something, just to celebrate being there - The XP of inhabiting these different places. What we are searching for is YOU. Deep in the catacombs, guarded by all the dreadful foes and bosses beneath.

[flying-elliska]

What are the important bisexual characters that you said helped you? I am having a hard time finding good bi representation in which they aren’t considered promiscuous or unstable

Hiya anon ! What a quality question, thank you ! Here’s another mini essay about bi rep lmao.  If there are some that I forgot please tell me ! And to everyone, tell me about the bi characters who made an impact on your life, I’d love to know !!!!

Okay so.

-  When I answered the anon and talked about the characters that helped me come to terms with my sexuality, I talked about two in particular. Jack Harkness from Torchwood is depicted as very promiscuous, and somewhat instable. He still meant a lot to me because a) him sleeping around was never that much of a problem, it was because he was from the future, where things were different, which I thought was refreshing and b) his instability was because of the weight of being an immortal hero. Also fanon!Dean Winchester from SPN, as an older, more macho, emotionally witholding, badass dude written as bi meant a lot to me, but he doesn’t really avoid that stereotype either. But at least they were heroes.  However, I can understand wanting bi characters that actually don’t fit that stereotype, because bi people irl aren’t all like that, even if there is nothing wrong per se about sleeping with a lot of different people, or having mental issues to struggle with. And that was a while ago and now we have more and more cool characters ! Such as :

- Rosa Diaz from Brooklyn Nine-Nine. One of the best portrayals of bisexuality on TV imho. She didn’t start out as bi, she was this tough, cool, scary but with a heart of gold cop who had a lot of other plotlines before. But then, since they saw that a lot of wlw got this vibe from her, were really into her, and the actress came out as bi herself, they decided to use this. So it was super organic, and the way they introduced the subject was true to Rosa herself ; she’s a super private person, she doesn’t like anybody knowing about her life (it’s actually a running joke and Rosa Diaz has been implied to not even be her real name). But then she is dating a woman, and struggles with her parents not understanding and her coworkers find out, help her and support her. Her gay captain is there for her in his typical stoic but hilarious way. They organize game night with her when her parents won’t anymore. We see her crushing on women and dating, but it is treated exactly as the other character’s love life, they never make a big deal out of it. She isn’t the token queer character. She says outright she is bisexual and there is a specific point about her mom not understanding it’s not a phase and thinking she’ll end up with a man anyway, which #relatable. The focus is on the team as found family. Also right now she’s dating a butch woman, which is awesome since they are so underrepresented on TV and I hope we see more of her. That show really is my comfort show, it’s still bloodly hilarious and it really transcends the format to say some really deep woke stuff too, but never in a way that feels on the nose. Everyone should watch it tbh. 

- Korrasami ! Oh my god, I was so blown away when they got together. They’re two characters from the animated series Legend of Korra, they start out as rivals in love who have feelings for the same guy, but as they have to fight baddies together, they become bestest of friends, and both fall out of love with the guy. Then in season 3 and 4, their relationship becomes central to the show, as Asami stands by Korra through some really tough shit. Also, they’re both ultra badass and fight really well together. A lot of fans started reading their chemistry as romantic, but we’d never thought they’d actually go there. But the show ends with them walking into the ‘sunset’ (well, the spirit lands) together, holding hands. Now, it was never completely explicit on the show BUT they were dealing with a lot of censure from the networks and you have to be willingly obtuse not to read it as romantic. And after that the creators drew them on dates, and there is a comic series in which they are shown kissing, talking about their feelings, introducing each other to their families, etc. It made me feel so validated when it happened, and I just adore the whole ‘love triangle ditches the middle one and fall in gay love with each other’ trope. (is it a trope yet ? it should be.) It’s still a kids show at its core, but it has amazing depth and deals with some very deep shit. Korra starts off as a bit annoying but she has a really cool development, she’s a girl character we need more of - brave, dynamic but also brash and reckless and action driven in ways that are almost always exclusively shown for boys. And Asami is a more typical girly girl but she’s also a brilliant engineer and has a spine of steel and she’s also very slyly funny. They’re amazing. And the comics are super cute. 

- Now there are a lot of characters who are bi/pan that I love, and are good characters in themselves, but their arcs do intersect in some ways with promiscuity and mental instability. I’m thinking about Even from Skam and all his remake variants, Magnus Bane from Shadowhunters, several characters from Black Sails, Sarah Lance and Constantine from Legends of Tomorrow, Eleanor Shellstrop from the Good Place, Bo from Lost Girl, Ilana from Broad City, Joe McMillan from Halt and Catch Fire, God/Chuck from Supernatural (lmaooooo), several characters on Penny Dreadful, or in a totally different category, Vilanelle from Killing Eve or Hannibal from the series (who are hella bad guys but it’s never linked to their sexuality, and are also incredibly compelling to watch.)

 And even though these characters taken individually, I would argue, are good rep because they’re complex and layered and interesting and never one-dimensional (and watching them feels incredibly empowering at times)....it’s still a trend. I feel like when writing a character that is attracted to multiple genders, there is always this sort of...tangle of tropes that writers default to, unconsciously. Some negative and some positive. It used to be this trope of bis being villainous, instable, jealous, flaky, immature, perverted, manipulative, cheaters, amoral, greey, etc...and then it evolved into something of a reclaiming and subverting this trope. So now you feel like the Bi Character kind of has to be badass, glamorous, seductive, often superpowered or extraordinary in other ways.. And they also for multiple reasons (they’re immortal, they’re sensitive artist souls, they’re from the future, they’re psycho, they’re exccentric comic relief, they’re daring adventurers and pioneers) don’t care about social norms which allows them to sleep and fall in love with whomever. And so they tend to have those super busy romantic/sexual histories and very troubled backstories. In the past it was a bad thing, now it’s often presented as this positive, enlightened or at least fun and badass thing. They’re heroic, with big hearts, a tremendous lust for life and a cool rebellious attitude. They’re complex, dramatic, tortured. Which can be super cool, too. 

But it would be nice to have more ‘normal’ bi characters. I mean, boring bisexuals need to see themselves represented too ! Our sexualities don’t give us super powers. At the same time, it is true that bisexual ppl have higher rates of mental illness, which deserves to be explored, but it would be nice if it was actually articulated and not just part of this trope.  But still. We need rep, I think, that is more grounded and varied. So I think that’s also why I read a lot of fanfic. (I was really into the idea of bi Steve Rogers for a long time, partly also because he’s both very mentally resilient, kinda boring in a good way, and very unexperienced in terms of sex/romance, which is pretty much the opposite of the trope)

- I think books, and YA in general, are a good place to find these ‘normal bis’ characters. I’m thinking in particular of Leah from Leah on the Offbeat by Becky Albertalli (from the same book series that gave us the ‘Love, Simon’ movie) which is a super sweet coming of age/romance story about a super normal teenager who just happens to be also into girls (esp her best friend) and is loud and funny and very lovable and has zero doubts about being bi. You also have Adam Parrish from the Raven Cycle, another one of my forever faves ; he has an abusive family so PTSD from that but it never feels tropey, and it’s completely detached from his sexuality. He has magic powers, too. But his character feels completely opposite to the trope. He’s hardworking, somewhat withholding, prickly (and sometimes awkward), ambitious, determined, down to earth, and has a beautiful love story with another boy. And also Jane, from Jane Unlimited by Kristin Cashore, also really cool ; she’s a nerdy, smart girl who is actually inspired by Jane Eyre who has cool adventures in a weird house where we can follow her on different paths depending on the choices she makes, several of which are love stories. And finally the main character from The Seven Husbands from Evelyn Hugo, kinda fits the trope yeahhh since she’s a super glam actress who well, has seven husbands but it’s a pretty clever deconstruction since it turns out (slight spoilers) that Evelyn is actually through most of her life faithful in heart to the same person and the rest is mostly out of necessity, and her story feels very real and raw and down to earth. 

- I don’t go there yet but I really want to check out Crazy Ex-Girlfriend and Schitt’s Creek which I have read have very good bi rep. And I want to catch up on Orphan Black (Cosima and Delphine both don’t have exact labels but they’re multi-gender attracted and they’re this cool couple of scientists in a relationship that gets a happy ending). I will never forgive what they did to Lexa so I stopped watching but I do think that Clarke Griffin from The 100 is very good bi rep. Alexia from Skam France, meanwhile, is a bit of a boundary case for me because, even though she’s presented as the ‘weird one’ from the group, very colorful and liberated and exccentric, she’s still a very normal teen who’s happy and comfortable in her own skin, which is awesome. 

- Disclaimer, I included characters in here that are also pan/omnisexual or don’t have a label but are attracted to several genders, for the purpose of this discussion i don’t think the difference is all that relevant at least to me (i mostly identify as bi for the sake of simplicity but tbh i could also fit under pan so i feel represented by all those characters). But I understand the importance of characters that state their identities more clearly and with pride. 

- So in conclusion : there is nothing wrong with having a sexually active life or struggling mentally (even tho that one is not fun). And I do love all my badass casanova time travelling super powered bis. 

But we need more bi characters that don’t fit that trope. We need bi characters in children’s shows, or that don’t have more than one relationship, or that don’t have a relationship at all, to break the tendency to always show bisexual ppl as overly sexual. We need bi characters in committed relationships to break this idea that bi characters are bound to cheat or can’t be satisified with only one person. We need bi characters that are mentally stable and successful and happy, to show that it’s possible. We need bi characters that are boring, bookish, nerdy, ordinary, clumsy, not particularly seductive, socially awkward, rule-sticklers, etc...to show that bi people are not all party animals, or doing it for attention, or to be wild, rebellious and socially progressive. It’s just a sexuality, it doesn’t say anything about your personality. Even though there are some correlations with MI or being bi might bring you in contact with more progressive ideas and to see life a bit differently, there is nothing automatic about it. 

- In conclusion, reading testimonies from real people also helped me a lot. It’s a very dated but I got the book “ Bi Any Other Name: Bisexual People Speak Out “ when I was struggling with my own sexuality and it helped a lot, to read that even back then (1991) you had all sorts of regular ppl claiming to be bi and that it was not a phase or a fad or whatever. 

[bereft-of-frogs]

If you are ever so inclined - I'd be very interested in your horror recommendations.

This got…probably more involved than you intended. :D It was a good procrastination tool/distraction from A Thing I didn’t want to do though, and I had fun revisiting some of these old trailers.

This ended up really long. I’m sorry. I don’t know why I’m like this.

“The New Golden Age”

[These are what I’m talking about when I talk about us entering in a new golden age - really genre bending, specifically out to subvert tropes, make social statements, and empower people who have been shut out by horror in the past.]

Jordan Peele - Get Out (2017) and Us (2019)

Ah, Jordan Peele. The master of the comedy to horror turn. Get Out was the most fun I’ve had watching a horror movie in a long time. I love how it really fits itself to classic tropes but subverts them by flipping the genre and race dynamics. (Daniel Kaluuya’s character embodies the ‘Final Girl’ trope.)

Us fucked me up. Like, woke up at 3am thinking about it, couldn’t really look at Lupita Nyong’o for a while. The remix of the song that plays over the trailer literally gives me goosebumps. It freaked me out, so much. That one is a genre bender - you think you’re watching one thing (a classic home-invasion type trope with some weird mystery to it) and then the final scene basically upends everything you thought you were watching. Fucked. Me. Up.

Ari Aster - Hereditary (2018) and Midsommar (2019)

I’ve been talking a bunch about how much I loved Midsommar. It’s gorgeous visually, Ari Aster is so great at just letting things hang and letting tension build and build - and it was the first horror movie I think I’ve ever felt weirdly empowered by. Like, similar to when I saw Captain Marvel, I walked out of the theater like “is this how men feel all the time?” Hereditary is probably a better movie overall, not counting the fact that it was practically made for me. At its core it’s a grief drama, a phenomenal portrait of mourning…and it’s also really fucking scary. Those slow-tension building scenes are really used effectively in Hereditary.

I also think it’s interesting because Ari Aster is keeping pace with Jordan Peele, but did it in the opposite order. Hereditary is the genre-bender - you kind of think it’s a family drama/psychological horror for most of it, and then it takes a hard turn and makes you question everything you were watching. Midsommar is more on-genre norms - it’s essentially the classic ‘bunch of terrible people getting picked off one by one’ trope (I don’t know if there’s a better name for that), but by applying folk horror and really centering female characters as both pro- and an- tagonist, it does a lot of unexpected things.

Robin Aubert - Les Affamés (”The Ravenous”) (2017)

It’s a zombie movie, but it’s more than that. This movie is so layered. I saw it at a festival when it first came out and then we watched it again this year on St. Jean-Baptiste (Québec national holiday) because we wanted to be #OnTheme. (And to celebrate St. Jean-Baptiste without having to interact with crowds) and it kind of clicked what it was doing. It’s really about the absorbing of difference into the dominant, hegemonic culture and the struggle for marginalized individuals to survive. Robin Aubert has a couple others I haven’t seen yet, but have heard good things about and are on my list. I saw a critic call his main brand ‘pastoral terror’ (terreur pastorale) which I absolutely love as a concept.

Alex Garland - Annihilation (2018)

Some people might argue with me if this is horror or not, if it’s sci-fi, but I think it’s body horror. And it’s beautiful body horror! See this is what I’m here for. Body horror is not just gore - there’s not a lot of blood in this movie. Body horror is about distortion and the grotesque. There’s this one scene that still gives me chills when I think about it and Tessa Thompson’s final scene is beautiful body horror at its finest. (There was also a really similar scene in Midsommar, so I clearly know what I like.) The soundtrack is also phenomenal.

[I had a whole rant about the book series, which I hated, here, but it was getting long and derailing so I cut it out. the tldr is I hated the book.]

“Classics I actually Enjoy”

[I don’t always love what appears at the top of the like ‘essential horror’ lists, but these are the ones I think are worth it.]

Dario Argento - Deep Red (1975)

I really, really wanted to like Suspiria more, because the concept and Goblin’s score for Suspiria both appeal to me a lot more. But I had a lot more fun watching Deep Red. So far it’s my favorite of the giallos.

Richard Donner - The Omen (1976)

Classic. It’s so good. “It’s all for you, Damian!” Plus, I love any movie that comes with rumors of a curse.

Alfred Hitchcock - Psycho (1960)

I would classify most of Hitchcock as ‘thriller’ rather than horror, but Psycho is firmly psychological horror, and The Classic.

Stuart Gordon - Re-animator (1985)

I couldn’t really decide if I wanted to put this one. Especially because on a long drive my friend and we basically covered how this was really ripe for a remake because it’s flaws…did not age particularly well, especially re: gender and race. (But it could be so, so good. It could be an amazing commentary about consent and the use of marginalized bodies…but the original …is…not.) But I’m putting this on here because of body horror. They clearly hired dancers or choreographers to do the reanimated movements because they really lean into it and it’s great. It gets…heavily derailed at the end by an absolutely ridiculous gore climax and missing the opportunity to actually have a coherent storyline or a message of any kind…but they got the grotesque movements down.

Honorable Mentions: The Amityville Horror, The Exorcist, Rosemary’s Baby, *sigh* Cannibal Holocaust (like…I don’t actually recommend anyone watch it. I’m glad I did, because it’s really important for how the ‘found footage’ genre developed, so it’s a piece of film history but like. Don’t actually watch it.), The House on Haunted Hill

“Random Others In Between”

Adrian Lyne - Jacob’s Ladder (1990)

You might recognize Jacob’s Ladder as the movie that more heavily inspired the first chapter of ‘dark underground//violent sky’ more than I had originally thought. I had originally been basing a lot of the tone and style on current trends in horror TV, but then I happened to watch Jacob’s Ladder while I was in the middle of writing the second half and was like…oh. Like, I knew I had been heavily influenced by Jacob’s Ladder and the ending, but I had forgotten about how the film differentiates between ‘reality’ and ‘dream’ - in that it doesn’t! And that was an effect I was specifically striving for when I was writing ‘dark underground’. It’s also just a really weird, trippy late-80s/early-90s movie set in New York when New York was still really dirty and that’s fun.

Hideo Nakata - Dark Water (2002)

This is my favorite Japanese horror film. I think it gets a little bit looked over in favor of some others (Ringu, Ju-on, Audition), but it’s my favorite. (Has a terrible American remake, so be sure to avoid that one. It comes up first when you google. -_-)

James Wan - The Conjuring (2013)

I did really like this first entry - the sequels are kind of aggressively meh.

Scott Derrickson - Sinister (2012)

THE DANGER IS IN THE VIEWING!

Honorable Mentions: Session 9, Se7en, The Ritual, It Follows, The Descent, The Hills Have Eyes (I just really like bright horror movies), The Exorcism of Emily Rose (for fun bonus pretension, you can also watch Requiem, and then when people ask you if you’ve seen The Exorcism of Emily Rose, you get to be like “Yeah, have you seen the German original?” though, technically, it’s that they’re both based off of the same true-story. it’s still fun to say), Hard Candy, Ils (Them), THE VVITCH (should only ever be pronounced ‘The Va-Vitch’ lol)

“The Parody Films”

[What is there to say? They’re great, so much fun.]

Joss Whedon - Cabin in the Woods (2012)

Remember back in 2012 when Avengers 1 came out, and then Cabin in the Woods came out, like, immediately afterwards, and we all loved Joss Whedon? We were so innocent back then.

Eli Craig - Tucker and Dale vs. Evil (2010)

This movie is so pure. I love how they both play into and subvert the rural hillbilly tropes with the two main characters. They just want a vacation home! These kids keep killing themselves on their property!

Honorable Mentions: Shaun of the Dead, I was googling to confirm the year of Tucker and Dale vs. Evil and I saw What We Do In The Shadows listed as horror paraody, but I would count that more as a Gothic mockumentary, but I listed it here because I love it so much.

“Documentaries”

Xavier Burgin - Horror Noire: A History of Black Horror (2019)

This movie was so interesting! Highly recommend. I think Shudder is planning on producing more of these documentaries, about marginalized groups in horror, and I am Here For It.

Honorable Mentions: Cropsey/Killer Legends, Best Worst Movie

I think I’ll stop here and maybe someday do a separate one for books. And maybe TV series, but I’m having a hard time teasing out the line between mystery and horror because of how popular and kind of unique Nordic Noir is right now. It’s just hard to draw the line for TV.

But I’ll end by summarizing reading thoughts (in a more disorganized manner):

-I have two separate ‘complete tales and poems’ editions of Edgar Allen Poe - one to look pretty and one to annotate.

-If you come for my girl Mary Shelley I will come @ you. Once a kind of asshole-y friend once was like ‘Frankenstein is terrible because it was written by a teenage girl’ and, I swear to God, I almost fought him right there in the bar. The Last Man is also great.

-I also almost forgot how much I loved Dracula. The Harkers especially. (I once tried to read League of Extraordinary Gentleman and gave up with a rage-headache 15 pages in because of what they did to Mina.) (Ah yes, let’s make her a “Strong Female Character ™” by having her divorce Jonathan and almost be raped in the first 15 pages.) (Couldn’t deal with it.) (I’m sure I would in general like that series but I just had too much attachment to Mina Harker to get over it.)

-I physically cannot get through Lovecraft. I can’t do it. I’ve tried so many times, I know how important it is but I just. Can’t. Don’t want to. Won’t. Sorry.

-A lot of adapted books I tend to prefer the books they were based on. Some are kind of obvious, like I Am Legend by Richard Matheson, which is a way, way better book than the movie. (They changed the ending which undercut the actual message.) But others are still decent movies, I just tend to prefer the book. Like, everyone always puts Let the Right One In on ‘essential horror’ lists, but I actually liked the book by John Ajvide Lindqvist a lot better.

-Similarly, you may have noticed I put no Stephen King movies on this list - there are a few I really like, but I think they work better as complements to the novels. Misery and the original Pet Sematary (haven’t seen the new one yet) are my two favorite movies-based-on-king. The Shining is visually stunning by character-wise, wildly disappointing, so point to the novel for this one. (King also hated the adaptation for what Kubrick did to Wendy.) My general King recommendations are: Carrie, Misery, The Shining, The Mist, Insomnia

I’m having a bit of an issue with how male-dominated this list is. It’s partially my problem that I’m working on correcting (I’m at the point where I’m actively trying not to read horror books by white men anymore) and partially a general problem in the industry. It’s hard to get into an industry that for a long time unquestioningly based itself on violence against women and other marginalized peoples’ bodies. -_-  But yeah, I have a list of contemporary horror novels by women that I’m working my way through, and I’m trying to catch up on some older staples like Shirley Jackson, Angela Carter, and Octavia Butler.

UPDATE: After I finished compiling this list, I googled ‘Horror movies directed by women’ and there are a couple that I would recommend, I think they’re just not as visible. (Did not realize they’d been directed by women until this Google.):

Mary Lambert - Pet Sematary (1989)

Karen Kusama - Jennifer’s Body (2009)

Mary Harron - American Psycho (2000)

Lynne Ramsay - We Need To Talk About Kevin (2011) (though I liked the book better)

This list was probably incomplete and I’ve probably forgotten a bunch of things I really like! It’s also only made up of things I’ve already seen/read (though it’s not comprehensive). If something’s not on here and you think it should be, lmk! It may be that I haven’t seen it yet and I’ll add it to my to-watch list. Always taking suggestions, especially for more horror (films or books) from underrepresented groups.

[destiny-smasher]

Game of Thrones is over

We all learned a very valuable lesson recently, didn't we? Writing endings is hard. And I mean, seriously. It is for longer stories. Probably part of why it's apparently been, what, seven or eight years since a book has come out and Song of Ice and Fire still ain't done? Anyway, yea. Game of Thrones, as a TV show, has been pretty dang important and influential over the course of its eight year run. I feel like TV as a medium and how we collectively/culturally look at it has changed in part because of this show. It hasn't been without its faults, but for most of its run I'd say it's one of the best TV shows I've ever seen, certainly. Too bad the culmination/conclusion is so deflating.

It's not AS BAD as other endings to big popular things I guess? But yea, yeesh, oof. You can kinda tell right when they ran out of material to draw directly from and started having to make stuff up, and I think that's part of the problem -- it feels like where this all concludes doesn't line up with where the rest of the story was building toward. You know, kind of like the original Fullmetal Alchemist. The ending isn't everything, of course, but when it's a story of this nature, the ending is a LOT. And GoT betrays so much of what it built up, seemingly for no real reason. Nothing of substance. One of the series' strengths has been subverting expectations -- leading us to THINK we know what will happen, only for the opposite to. However, when GoT was at its best, these "twists" often weren't "twists" so much as "aw fuck that's totally what's gonna happen and it'll suck"

Events like The Red Wedding work so well not because of shock value and also not because of subversion or dark/grittiness, but because they MAKE SENSE and line up with the core theming, are built up toward both across the whole story and within the specific episode. I've spent a lot of time watching video essays on GoT this past week and the finale felt like it went out of its way to quote or reference previous episodes as if to try and convince the audience "no look this makes sense see?" when it...was just all too sudden. The IDEAS of the last season COULD have worked. But here's the problems. - it's not really subversive anymore when you've already subverted things too many times, it's just pointlessly mean - changes in personality/motives/behavior need to feel gradually built up to feel earned

- when your entire story is focused primarily on interwoven character arcs, you kinda shoot yourself in both feet and can't walk anywhere now when you throw half of those arcs in the garbage and then just shrug at another quarter of them. - when you set your story in a world with magic and fantasy and lore and keep alluding to backstory and keep us oriented on supernatural/mystical characters at the center of plot stuff but then never contextualize any of that it turns characters into mcguffins. So main takeaways: - don't follow a character around for a long period of time as if they are important if you're ultimately gonna just act like they're not important, GIVE THEM SOMETHING TO ACCOMPLISH and use their success/failure to SAY something

- don't write things intended to produce shock value for its own sake; write things that align with what the messages of your story are; sometimes that means subverting expectations but things need to feel organic and consistent or they won't feel rewarding/earned

(rewarding/earned =/= GOOD, descents into madness, tragedy, loss, these can all feel painful but also rewarding/earned depending on their execution and purpose)

- whether you're a gardener or an architect, develop a conclusion that focuses on what the purpose of telling your story IS. With Game of Thrones concluded, I can say I had quite a ride. Some of its characters are some of the best I've seen in any fictional work. Some of its moments are the best I've ever seen in film. But here, at the end, I can't say I feel terribly edified. I feel emptiness but not in the way I feel when I finish a story I want more of. I feel emptiness in a sense of "yall threw away so much quality shit in the trash, why??"

I have finished this story and even WHILE the characters LITERALLY say aloud what the writers think are the big takeaways, the main themes, I don't...really BUY it. I don't feel like having journeyed past the earlier seasons of the stories has enhanced those themes. I'm glad they finished a long, complicated story. I'm glad the cast and crew were so great. I feel bad for them to have worked so hard only for so many threads to end in such...weird, flat, unrewarding or even pointless ways. That may be "realistic" but real life is fleshed out

'no one is really happy, which I suppose makes for great compromise.' Too bad that doesn't really make for great storytelling, because storytelling isn't the same as real life, or politics. Compromise is sometimes great in stories but it needs to be with purpose/focus.

Anyway, this is all to say, endings are hard, Valar Morghulis, do your best while you're here, I guess.

[thepringlesofblood]

thoughts on stranger things three  (spoilers. so many.)

this is just me yellin into the void as usual, but I like recording my opinions on things even if no one will read them 

good:

- every single scene w/ the robin, steve, erica, dustin gang, especially!!! the coming out scene. scoops?? iconic. steve and dustin’s secret handshake? transcendent. the drugged out back to the future scene? perfect. 

- eleven and max say fuck the patriarchy. love el’s new look 

- more competent women is always a win

- funhouse fight!!! carnival fight!!!FIREWORKS??!??!

- the destruction of the mall (sadly the only anticapitalist symbolism I could find)

- the scene after jonathan and nancy get fired where they’re angry about their separate marginalized identities making this loss worse. I really liked how it went into the ways it will impact both of them, and I especially liked when nancy got home and talked to her mom. 

- joyce going buckwild and getting shit done. 

- the portrayal of hypervigilance as a symptom of PTSD. All of these characters have seen some shit, and all of them pick up on the littlest things the second they present themselves because subconsciously, they’re always on edge, always aware of bad it could break. 

- most of will’s character arc. not all, but most of it. the queer experience of watching all your friends get dates and feeling like you’re missing out on something? trying to regain their interest because you feel lost and left behind? worrying that you’re not “growing up” because you don’t recognize romantic interest in yourself? not realizing you’re falling for your best friend until they get a romantic partner and suddenly you hate the partner even though they haven’t done anything wrong? a poignant, beautiful, very painful portrayal of queer teenhood. I really, really wish there was a moment that the audience realized will was in love with mike though. Like, it’s been building for a very long time. Also, a more thorough confirmation of will’s queerness would’ve been nice. I think they meant mike saying “you don’t understand bc you don’t like girls” to be that confirmation, but I want to hear it from will. Robin’s moment is so so so good though. 

- domestic fuckery 

- getting someone on the inside to help them/alexei as a character. not the symbolism or larger ramifications of his character arc, but how his knowledge and personality interacted. 

- mr clarke!!!!

- el going into someone’s memories again

- how prepared everyone is to fight because they’ve seen this shit before and robin and erica are just like ‘this might as well happen’ 

- keeping with the stranger things pattern of having a bunch of different groups of people all in different genres and then together they all meet up and go ?????

- I know every says billy didn’t get enough of a redemption arc but tbh I did not see his character development as redeeming in any way and I liked that. It didn’t excuse his abusive actions, it just explained them. There was no “oh he was secretly good all along”, no dramatic total character reversal on his death bed, just him deciding that he had enough of being controlled. Max didn’t get full closure with him, he didn’t say some big speech about being wrong or realizing the ramifications of his actions bc he hadn’t reached that point yet. he just said “I’m sorry” and died. that could mean “i’m sorry for how I’ve treated you”, “I’m sorry for how many people I’ve killed”, “I’m sorry for not being able to stop the monster”, anything. we don’t know what it means. we don’t get an explanation. It speaks to how survivors of abuse often don’t get to know why, don’t get closure, don’t get all the answers. 

- steve finally won a fight before getting the shit kicked out of him

- the whole no one knowing anything about each other bc no cell phones and/or wasnt there when It Happened. 

- Erica getting the DND set was poetic cinema 

- when joyce sees will on the firetruck and they run towards each other because finally, for once, will is completely unscathed, will isn’t the one who got hurt/possessed. I was already crying but this is the part where i had to get tissues bc I was sobbing. 

Bad:

- the red scare bullshit and glorification of capitalism. this show started out as “the US govt is doing shady shit” and now the big climatic “everything’s alright” is the army getting there?? what the fuck. There’s being accurate to the time period and then there’s sending a message. they could’ve subverted that trope in so many ways, but they just went for straight up “capitalism is great! fuck russia!” and I hated that. also, talk about one-note villainry. there weren’t even any dramatic monologues to make up for it, it just kinda sucked. 

- Hopper’s character in the beginning of the season. the scene where he gets wasted after getting stood up? shitty. not talking to el about his vaguely sexist overprotective actions? shitty. blowing up at joyce for no reason? shitty. he pulls it together in the end but it was OOC for a bit there. Plus I would kill for more “hopper and el work through their trauma together”, rather than “friend group splinters bc hopper did a yell” 

- I don’t know what to think about hopper’s death. It just hurts, and not in a satisfying, last harry potter book way. 

- why the fuck are the byers and el moving?????? did they ever give a reason???? WHY?????? WILL AND EL’S ENTIRE SUPPORT NETWORK, THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO KNOW WHAT THEY’VE BEEN THROUGH AND CAN HELP THEM, IS IN HAWKINS!!!!!

- the ads. omg the ads. lucas idc about your fucking coke. there’s so much goddamn product placement. christ on a goddamn bicycle. 

- previous seasons have had body horror, but it was all black goo so it was removed from reality and conveyed a psychological, otherworldly horror. and I liked that. WHY WAS THERE SO MUCH FUCJING MEAT IN THIS ONE??? THE MIND FLAYER LOOKED LIKE IT WAS MADE OF BBQ SAUCE AND I HATED IT!!! STOP!!!THE MEATS!!!!!

- can el not be injured......for oNCE?????

- also can people stop standing around staring at shit so much? theyve seen it before. it’s not like it’s a huge shock. people stand around for like 5 minutes before Doing Things and it annoys me. with the New Kids like erica and robin it makes sense but like....whenever theres a monster mike just sits there like :o cOME ON DUDE YOU’VE DONE THIS SO MANY TIMES GET A KNIFE OR SOMETHIN!!!

- WHAT. WAS. THE GREEN STUFF?????????????????? IS IT FUCKING PLUTONIUM OR SOMETHING???? WHAT THE FUCK!!! IF YOU NEED A MACGUFFIN BE LESS OBVIOUS ABOUT IT!!!

- idk about you but murray yelling at them about sex kinda rubbed me the wrong way. 

- speaking of, you caNNOT convince me that murray, 4 locks on the front door lives in a bunker murray, would take a goddamn enemy of the state to a carnival and leave him alone for any period of time. seriously????????

- look.....it was adorable.....i’ll give you that.....but.....the song dustin and suzy sang slapped me with secondhand embarrassment and genre disconnect so hard I found it impossible to enjoy. also...planck’s constant??? you could/......idk........call mr clarke????????? you’ve interrupted the man’s life for less!!!! I was also half expecting it to be joyce who remembered it from all the studying she did on the magnets. I did enjoy the whole “i met a girl at camp” story being unbelievable until it was but like I was expecting the thing she wanted him to say to be like a famous star wars love quote or something not an entire song jesus christ 

- if hopper turns out to be alive I will face god and walk backwards into hell. I suffered through supernatural, I will not be caught in a cycle of fake deaths again. 

- i get the whole “we’re growing up now” thing but aren’t they like 13? theyre still so young??? also like i dont rly care for the vague soap-opera-y vibes the core squad gave off. 

- the only people who got flayed were either a. already pretty shitty or b. completely unknown. like. it just made it less scary????

- hopper just fucking standing by the machine looking at joyce instead of running the 5 seconds up the steps into the room. seriously? was that supposed to be slow motion or was that real time??? 

- the whole thing with cerebro not working at the beginning sucked ass. 

- hey does mrs wheeler have eyes??? like??? there were exactly two (2) scenes she had with mike and nancy and both were Big Conversations like they live there right/????tbh i forgot she was their mom until those scenes bc of the whole billy thing, which i decidedly do not have an opinion on but like....do they eat breakfast there??? 

[militant-holy-knight]

Benioff and Weiss Were Always Hacks: You Only Noticed Now

Or why you should be worried for the future Star Wars movies made by them

(Disclaimer: this blogpost contains spoilers for Game of Thrones)

With only two episodes left for the series to reach it’s conclusion and the announcement for future Star Wars movies in the horizon made by David Benioff and D.B. Weiss (henceforth referred to as D&D for simplicity sake), not many fans seem to be excited about it as they should due to the creative choices taken in regards to the final season of Game of Thrones. Speaking as a GoT fan, I used to enjoy the show a lot and I believe it reached it’s peak on Season 4 and started to go went downhill on Season 5. If D&D were in charge from the beginning what happened?

D&D’s job was always to adapt the book series by George R. R. Martin, which means any merit to the show’s writing can be attributed largely to Martin while D&D were only fit for it to make it work into a tv show - which is still laudable in it’s own right because there are things in the books that still wouldn’t translate too well into the show. In any case, they did their job well from Season 1 to Season 4 which adapted the first trilogy in the series. Even though there are still five books in total released at the time, Season 5 is where they started to run out of material to adapt because some storylines didn’t find their proper conclusion and they needed to come up with their own unique deviations.

Season 5 is considered by many fans to be the low point in the series because of it’s extremely low pacing and controversial liberties taken: the biggest ones have to be the Dorne subplot because that meant axing popular book character Arianne Martell, Stannis Baratheon turning irredeemable evil and paying with his life and Sansa’s marriage to Ramsay Snow leading to her rape, which is still a very hot button among the fandom to this day (and understandably so). Season 5 did have some moments like Hardhome which showed the strength of the true villain of the series, the Night King, the leader of the White Walker invasion who brings winter with him. He is the Thanos-like menace who is teased since the very start of the show with the very first scene opening with a White Walker killing some Night Watch’s rangers and warning us about the danger he represents.

Season 6 fixed some of these problems by giving a more dynamic pacing and build it up with the Battle of the Bastards as the climatic encounter instead of something completely anti-climatic like Season 5′s finale where Stannis Baratheon’s forces were liquidated by the Boltons offscreen. But still, it was an entire season wasted to fix another one’s problems and it still had some individual problems. 

And then Season 7 came along and it all went to waste. I wouldn’t say it was as bad as Season 5 because at least shit happened and it wasn’t boring, but it was still full of groan-worthy moments like trying to force some romance between Jon Snow and Daenerys Targaryen which doesn’t work because they have no chemistry and they are related by blood, curing Jorah Mormont who has been infected with a dangerous disease that will turn him into a snow zombie by simply cutting out the infected area, and of course lest we forget the Wight Hunt in Episode 6 “Beyond the Wall” which broke all suspension of disbelief. Lemme sum it up for you what happens in that episode so you can get the idea and let me put up a map so you can get it from reference.

The heroes come up with the idea to capture an Wight and bring it South to convince Cersei to from a truce.

The travel by boat to the Wall from their base on Dragonstone.

After reaching the Wall, they walk into the land beyond it to find a wight.

They find one and send one of their members back to ask reinforcements having to sprint a indeterminate distance.

The team gets surrounded by the Night King’s army in a frozen lake for a indeterminate amount of time.

The allies at the Wall send a raven back to Dragonstone requesting help.

Daenerys summons her dragons to fly to the land beyond the Wall to rescue the heroes.

They are fighting to the last against the advancing horde of the Night King just before Daenerys arrives in a triumphant moment to save them.

And all of this happens like... Within a hour apparently. Several days should have taken place between this exchange but time moves at the speed of the plot, but D&D seem to be relying on emotional torque to get viewers to ignore all internal logic and be mindblown by the crowning moments of awesome. And this is the core issue with their writing.

D&D write their scenes the same way they film sex scenes apparently, hoping that the emotional moments will make the audience be carried over. Thing is... I realized this after thinking up about many moments in the past. Hardhome was one such example in Season 5 to make up for its abhorrent dullness and even Season 6 wasn’t safe from this. For example, remember how Rickon Stark died just so he could provoke Jon Snow to act irrationally and spur him into conflict? Why didn’t Rickon run in zig-zag when Ramsay began firing arrows at him? Why did he run into a straight line? Did these writers not watch Prometheus to learn their lessons from it’s mistakes? This problem was carried over in Season 8 and amplified a lot in the Long Night. Many people pointed out the several military blunders made by the protagonists when fighting against the Night King’s army.

I could talk about the moronic choice to film everything in absolute darkness and make it impossible to see shit.

I could talk about how idiotic it was to waste your cavalry against the enemy bulwark.

I could talk about how they didn’t create trenches with tar or use fire for more effective manner against the undead.

But I’d rather talk about that moment.

Arya killing the Night King.

You know at first I was okay with that because:

I wasn’t being a fan of Jon Snow in a long time.

Arya wasn’t a Mary Sue, had skills that justified her, so I could buy it better.

But the more I thought about it, more I came to the realization that it was a wrong choice all along.

Arya never had any investment in killing the Night King. She was a character defined by a list of people she wanted to kill including the Freys, Cersei, Joffrey and others.

Arya was trained as an assassin yes... But her training in Season 5 and 6 was very lackluster. She spent some time doing menial works, impersonating some people and trying to spill some poison on someone’s drink. She never learned invisibility, teleportation or any other cool shit.

And most importantly... Melisandre predicting that Arya would shut down “blue eyes” way back when they met in Season 3. If she sensed she was always destined to kill the Night King why did she ever support Stannis? Why did she even support Jon Snow? She even referred to him as the Prince that was Promised. Some fans can try to spin this as much as they want, but it breaks the plot retroactively very hard.

The actress herself didn’t think she deserved it

Of course all of these things were ignored by a large part of the fanbase, more specifically the “woke” crowd because YAS QUEEN SLAY. Little did they know that the very next episode would force them to eat a real shit sandwich when “The Last of the Starks” seemed to turn the narrative against Daenerys Targaryen by turning her into the Mad Queen, killing her handmaiden Missandei and setting up Jon to be the next King of Westeros. Not helping matters is that a series of leaks not yet confirmed as of the time of writing were released prior to the episode (but I personally feel they were legitimate due to some specific things but that is not the point) which sent many Daenerys fans into panic mode.

Speaking as someone who really doesn’t like Daenerys Targaryen, I can actually sympathize with them at some level because this shift appears to be very sudden specially now that the authors favored her more until this very moment. Some viewers can argue that there were always signs like her burning the Tarlys for refusing to bend the knee, which I personally took issue with before but it never really came across as the sign of an insane ruler since she offered very valid rebuttals. It all seemed like the plot was tailored to take her side no matter what and I considered Dany a Mary Sue. But just because they seem to be turning her into a villain now, it doesn’t make me hate the story any less.

Now... I spent an inordinate amount of time bitching about Game of Thrones and if you are an Star Wars fan that doesn’t know anything about it, you might be lost to anything I am writing. Well I needed to give an proper context to both GoT and SW fans since those seem to overlap now and give you a warning because Star Wars seems to be more lost now than ever. D&D were never particularly good writers, they were incoherent about continuity, care more about spectacle over substance and seem to share a thing about subverting the audience’s expectations like a certain Ruin Johnson who succeeded in completely ruining a franchise like there was no tomorrow. The key difference between D&D and Ruin is that the duo doesn’t share the same flippant attitude or picking up fights with fans on Twitter - on the contrary, D&D understand the power of fanservice even if it means daggling the metaphorical shining keys in front of the audience. 

As we come close to Game of Thrones conclusion, I have a feeling that nobody will truly come out satisfied with it should the story take the direction that we are really dreading. I’ve seen interviews about how Emilia Clarke sounds really sad and deflated, seemed like she was really disappointed with how the show ended. Whatever happens, the blame can be laid on the feet of Benioff and Weiss for their frankly baffling creative decisions. This season has been disappointing through and through with two or three episodes being needlessly long and filler to booth and to make matters worse, it was supposed to end earlier than 10 episodes. Why did they need to rush it and yet fill the series with so much dead air?

Now can you imagine a Star Wars movie made by them? With all these things I listed? The next trilogy is already dated, we don't know if it's D&D or Ruin Johnson yet. We are talking about a couple of writers that have no sense of realistic scale, continuity or logic, but rely on cheap emotional tricks to have the audience invested until they begin thinking about it. I would laugh until I was sick if this season turns everyone against those two fuckwads that Disney changes their mind about putting them in charge. If the world was a just place, this is what would happen at least.

[dustward]

Might as well get this out now so I can close the figurative book on this whole ordeal until I open up the actual books up and start to read those. This last season sure was a mess, huh? I’m willing to give a pass on the first half of the season but that second half is just. A mess.

Let’s get the obvious bit out of the way - like so many others, not buying Daenerys’ turn to evil. I could see the core idea in “this is the part were George subverts our expectations that the one who will succeed and rule at the end is anything but benevolent, despite what we were led to believe for the longest time.” I’m sure There’ll be some subtle shift in the books, or at least there’s the hope, right? The idea’s kinda not great, but it could’ve been sold under different circumstances, with different writers. You don’t make a change like that at the last possible second and expect everyone to just go along with it, even if you talk through one of the characters to try and justify your writing. To me, it felt like the writers were actively tearing her down every chance they could because Dany somehow wronged them between seasons 7 and 8. She wasn’t even one of my favs so there’s no bias here when I say this - the writers failed, in so many ways.

Already said my peace with Jamie in having made a small rewrite about his arc the other day. Not amused with how mangled his story got thanks to this final season rush. Brienne suffered some collateral damage here (why’d she abandon Sansa exactly??), and Cersei.. oof. Another wasted character. The core idea I think I’m seeing here is how it would take someone even crueler and more vicious to take her down, and sure under the right circumstances we could’ve been led to believe that whole tangent with Dany being The One, but they failed to set it up so... that angle falls apart along with any faith that Cersei would get a proper ending, living or dead. How about those prophesies eh?

Euron doesn’t belong here and they should’ve given his parts to Bronn, or had Bronn do what my rewrite suggested. Bronn’s just another wasted character this season.

Cleganebowl was.. whatever. It looked cool I guess, but I would’ve preferred Sandor walked away from his revenge, same as Arya. I find it hard to believe Gendry hadn’t picked up on Arya not wanting to be A Lady, making that whole exchange feel wrong too. Arya herself was one of the few characters able to avoid the drawbacks of rushed writing. Mostly. I don’t buy that she’d go all the way up and into a collapsing keep before deciding to abandon the idea. But that’s more of a small hangup compared to all the other problems those last episodes suffered.

Poor Jon, relegated to “muh queen” “i dun wannNt it” until it was time to do a sad and watch another love of his life die in his arms. Played out a little too similar to the last girl he loved, didn’t it? Dude had no agency and lost any will of his own as soon as the whitewalkers were dead. I.. don’t buy that, either.

Sansa’s character was pretty intact if not elevated the tiniest bit by the end. I don’t buy the friction AFTER the battle with the whitewalkers though. There should’ve been some manner of camaraderie by that point.

Needed more Gilly. At least as much as there was Samwell. Samwell was.. whatever, neutral feelings toward how his role played out. Podrick’s was whatever. Seemed like his character just went on a big unnecessary circle but at least he lived to tell the tale? Shrug. Dude needed dialogue.

Good on you Davos, perfect ending. Would’ve liked another scene or two before we got to the council showing, but that could be said for literally every other character. They should’ve had the episode end after Jon did a stab and had the last episode be The Epilogue, as boring as that might’ve been to the masses, I would’ve appreciated it.

Happy for Tormund and Ghost, and I guess happier they got their best friend Jon back up North with them.

Grey Worm, another one of the few characters who didn’t lose themselves to the rushed writing. His arc was probably the most satisfying overall without feeling like it needed additional/modified scenes. Good luck honoring the love of your life, dude. Let Dany’s good deeds continue to make waves in the world.

Tyrion.. hard to say with that one. I grew to like him more and more as time went on, but then his potential was wasted in the last couple seasons, but he got a nice ending, probably one of the most fitting and coherent to his arc? That is, if you ignore anything he did in the last three episodes because I really wanna ignore the period after the Battle of Winterfell ~ the burning of King’s Landing. Varys’ character was another casualty of rushed plot. Same with Missandei. Hope Drogon’s doing well.

The fact that Yara didn’t ask for independence along with any of the other kingdoms makes it hard to buy the ending at all. Gonna assume this is another one of the many, many, MANY things the book will address properly. Because yeesh.

Not missing anyone important, am I..? Oh, the king, right. Bran Stark, literally does nothing and becomes king. Okay, he said a couple things to a couple particular people, which given his supposed foresight makes it seem like he WANTED KING’S LANDING TO BURN and for his brother to kill Dany. Is that really Bran with the best poker face ever or is The Three-Eyed Raven a more sinister character than we could’ve imagined? It’s really hard to believe this is a good ending and the failure to elaborate on so many details before rolling credits was just the last in a series of missteps that led us here.

Will make sure to avoid anything those writers touch ever again. Maybe I should pretend those last three episodes never happened until the books are released, if ever. First time an ending burned me so badly. I’m sure it won’t be the last.

It’s funny, because my favorites were Arya and Davos, and they essentially survived this trainwreck unscathed. Guess I can be happy about that.. I guess.

[introvertguide]

Double Indemnity (1944);        AFI #29

The next movie on the AFI list we watched was the Billy Wilder directed Double Indemnity (1944). This film was nominated for seven Academy Awards but didn’t take home any actual trophies. What the Academy did not see in this movie was something that the AFI did, because this film was named to the Greatest Thrills list (#24), the Greatest Passions list (#84), and the Greatest Villains list (#8). Because of the production codes at the time, this dark film was lucky to be nominated at all, really. It had no chance against the film Going My Way which had Bing Crosby, strong religious themes, and the song Swinging on a Star (sung by Bing Crosby). At time period, a gritty detective drama about adultery and murder had no chance against a plucky comedy about priests overcoming adversity to save their church through song. The fact that a film noir received seven nominations in Hays Code Hollywood is a testament to the greatness of this film.

The movie is the story of Walter Neff (Fred MacMurray), an insurance salesman who goes out into the field to sell coverage to individuals around Hollywood. The movie starts out with him injured and going into an office to start confessing a murder into the Dictaphone of a man named Barton Keyes. Almost the entire movie is a flashback to all of the things that lead to Neff being in that situation using the confession as the narration. This is the best in-movie explanation for a voice over that I have experienced while watching film and I remember being hooked from the first scene because of it.

The story all started when Neff went to the Dietrichson house were he is let in and met by a barely clothed Phyllis (Barbara Stanwyck). She wants to take out accident insurance on her husband without permission and Neff immediately guesses that she plans to kill the husband for the insurance money. Neff refuses to be a part of the scheme at first, but is entranced by Phyllis’ charm (I guess) and comes back to form a plan to trick the husband into signing off on the forms with out knowing. Neff will put in a special clause (double indemnity clause) that says there will be a special payout if the husband dies under specific circumstances (in this case, an accident while on a train). 

Neff and Dietrichson have to be careful because Neff’s boss and mentor, Barton Keyes played by Edward G. Robinson, is especially cunning and has the ability to see through schemes like this. The two go through with the plan and successfully kill the husband then put the body on the tracks after Neff pretends to be the husband on the train so passengers and railway staff will say that the husband was alive on the train and died falling off the train. Rather complicated, but it really makes sense and the viewer wonders how Keyes would possibly figure it out without a full unsolicited confession. It seems pretty fool proof, but Neff is uneasy because he knows how good his boss is at sniffing out fraud. Neff also seems upset since he and Keyes are friends and he will be disappointing his mentor. There is just something about Dietrichson that compels Neff to go through with the whole caper.

There are a lot of twists that I don’t want to give away completely because the writing is absolutely top notch, but, as the confessing Neff at the beginning of the film implies, he is caught and will be punished for the crime he committed. It is hard to believe that one can be surprised and thrilled by details of a crime that the audience knows will end poorly from the first scene, but this film really pulls it off well. I think this film deserves to have a little mystery so I will not breakdown the entire plot, but it basically walks a viewer through the steps to commit fraud through murder, step by step.

A note about the director, he had recently fled Germany as he was Jewish and was threatened by the Holocaust. He and three other Jewish directors from the German Expressionist movement all fled and all of them came to America and made gritty film noir. The film noir genre is characterized as imperfect people that have a happy outward appearance but can also have a darkness in side of them. Although Wilder states that WW2 did not influence him, I can’t see how it would not and I think the subject matter of his film agrees. In fact, the film was so dark and specific about how to commit a murder and the characters were so rotten on the inside, it was difficult to find people that wanted to work on the film. 

Fred MacMurray had been a light comedy actor up to this point and really didn’t know how to be a villain. The point of the story, though, is that Neff is a generally good guy that is being seduced by this trashy woman that is rotten to the core. Getting Barbara Stanwyck, a classy actor at the top of her game, to play that part was also difficult. Wilder apparently goaded her into it saying that a truly great artist would be needed to pull off the part. Also very difficult to convince was Edward G. Robinson, who had been a leading man and was very hesitant to play a supporting role (especially to Fred MacMurray). In the end, the script convinced him and it is obvious what a professional he was because he had a lot of long speeches despite being a supporting actor. 

So here is where the real question comes to a head: how did this movie get made and how is it so good? You had a script full of adultery and fraud that basically explains how to commit a murder. You had a director who has just fled his home country for fear of being murdered for his religion and was likely in a really dark place. You had a group of great actors, but all of whom were hesitant about the roles and all were acting against type. Finally, you had a climate of censorship that strongly favored a lighter film with strong morals. So how did this movie get made and still get nominated for seven Academy awards. Short answer: it is that good.

I think the aspect that sold it for me was the cinematic storytelling. The literal darkness of the movie was used to show the intent of all of the characters. The villainess is introduced in white standing high on a balcony and she comes down to the level of Walter Neff. Every time he shows up at the house, it is darker and darker until the last scene is almost pitch black. The shades are drawn making little bars on Neff’s face, like a jail cell. All of the scenes in Barton Keyes office are well lit since he sheds light on the case and Neff is always attempting to hide in the shadows. The wig that Stanwyck wears is light in color to show that she wants to appear good, but it actually looks trashy and does not fit her so she seems ugly at times. The lighting of cigarettes and cigars is shown when attempting to establish a relationship in characters. Keyes is upstairs and remains upstairs in his tidy office throughout the movie because he stays above the criminal actions while Neff and Dietrichson communicate on the ground level of her dirty home. In fact, Neff goes up to Keyes’ office when he wants to confess because he is acting on a higher level compared to before. Everything is so literal and you see the story the director wanted to tell. 

One set that is not as great (in my opinion) and turns out to be hilarious to me is the local grocery story for secret meetings. The idea is that Phyllis and Neff can’t meet at the house sometimes when it is being watched by the police, so they go to the most open and non secretive place imaginable. I would think it was practically easy to film because the market is open with really low shelves, but it is the most non-incognito place I could imagine. I worked in a grocery store and I know that high ceilings and shelves make strange echo chambers where somebody you can’t see might be able to hear you while somebody standing two feet from you can barely make out your words. My mom pointed out that the grocery store is the last place she would go if she didn’t want to run into somebody she knew. Neff dresses the same as I don’t think he is supposed to be local and it is standard dress for a man his age at the time, but Phyllis stands out like a sore thumb with her dead albino octopus wig and then adds sunglasses indoors to bring even more attention to herself. Maybe the intention of the director was to show how much of a liability that Phyllis was that it is laughable. I find myself at least smiling just thinking about that scene.

One scene was famously cut despite so much being surprisingly left in. The film originally ended with Walter Neff going to the gas chamber. This was surprising to me when I first heard it because the book ends with a very strange suicide which was restricted from being shown under the Hays code. The real life crime that the book was based on resulted in both the wife and the insurance man dying in the electric chair, again something that could no be shown. Apparently, the gas chamber scene was the best that could be done, but that also did not test well with audiences and caused either offense or uncomfortable laughter. The movie instead ends with Keyes disappointingly lighting a cigarette for an injured Neff as the police come. It turned out to be a better ending emotionally, so the final ending of Neff was left completely up to the audience. 

 In the end, this is a very fun movie that can be watched multiple times and something different or extra is noticed each time (my dad noticed that Fred MacMurray is supposed to be single but has a wedding band on the whole movie). It has been done many times since, but the voice over explaining the story of the narrator downfall was very new and fresh at the time and is fascinatingly now part of film noir standard. In fact, many aspects of this film set the prototype for a film noir (some argue that this film is the very first film noir). Double Indemnity fully deserves a high place on the AFI film as an innovator of the crime thriller genre with a strange but brilliant use of star power that truly subverted expectations. It was a little bold to collect any awards at the time, but that boldness is what has made the film hold up over 70 years. I highly recommend the movie for all audiences despite the subject matter and especially film history buffs. The film is chock full of great things that should definitely be experienced.