#Movies as in multiple films with that same theme btw

[bitterlyromantic]

had a dream that early seasons rob n glenn were casted in some movies about gay roommates. glad 2 know i got my priorities straight !

[riddlebanshee]

Just watched Nope (2022) for the first time and thinking about how, when it first came out, I saw so much commentary on the theme of cameras and audiences to the point where I was completely BLINDSIDED by the way the movie went. It was amazing btw BUT LIKE There's a TON of overt themes having to do with animals and the way humans interact w them and I feel like all the posts I've seen about the cinema/production angle completely missed that?? Like. The main characters grew up working with horses, who, even tamed, are notably volatile critters who can and WILL smash you to a pulp with their hooves. And in the very beginning, we see one of those horses nearly harm people because they don't listen to warnings about keeping a safe distance and not spooking it-- we even see the opposite of this, good animal handling procedures, mentioned in brief with Otis and Em's dad, before he dies, when he's trying to break in a horse. Even with the Gordy incident, it all circles back around to the way animals are used in television and film and how it can break incredibly bad for the most mundane of reasons. A balloon pops, multiple pop, startling the chimp, and suddenly people are very badly injured or dead. And when we later see the same kid at the center of this incident, not having processed this trauma, interacting with Jean Jacket & thinking he can make good on the mistakes made without actually having any proper idea of how to interact with a dangerous animal?? We see that same theme pushed to an extreme!! First with the way the incident was satirized & made light of-- MAD and SNL-- and then when the stadium is sucked up and digested in frankly one of the most interesting and disturbing horror movie death scenes I've watched. Warning signs are ignored-- people fail to understand the signs of stress or aggression in an animal, and so people get hurt!! Vs. Otis who DOES recognize those things in an animal and who DOES know that certain things can't be tamed or reasoned with or truly controlled. And yes, he & Em have a goal (capture evidence of it) that incites them to interact with it, beyond living in it's territory, but they also recognize that it IS territorial, and it IS hunting within its natural environment, and it CANNOT be tamed simply by feeding it. OJ also recognizes, from working with animals, that making eye contact with a predator is a surefire way to draw it to aggression, and actively utilizes this knowledge both to avoid it and to lure it where it needs to be to keep people safe, and to predict its behavior, insomuch as an unpredictable animal can be predicted! Also, I think it's neat that the monster design clearly hearkens back to "primordial", invertebrate ocean critters like octopuses and jellyfish. Just to really drive home the fact that it isn't something to be controlled, especially not by the things it's hunting.

[jennyandvastraflint]

Hiya! I run into your commercialization of fandom post and got curious about fan activism. Would you mind rambling about it?

Wouldn't mind at all! I'm gonna use some of my slides from my presentation again XD Also, my sources will be linked/cited at the very end once again, except for if I take something directly from a text.

Now, I'm gonna start with a definition of what fan activism actually is... Fan Activism describes fan-driven efforts to address civic or political issues using engagement with and strategic deployment of popular culture content. It's often conducted through the infrastructure of existing fan practices and relationships, and frequently framed through metaphors drawn from popular and participatory culture. Fan Activism can of course be directed towards goals such as keeping a show on air, but it can also be used for political causes.

(more under the cut)

Disclaimer that these "forms" I refer to here are a non-exhaustive list and are obviously not mutually exclusive, meaning one thing can fall into multiple of these or outside of them. It's just some examples Brough and Shresthova brought in relation to these.

Content-related Lobbying wants to keep programmes on air, and advocates for diverse representation - a negative example for this were white Disney fans screaming and sobbing about the casting of Haley Bailey as Ariel and threatening to boycott the movie because "that's not my Ariel >:(((" Of course, there are also positive examples of this, for instance fans' reaction to the cancellation of Warrior Nun (after a year or two of sooo many sapphic cancellations).

Fandom Forward is a campaign that advoates for human rights and equality by utilising narratives from popular media to run advocacy campaigns. Currently, for instance, they are running a campaign called "Save our Progress" encouraging people to vote, and one called "Book Defenders" which encourages people to stand against book bans! (Btw, joining such fan activist campaigns is not only a great way to get more politically engaged, but also to find new friends <3 AND you can use your passion and interest as a force for good in the real world as well :D)

As already mentioned, Fan Activism frequently uses pop culture imagery, and one very prominent example of that would be indigenous and Palestinian rights groups using the fictional Na'vi from the 2009 Avatar film to attract media attention for their cause. This is underlined by the fact that they related their own lives under occupation to the Na'vi people. The picture on the right in this slide is an image taken in 2010 in Bil'in in Occupied Jerusalem, when protesters from the West Bank came together to protest Israel's occupation of Palestine.

With the internet being at our constant disposal, online mobilisation and community building is also a form fan avtivism can take, and they are often followed by one of the other forms, utilising the community that has been built as a way to spread their efforts further.

Fan activism can also be put towards goals of education, for which fan conventions and panels for discussions are an example.

In the presentation I've taken an example for the integration with real-world issues where fans made very evident the parallels between the dystopian scenes in our world and the setting of the Hunger Games, with the richest lavishing in their colourful, beautiful ballgowns while people outside are protesting and a genocide is taking place. There are many videos following the same principle as this one, showing the Met Gala (which also has an incredibly ironic theme) and the ongoing genocide in Gaza at the hand of Israel while the song "The Hanging Tree" plays.

And one other thing that I wanna bring up are Fan-driven charity events! We've seen many artists take up their (metaphorical) quill and offering gifted artwork or fic as a Thank You for donations to Palestine, and the FTH has raised tens of thousands of dollars going to charities every year since 2016!

The brilliant thing about fan activism is that there is a pretty low barrier for entry, meaning any fan who wants to can join these causes with fairly little effort. Take a charity event, for instance; donating five dollars will not only go towards a good cause together with many others donating five dollars, but you also get a little thank you gift from the community.

However, we can't equate all acts of engagement with popular culture as inherently political and activist, as such a framing can have a depoliticising effect. Completely leaving popular culture and fan activism out of the picture, however, is a purist and ultimately unproductive way of viewing the political.

If you're interested in learning more about this, I definitely recommend checking out the sources I'll link, and also Henry Jenkins' concept of civic imagination which describes "the capacity to imagine alternatives to current cultural, social, political, or economic conditions; one cannot change the world without imagining what a better world might look like" (Jenkins et al. 5) and it requires (and is realised through "the ability to imagine the process of change, to see oneself as a civic agent capable of making change, to feel solidarity with others whose perspectives and experiences are different than one’s own, to join a larger collective with shared interests, and to bring imaginative dimensions to real-world spaces and places" (Jenkins et al. 5).

For my part, I can only say that fan activism has definitely played a huge role in me becoming more active politically, and especially in the past year or so, I've participated - while not (yet) as a fanfic writer - in multiple events particularly connected to Palestine. Maybe this is a wake up call for some to also take a step out into the political world through their interest!

(Also, some of these texts are Open Access - particularly the one on the TWC, but some are not - if you would like to read these and other texts, shoot me a message as I can get my hands on SO many texts thanks to my university giving us free access to a ton of academic texts!)

Sources:

Bennett, Lucy. "Fan Activism for Social Mobilization: A Critical Review of the Literature." In "Transformative Works and Fan Activism," edited by Henry Jenkins and Sangita Shresthova, special issue, Transformative Works and Cultures, no. 10, 2012.

Brough, Melissa M, and Sangita Shresthova. “Fandom Meets Activism: Rethinking Civic and Political Participation.” Transformative Works and Cultures, no. 10, 2012.

Shresthova, Sangita, Gabriel Peters-Lazaro, and Henry Jenkins. "Popular Culture and the Civic Imagination : Case Studies of Creative Social Change." New York : New York UP, 2020.

[tomwaterbabies]

ok. here's a list of things. im trying not to go too in-depth with my ranting here. firstly because i would literally just much rather gush about the og than spend MORE time on this trash, and secondly because my friends and i are already ranting about it lol

(keep in mind this is still VERY LONG. my actual full thoughts would be pages long if you could believe that)

but here we go. spoilers for the disney live-action pinocchio if that matters

the cgi is bad. as expected. immediately you see a lack of warmth and coziness in geppetto's workshop. and in place of the whimsical and creative clocks of the original, geppetto's workshop not only is a bad cgi set but contains 2 (TWO) scenes of... disney references... the clocks are a bunch of disney character references..................

weirdly emphasizes his love for his clocks. this is hammered throughout the film (i will come back to this)

geppetto has a previous dead son.

the fairy shoots a beam of light that bounces off the dead son's picture frame and into pinocchio. i think the implication here is that he has some of the son's spirit. this is never addressed further

the scene of him coming to life is the most awkward fucking imagery ever. they play up the comedy and the sense of wonder is just... lost (might have to go in-depth with this scene later when i compare some scenes from the og and this one)

she sings when you wish upon a star for some reason

the pacing, in general, is so terrible

there is a montage of pinocchio and geppetto living together. it's badly paced and awkward and i think they did it because of the cinema-sins level nitpicking that people do where they ask why geppetto sent him off to school on his first day of being alive

he has some weird super speed ability of being able to move his arms and legs super fast? this is used multiple times and i really dont understand why they made him like that

he does end up going to school but quickly gets kicked out for being a puppet. i dont really think this scene adds anything. there's a shot where he's on the ground super sad and upset while the teacher yells at him for being a puppet or whatever and the kids laugh... which i would definitely be into in a better movie. this will not be the first time a good concept is in this bad movie

he is less naive but they don't really do anything to fill out his personality. it feels like pinocchio is missing something. which he is

his voice acting is weird. not a bad voice but the actual line delivery is just... not always... good. kind of awkward. same with geppetto. most of the characters actually

btw jiminy is definitely more helpful here, but it isnt worth it

ive got no strings was such an insulting segment of trash and uninspired disrespect my brother and i started crying (another scene i would just have to breakdown)

this is where the love interest comes in. shes a little girl who controls a ballerina puppet. there isnt much to say. she doesnt do anything but give a lot of pointless dialogue. they dont get together at the end (she goes off to run her own puppet show after she gets stromboli arrested). im serious this added nothing

multiple new songs btw. they are not good

ok let me break down pleasure island in a few points

him going back to his house and then scooped up into pleasure island nonsense is quite literally a blink-and-you'll-miss-it transition

pleasure island is now more akin to a SUPER extravagant theme park. massive buildings, bright lights, and high-tech systems. and none of the original bite

no drinking, no smoking. this is not inherently bad if you have him experience something equally as terrible. but they dont. he drinks root beer (lmao???) and that's about it

so lampwick... a character representation of pleasure island as a whole tbh. he is not nearly as impactful as the og and is just. kind of There. less bite, more stupid dialogue to tell us what the characters are doing

The Donkey Scene. completely hollow. the visceral and harrowing experience of the original is completely gone. shots like lampwick's hands turning into hooves as he desperately claws at pinocchio is just Not There. laughable

the faceless dudes working at pleasure island are now vapor monsters. i think they did this to avoid the controversy of racism but holy shit what the fuck is this. just make them dudes...

not a big deal but he also gets wooden donkey ears and tail?? im not sure why they did that other than "haha he's made of wood" and it kind of goes against what i think helps the story when it's flesh/fur ears/tail like the rest of the human boys

ok moving on from pleasure island

so they find the empty house of geppetto. they learn that he sold all his clocks that he loved oh so much in order to buy a boat and look for pinocchio. this scene is so stupid. it's just characters going on and on about how much geppetto cares about pinocchio instead of just like... showing us that? why do they NEED to emphasize to pinocchio that geppetto loves him this much like just SHOW ME THROUGH ACTIONS

monstro looks stupid as hell lol

remember the original monstro? the gorgeous painting-like animation? thats nice. its not like that btw

the reunion with his father contains TWO SEPERATE MOMENTS of a possible tender moment but they trade BOTH out for comedy. there is no heartwarming reunion there's no profound forgiveness of geppetto it's just HaHa Funny!!! Funny Look!!! geppetto does mention he forgives him im just saying it was NOT done in a profound or emotional way

THE ENDING SCENE.

where to fucking begin with this. i suppose breaking it down works

so pinocchio Does Not Die. they escape monstro and instead geppetto is the one knocked out (i dont THINK hes dead like pinocchio was but im unsure). this is a stupid change because it is pinocchio's own sacrifice that makes it so profound

pinocchio... starts sadly humming/singing a tearful when you wish upon a star????????????????????? and this pissed me off because it dared try to use it for an emotional moment when they didnt do shit with the song in the first place. the message of this song is NONEXISTENT in this movie so having it here just feels so hollow and therefore insulting lol

and finally. finally. finally. we get to what is the best (worst?) example of "great concept in a bad movie" ive seen in all these pinocchio adaptions

pinocchio remains a wooden boy.

ah... You Are Mother Fucker. not only this but the scene... the dialogue... the message... the acting/animations/actions throughout it (even small gestures) are all things i so genuinely desire in a GOOD MOVIE

geppetto accidentally tells pinocchio in a moment of pride that a "real boy" couldnt do what he did. pinocchio's expression falls and geppetto immediately realizes what he said. he apologizes and tells him that if he made it seem like he wanted something more than him in the beginning that it wasnt like that at all. he tells him how much he loves him and that no matter what, he will always be his real boy.

the movie ends not at geppetto's home, but pinocchio and geppetto walking away from the sea. jiminy's narration comes on and he tells us that pinocchio may have been transformed physically, that it's up to interpretation, but that it doesnt really matter. because who he is inside is what counts, THAT is what makes him real.

(im summing it up and missing a few dialogue/acting moments but yeah)

screaming. crying. trashing around. i need to make it CLEAR that the only reason this whole ending is like this and is here is that they are taking what was presented in the og movie and expanding on it. i would LOVE this in the original movie yes, because i truly think that's where it belongs. but this fucking movie does nothing to be anything remotely as passionate and full of love as the original movie. it is heartbreaking to see this here

IN CONCLUSION:

disney remakes at the end of the day are about greed first. some will be worst than others. there are common trends that appear in various remakes, though not all trends appear in every single one. this movie has every single one of those trends. truthfully the worst ive seen and ive watched a remake that blatantly wrote a mental disorder that i have in the most offensive depiction ive seen of it (personally)

there is just no passion here. no love. the most i can say is that it does have sweet/good moments- specifically with small pieces of character acting and animation. but i cannot stress enough how minimal that is. it has a few good concepts but poorly utilizes them

it feels like it was relying on these moments to carry them through. but small moments like a genuinely sad/happy/loving pinocchio, as touching as that can be, will not actually mean anything or work when the story itself just isnt good. when so much of this movie is badly put together in every aspect. from writing to editing to animation to music to All Of It... terrible. disney doesnt care. not even about the history and art THEY made

tbh it's up to other people to keep the art alive. currently im working on my animated short (traditionally animated) and even enjoy my OWN work with pinocchio. including a sequel/continuation story idea that expands on the original's themes without being a piece of shit movie. if disney wont do it, we will just do it ourselves and/or find the people who still have the deep love and passion and All Of That for this piece of Art and Magic

[mccoyyy]

moving this to my new blog so I can pin it again lol

@stregoni-benefici you are completely correct but I just wanted to expand on this a little bit - also i’m putting this under a read more cause this got a lot longer than i originally thought it would be

sexism: smeyers treatment of female characters throughout the entire series is extremely problematic. like you don’t even need to read deep into the books to see that. the backstories of all her female characters all involve some form of trauma and are significantly more violent than the male vampires (Rosalie and Esme enduring physical/sexual assault meanwhile Edward dies of the flu and Emmett gets vibe checked by a bear).

she also creates the idea that a woman isn’t complete without children/being a mother. every female vampire in the series is desperate for children yet can’t, its mentioned in pretty much every book and extreme emphasis is placed on how tragic this is. a female character wanting children isn’t wrong or sexist at all but the way its written in twilight makes it seem like its something a woman has to do in order to be happy and smeyer pretty much cements this idea by making Bella suddenly desperate to have Renesmee despite showing no interest in children/audibly voicing her thoughts against having children in eclipse and the start of breaking dawn (i’m pretty sure Bella has a line of dialogue in the books where she says something like she didn’t realise it was something she wanted/needed until it happened bit I’m not sure I try not to read/think about breaking dawn)

there’s also the way she writes female characters, specifically Rosalie. its mentioned throughout the series that Rosalie has extreme mechanical skills and multiple degrees in STEM fields but its barely ever shown, and instead her characterisation focuses on being obsessed with her looks (first couple pages of this, written by smeyer for new moon), and being a ‘stereotypical bitch’. for the first three books most of her character/dialogue is based on being cold and rude to Bella. She is unnecessarily painted as the villain for having different views on Bella (quite literally) giving up her life and future to be with a man (which is a whole other can of worms). the same is done to the character of Leah in eclipse/breaking dawn. Leah is a woman in the Quileute Tribe, she has been severely affected by the Cullen’s presence in the area and is painted as a character that the reader is supposed to dislike simply because she doesn’t like Bella/the Cullen’s despite having extremely valid reasons not to

anti-Native - smeyers treatment of native tribes is horrendous. she has profited fr years off of of native american culture for years and has done so without any acknowledgements. furthermore, she also demonises native american teens (especially in new moon) by calling them wild, violent, dangerous and out of control and then uses these stereotypes to create a contrast between the self control and patience of the Cullen’s and make them seem more like the good guys, and the wolf pack being lesser. She does this again with the treatment of Jacobs character in new moon and especially eclipse.

Jacob starts off in new moon as Bella’s best friend. he helps Bella come out of a severe depression caused when Edward left at the start of the book. however in eclipse his character makes a complete flip and he becomes moody, temperamental, argumentative and disrespectful of Bella’s boundaries. his character becomes unrecognisable and despite smeyers claims of a love triangle, it is obvious what the outcome will be. I have seen countless instances of people on this site claiming they hate Jacob because he is a dick/disrespectful/just as unhealthy as Edward. this was done on purpose by smeyer as she uses Jacob to make Edward seem like the obvious and correct choice for Bella. if you need more proof of this, take the scene where Jacob kisses Bella without her consent and she breaks her hand when punching him, Edward swoops in and almost gets into a fight with Jacob for touching Bella without her consent. this is an obvious attempt to make Jacob seem like the villain and Edward the white saviour

there’s also the treatment of the native characters by the white characters in the books. multiple times in the series, the native characters are called/compared to dogs/brutes and have a distinct unpleasant smell. I don’t think I need to explain how this is racist. the pack also helps the Cullen’s/saves Bella’s lives and never receive any acknowledgement/are treated any better by the Cullen’s/anyone really. the pack are only ever used as a way to make the Cullen’s look better.

there’s also some pretty obvious similarities to colonisation with the Cullen’s entering Quiluete lands which then forces them to start phasing into wolves (and I’m pretty sure none of the pack actually want to start phasing). also, remember Leah? the only female member of the wolf pack? because of the change she effectively can’t have children? that has implications.

and to top it all off, after doing all that, smeyer has never once addressed this or even acknowledged the Quileute Tribe.

pedophilic - I mean even without mentioning breaking dawn its pretty awful. first of all you’ve got the blatant sexualisation of minors throughout the entire series. Edward is 17 throughout the series and smeyer is writing literal paragraphs about his chiselled abs. Jacob is 16/17 when she has him running about forks topless with a 6 pack. this is way more apparent in the movies but its still a huge issue in the books and lead to Taylor Lautner being confronted by adult fans trying to get him to sign their underwear, and being forced into being shirtless for most of the movies which made him extremely uncomfortable (Elizabeth Reaser (Esme) briefly talks about this in the ID10T podcast on spotify). and just as a reminder, Taylor was 16 when the first one was filmed and 17 for the second.

Breaking Dawn is a whole other can of worms. the glaringly obvious issue is Jacob imprinting on a literal newborn baby. now the concept of imprinting itself has racist elements to it, but its heavily implied in the series that imprinting will inevitably lead to a romantic relationship. Jacob imprinting on Renesmee and waiting until she is old enough to enter into a romantic relationship (never mind the fact that shes ‘old enough’ she will still technically be 5) is pretty much grooming. The same happens with Quil and his imprint, Claire (a two year old) where I’m pretty sure there’s a scene in breaking dawn where Jacob and Leah are watching Quil play with Claire and talking about how Quil isn’t going to date anyone because he and Claire are ‘pretty much inevitable’ (i might be wrong though, like I said I try not to read/think about breaking dawn)

smeyer has also written a spin off book (its like 250 odd pages) called the short second life of Bree Tanner (Bree is that newborn vampire killed after the battle in eclipse by the Volturi btw). In this book, Bree is 15 almost 16, and another character Diego is 18 which is definitely pushing the boundaries of ok. (also as a side note, funny how Bree and Jacob are literally the same age and smeyer states multiple times how Bree deserved better and is only a child (who straight up kills people), yet when it comes to Jacob he has to be a responsible adult and is vilified for every mistake he makes)

racist - smeyer refused to let Catherine Hardwicke (director of the first twilight) have a diverse cast because she ‘imagined them a certain way’ (white) and it was a fight to get Edi Gathegi cast as Laurent and had to compromise with smeyer to make Bella’s friend group more diverse. this woman straight up refused to hire more diverse actors and only agreed to when they were side characters/villains.

Also in the official companion book/guide to twilight, smeyer literally writes that vampire venom makes you white

‘the venom leeches all pigmentation from the skin into a more indestructable vampire form…regardless of original ethnicity a vampires skin will be exceptionally pale’ (official illustrated guide pg.69)

this is a whole lot of bullshit cause she is literally whitewashing characters, but when you pair this with the idea that vampires possess inhuman levels of beauty it becomes extremely problematic and implies that being pale/white is more beautiful than darker skin tones.

also, if we go back to Laurent’s character for a second. so Laurent is one of the only characters who isn’t described as white (in the books he is described as having a pale olive skin tone) and in the first book he comes across as pretty reasonable (warning carlisle about James/Victoria, travels up to Denali and tries out the veggie lifestyle) but in new moon, his characterisation pulls a 180° (sensing a theme here) and is suddenly trying to kill Bella as a favour to Victoria and is Evil™ despite in the first book he literally says to Carlisle he didn’t particularly like travelling with James/Victoria and was only really doing it for convenience. where did this undying loyalty come from? yet again, smeyer is completely disregarding established characterisation in POC characters specifically to villainise them.

and finally, we have Jasper. for some reason (that reason being that she is racist) smeyer decides to make Jasper a confederate soldier in his human life. if you don’t have a lot of knowledge on the american civil war, the confederacy were the side of the US that seceded from the union in order to keep their slaves. Jasper was a confederate soldier, and not just any soldier, but a major. Jasper was a major in an army that fought for 4 years to keep the existence of slavery (and don’t even try to say that slavery wasn’t the root cause of the civil war. states rights aye? states rights to do what). now there’s an argument out there made by certain fans that a lot of people joined the confederate army out of pride/were forced into it cause of conscription to try and head canon the racism away but like that doesn’t matter. there was literally no need to make jasper a confederate in the first place. if she was so desperate to have a civil war vampire then she could have made him a member of the union. its been common knowledge that the confederacy was racist for a long time now, smeyer has absolutely no excuses here.

a lot of these issues overlap and I have probably missed heaps of issues (so feel free to add on) but hope this helps explain why smeyer can *ahem* get tae absolute fuck

[lovewillthaw-j]

The centrality of All Is Found in Frozen 2

(I’ve gotten feedback that the video frame rate is low - that was not my doing, sorry. I think Tumblr scaled it down =(

All is Found appears 9 times in the movie, 5 times sung and 4 times as a musical theme. It is such an important song that is at the very core of Frozen 2, with multiple associations with Iduna, happy memories of times with Iduna, the scarf, the Northuldra, the death of Iduna ����, Ahtohallan, Elsa’s destiny as 5th spirit and the death of Elsa 😢 . 

This song is like a multi-purpose tool! I made this video and this post to appreciate this song. And I must give the utmost kudos to 1) Christophe Beck for incorporating it into his score with his masterful touch, affecting us subconsciously. 2) The Lopezes who wrote the song (duh) but also, solved the problem of how to make Show Yourself a great song by bringing in AIF in the bridge of Show Yourself. This was revealed to us in the ITU documentary - I can’t believe we ALMOST didn’t have SY in the film. SY carries the entire frozen franchise on its back!!! It is the other half of Let It Go and Elsa’s journey. 3) Evan Rachel Wood, whose voice is soooo perfectly matched to be Iduna. asdkjfhgl I can’t describe how I feel, it’s like I’m being mothered by her too. Here she is recording “Come my darling homeward bound” for SY

Description of my video

1. This is the song. (I only included 1 verse, due to Tumblr video constraints) Mmmhhhhphphphphh ERW’s voice!!! And all the mother-daughter moments. In my headcanon, which I expounded at length in this analysis (Ahtohallan, Iduna and the Voice), this was the first and last time that Ahtohallan was ever mentioned or the lullaby sung in the time period before F2. Anna’s accident happened on the same night and after that, Agnarr ordered “Conceal, don’t feel”.

2. Anna sings to Elsa. I believe this is the very first time Elsa has heard the lullaby since childhood. Darling Anna comforts Elsa with Mother’s lullaby. (and it’s the only sister-sister duet in the whole of F2) The scarf is introduced just before this. Also, we see the first indication of Mama Anna here.

3. Now it’s Anna’s turn to be soothed by Elsa with the scarf. The girls, the Northuldra and us learn that Iduna is Northuldran, a very significant revelation. This changes everything. And now we know AIF is a Northuldran lullaby, not Arendellian.

4. Elsa and Honeymaren sing together. Ahtohallan is mentioned. I believe this is the first time Elsa has heard the word “Ahtohallan” since Iduna mentioned it. As I mentioned in my other analysis, Elsa is starting to link Iduna, Ahtohallan, the Voice and the 5th spirit together.

5. Ship scene 1. (btw I split up the ship scene into 2 because I feel that AIF plays 2 different roles) This first part is creepy-horror-exciting because when they stepped into the ship they had no idea what they would find, and their adrenaline was rushing because they (and us) were totally not expecting to see the ship, and why is it here? And this map! Ahtohallan is real, it’s not some fairy tale location in a kid’s song. And Iduna was trying to find answers about Elsa all this time! BUT...(go to point 6)

How many of you remember the first time you watched this scene in the movie? I remember clearly. I was filled with horror thinking that they might find the parents corpses or something horrible!!!

6. Elsa, Anna and us have scarce had time to process this new information about the scroll and the map and Iduna’s intentions when Elsa decides to call forth the memories from the ship’s water and BOOM we are all slayed. The plot then abruptly shifts to Elsa’s heartbreaking sorrow+guilt+feeling she’s cursed all over again (I always say it’s amazing that Elsa didn’t freeze everything right there and then) and Anna’s selfless love and lovethawmode. (darling Anna never got to grieve over the parents cos she was too busy helping Elsa...and then she got pushed away by Elsa...sob...read my fic...)

7. Let’s shift our emotions to a happier place. Show Yourself. As I previously wrote, Thank God for the Lopezes who brought AIF into SY!!! Genius. (seriously, I can’t believe the entire writing team didn’t think of this?!) And duh, it’s fitting to hear AIF while we’re in Ahtohallan right? AIF is the song ABOUT Ahtohallan! Imagine Ahtohallan protesting “Hey Jenn! The audience is finally seeing me! I exist! Play my theme song!! Come on!!!” Lol. Ahtohallan’s memories are unlocked by Elsa stepping into her power. As the lyrics of the song say, all is found in Ahtohallan (literally). But not only Ahtohallan, IDUNA!! Iduna’s ghost sings to Elsa and Elsa melts (and so do we!!) Who doesn’t love that beautiful scene of Elsa crying when she sees her mum and remembers happy memories from 16 years ago!! As I mentioned in my analysis, at this moment, Ahtohallan, Iduna and the Voice have all converged. And Elsa is the fifth spirit. (she thought she was looking for the fifth spirit; instead she found Iduna and was given a fresh touch of mommy’s love after 16 years) mmmmphphhphph SY is SO GOOD. 

8 and 9. The grim side of Ahtohallan and the warning in All Is Found. Elsa dies seeking the truth. Kudos to Beck, the notes of AIF when Elsa dies are so weighty and grave. 

Like I said, AIF is like a multi-purpose tool!!

[musicalisht]

for no reason in particular i decided to rank all the starkid shows

it’s 12:15 am and i have an assignment due at 9 am lets gooooo

12. MAMD - ngl this show is pretty hilarious just not quite as memorable as the others imo and i say this because i don’t remember it all that well past the one time i saw it a few years ago

11. Ani - also very funny and i’ve seen it multiple times and for whatever reason the line “it’s a humorous play on words... that’s where the comedy comes in” is in my daily vocabulary. it’s probably the show i quote the most just because of that one line. and it’s a star wars parody that gives me feel good 80s movie vibes and i love that. but something has to be this far down and i’m sorry it’s gotta be Ani. 

10. Black Friday - idk if it was because i was hyped after tgwdlm and had high expectations but honestly the only Starkid show that I kinda didn’t like right away. like i love Dylan and his monologue-y songs but they felt so out of place I was just taken out of it. That being said, all the songs slap and I’m so glad they’re all on spotify so I can add them to my playlists. It was also a bit darker and required some world building and honestly I think I just wasn’t expecting it. Probably in reality I’d rank it same level as Ani, but again I LOVE the music thank you Jeff Blim.

9. Firebringer - Very fun show. Also had high-ish expectations because Meredith and Lauren were leads and I was excited for the first female led show and maybe they weren’t exactly met at first, but got really close, and then I came around afterwards. It’s funny and I loved all the characters and the music is so good and fits the theme really well. 

8. A Very Potter Senior Year - every time i watch this (particularly near the end) i’m in tears. It’s so good because Harry Potter is saying goodbye, and the AVPM trilogy is saying goodbye, and the Harry Potter movies/hype was declining, and like I watched it again when I graduated high school and my point is there is a lot of emotional charge at the end of the show, but the whole thing is so fucking funny. I’m gonna be honest though, least favorite of the three AVPM shows, not just because of the way they filmed it but because I don’t remember most of the character conflicts and stories for this show.

7. A Very Potter Musical - I mean it’s really the first one that got them attention how can you not love avpm? Great comedy, great music, great show. I think I lied earlier, I probably quote AVPM more often than Ani.

6. Starship - The Little Mermaid meets aliens, I love it. Also, very great music, arguably the best villain songs of any starkid show have to go to Pincer and Junior. Also one of the best love songs?? An incredible I Want Song. And like the planet of bugs they create is so bright and colorful even though they’re limited by budget and the stage, etc., and all the puppets are so cool. It’s just a very good show that is very slept on please watch Starship.

5. Trail to Oregon - So this came out when I was learning about the Oregon trail  so this was pretty fun for me. I think this was probably the second or third show I ever watched (first being AVPM) so ngl I have some bias towards it, but the music is good and there are only a few characters to keep track of so I remember them pretty well. The gag of Joey playing all the other characters in Independence is just insanely fun to watch (a performance really only bested by brian in solve it squad) and I don’t care how “mature” I’m supposed to be, I will always laugh at the fart jokes at the end of the show (btw, watch with captions it’s so entertaining).

4. Holy Musical Batman - yes at Batman references, yes at having a similar story to the lego batman movie, and yes at Jeff Blim playing a psycho character. It just feels very classic cartoon inspired, especially with all the puns (which if you didn’t know is a humorous play on words, and that’s where the comedy comes in). I rewatched part of the show the other day, and honestly still makes me laugh as if I’d never seen the show before.

3. A Very Potter Sequel - a glorious blend of all the comedy of AVPM and the emotional heartache of AVPSY. It doesn’t have a Voldemort tap sequence, which the other do have, which is unfortunate, but we do get Stutter, so I’ll let it slide. Also, one of my favorite opening songs of a Starkid show. I just love the show. And I mean I made a poster of Umbridge’s rules that’s hanging in my room I’m pretty committed to the show lol. 

2. Twisted - It’s DISNEY and it FEELS DISNEY wtf. I love the twist on Aladdin. I love all the references the show makes.Definitively the best love song in a Starkid show. The emotional climax is so good. All of the twists and explanations about Jafar and Aladdin are great. Jim Povolo’s character is the best character even though i can’t remember his character’s name. THE MUSIC IS SO GOOD. For the longest time this was my favorite show and sometimes it is but at the moment I’m writing this I’m in the mood for the other show.

1. TGWDLM - YES. It may be because I’m working on tgdwlm fanart rn, but yes, I adore this show. Music slaps, story is so good, there is so much comedy, and there is so much analysis I can do about Paul and Emma and the apocalypse in general, it’s just wonderful. No wonder a ton of people got into starkid after this show, it was sooooooo good. I watched this when it premiered on youtube, while I was on vacation and could’ve been doing anything else. And the fact that it didn’t have a happy ending like every other show up until this one was so shocking to me and it just makes it so memorable.

god i have to do my homework now don’t i

[themattress]

Upon further reflection...

I truly believe the critical backlash toward The Rise of Skywalker (and I’m talking about critics, not the “fans” in the Fandom Menace who were never going to be pleased with the film no matter what) is largely not because of anything in the movie itself and more because of what the movie itself represents to them, what it made them realize: that Kathleen Kennedy and Disney-owned Lucasfilm had no cohesive plan for the Sequel Trilogy from the very start.

The Force Awakens was made under the sense of continuing a cyclical myth, with familiar themes and beats everywhere. Rey was the new Skywalker hero for all intents and purposes, and even if she wasn’t a Skywalker by blood there was clearly something important about her lineage Force-wise. Finn and Poe split the difference between Leia and Han, BB-8 was the new droid companion, Kylo Ren was the new Vader but who’d develop in reverse (starts out sad and conflicted, ends up cool and composed), Snoke was the new Emperor, and Luke would have an important role (but not the expected one, which would actually go to Leia - that’s one of the few things set in stone; Kathleen Kennedy wanted her to be “the star”). Critics curiously didn’t mind any of this at the time, giving The Force Awakens rave reviews.

But then Rian Johnson was allowed to do whatever he wanted with The Last Jedi, and he clearly balked at the familiar story set-up he was handed. And so, despite the fact that this set-up existed, he ignored it or deliberately subverted it in order to get the story going the direction he thought it should go. Rey had no important lineage, she’s just some random girl who is naturally gifted with the Force just because. The Luke/Leia/Han dynamic was not allowed to repeat itself, making a trio of Poe, Finn and new character Rose instead, with Finn/Rose going on a socially-conscious thematic side-mission while Poe had to learn that being a “flyboy” isn’t going to fly anymore. Snoke is killed and Kylo Ren becomes the new Emperor while formerly credible General Hux became a total buffoon. And while the stuff with Luke and Leia followed along the lines of what Kathleen Kennedy wanted, it was still very surprising just how little a role Luke seemed to ultimately play in the ST’s overall story despite his character arc being pretty central to the movie itself. Johnson paved the way forward for uncharted territory, which would have worked for the start of a trilogy or the end of a trilogy, but was disastrous to do for the middle because now there’s no real set-up for the final film other than the basic “Rebels vs. Empire” premise that the original A New Hope opened up on!

Yet critics still adored The Last Jedi, moreso than The Force Awakens, and were now totally on board with Johnson’s vision even though it really was not sustainable for Episode IX (btw, that’s actually why I’m glad it happened the way it did - Colin Trevorrow’s inability to make a satisfying conclusion with it is why he got fired, and I had never liked the idea of him as the director for Episode IX to begin with). When J.J Abrams returned, he wanted to finish the ST’s story the way he had in mind back during The Force Awakens, with the set-up he had created, and so he made multiple backtracks from The Last Jedi, rendering many of that film’s creative choices seem kind of pointless in retrospect. Critics exploded with anger, saying that The Rise of Skywalker suffered from a “frustrating lack of imagination”. This statement from Rotten Tomatoes’ critical consensus baffles me, because as I said before The Force Awakens had this exact same kind of cyclical familiarity and rehashed beats; in fact by the standards these critics are using it had MORE of a “lack of imagination” since its whole plot was almost a remake of A New Hope that caused George Lucas himself to bemoan “there’s nothing new!", while The Rise of Skywalker at least has stuff like Exogol and everything connected to it, Lightspeed-skipping, Force-dueling from different locations between Rey and Kylo Ren, worlds that don’t look like anything we’ve seen before like Kijimi, deep and dare-I-say imaginative ways to call back to earlier films and tie the whole saga together, etc. Yet The Rise of Skywalker is the worst-reviewed movie in the whole series, while The Force Awakens is among the best? It’s a double standard that makes no sense.

Unless you’re not thinking logically, of course, and are thinking emotionally. And that’s what critics are doing, as The Rise of Skywalker made them realize that this was exactly how the creative process behind this whole trilogy went and it pisses them off. But even though if you look at that scenario objectively Rian Johnson and The Last Jedi deserve more of the blame, that director and that film and other people attached to it received toxic hate from the aforementioned Fandom Menace, and in today’s Culture War critics didn’t want to give people like that anything that could be taken as legitimacy, so they cast the blame onto Abrams and The Rise of Skywalker instead and accused it of “pandering” to those fans and committing a creative sin by discarding Rian Johnson’s vision for the direction Star Wars should go, as if Johnson hadn’t done the same thing to Abrams’ vision first and as if a conclusion following everything that Johnson set up wouldn’t have depressingly bleak and giving off a far deeper feeling of pointlessness than what we actually ended up with. 

Ken Miyamoto (insightful on Star Wars in a way he isn’t for Game of Thrones) sums it up:

It’s just such a shame that, simply for being the final installment and being the film that made the Sequel Trilogy’s biggest problem apparent to critics even though it was apparent to many viewers since The Last Jedi (or even earlier!), The Rise of Skywalker gets the mass critical condemnation, since both at its core and given the circumstances it found itself in, I truly think it’s the best and most impressive of the three (also, it has Palpy in it so I’m naturally biased).

[iamtheroger]

Queen Index Part 1: The Video Directors

I finally got round to starting this pretty big operation. I start off pretty simply with all the video directors of Queen music videos or concert videos. Just to keep this manageable to me I’ll only cover 1973-1995 (with some exceptions along the way). I’ll do this chronologically and then make a masterpost of all the different posts I’ve made.

Mike Mansfield - Director of the first promo videos of Keep Yourself Alive & Liar shot at Brewer Street in London on 9th August 1973.

Bruce Gowers - Was first used as the director of the Bohemian Rhapsody video, shot on 10th November 1975 at Elstree Studios in London.

Faced with a difficult situation, the group improvised, setting aside a budget of £3,500 and hiring director Bruce Gowers for a four-hour (might have been three - yogurtbattle) shoot that took place without storyboarding or much of any rehearsal — and found Gowers rolling tape while the band members kept one eye on the clock, intent on getting out of the shoot in time to make it to the pub before last call (they did - yogurtbattle). (x)

(BTW, I’ve seen Roger say that they left on 2 AM that night to take the bus to their first concert, but the date of the video is widely reported as 10th of November so one of those has to be wrong and right now I’m going for Roger’s memory :P)

He also directed the video for You’re My Best Friend, no exact date. Now there is a bit of confusion over this video, and this is the closest I’ve found, from Ratty’s book, that makes sense:

So it was recorded it a disused barn at Ridge Farm but not in April (as widely reported), but in mid-June (that’s when they rehearsed there). Makes far more sense as the single was released in mid-June as well.

Next up he directed the video for Somebody To Love shot both at Wessex Studios and Hyde Park in London, the former on 4th November 1976 and the latter on 18th September 1976, during the concert. Lastly, on 18th February 1977 he flew out to Miami (not as sometimes reported at Nassau Colisseum in Uniondale) to direct the video of Tie Your Mother Down in the Sportorium. The reason he never worked for Queen again afterwards, as told by him:

Gowers worked with Queen three more times before falling out with late singer Freddie Mercury because he was booked for another job. The pair had a “shouting match” in a London restaurant. “Freddie felt betrayed,” he said, “but didn't understand I was not under contract with them, and as a freelancer took work where I could get it. We never spoke properly after that.” 

He did went on to work with (amongst others) Rod Stewart, the Rolling Stones, Genesis, Bee Gees, Elton John, Michael Jackson & Prince.

Derek Burnbridge - The director of We Are The Champions, shot on 6th October 1977 at New Royal Theatre in London. This was the first time the band called on the fan club for cheap extras and the band gave an impromptu short performance afterwards. It is unknown why the band never worked with him again, but he did went on to direct videos for The Police & AC/DC.

Rock Flicks - Now, this sounds more like the name of a company than a person to me, especially as the Queen videos are the only videos found related to it, but anyway ‘Rock Flicks’ was behind the Spread Your Wings/We Will Rock You video shoot, shot in January 1978 at Roger’s new home in Surrey, the one where Freddie was drunk and everyone cold. It is therefore unknown who really directed this videos.

Dennis De Vallance - This guy worked on several Queen videos, which is odd as the band didn’t like any of them. Not like the band which is normally so perfectionistic. Anyway, he first directed the Fat Bottomed Girls video on 28th October 1978 at the Convention Center in Dallas, where Queen were playing. At the same time, the performance footage for Bicycle Race was shot, but the band hated that so much only the footage of the nude cyclists was used in the original cut. This footage is also credited to Dennis as director, and was shot on 17th September at Wimbledon Stadium in London. He later returned to direct the Love Of My Life promo video on the 25th April 1979 in Tokyo. At last, he made a good Queen video when he directed the Crazy Little Thing Called Love one, on the 22nd September 1979 at Trillion Studios in London.

Interesting side note on the Crazy video: it was choreographed by Arlene Phillips, who also choreographed the We Will Rock You musical!

Now the next one is a bit tricky, his name is written as both Jorgen Kliebenst and Jörgen Kliebenstein (it certainly isn’t the first one), but I wonder if this might be the same guy as Hans-Jürgen Kliebenstein, as that is the only person with a similar name I can found on Google who is also working for TV - Anyway, this guy, whatever his name is, directed the Don’t Stop Me Now video shot at Forrest Nationale in Belgium before Queen’s concert there on 26th January 1979.

Keith McMillan - The guy that managed to fall down an orchestra pit at the Rainbow Theatre in London while working on the video for Save Me. Because the director injured himself, the band had to return to the video shoot a week later, on 22nd December 1979 at Alexandra Palace. This guy had worked before Queen with Kate Bush and Paul McCartney (who might have recommended him to them as he was the one behind the Concerts for the People of Kampuchea that Queen performed in the same month, which Keith also directed). He later worked with Blondie and Simple Minds.

Brian Grant - Directed multiple Queen videos, with mixed successes. His first was the video for Play The Game at Trillion Studios in London on 29th May 1980. Two years later he also shot the ill-fated videos for Back Chat and Calling All Girls back-to-back, in an unknown location in July 1982. He worked with various famous acts in the 80s, amongst them Kim Wilde, Peter Gabriel, Spandau Ballet, Whitney Houston and Van Halen.

Daniella Green - Hey, a female director! She directed the video for Another One Bites The Dust, shot on the 9th August 1980 in Dallas at the Reunion Arena. Nothing else I could find about her, sadly.

Mike Hodges - Just after Queen finished work on the Flash Gordon soundtrack, they shot a video for the theme song with Flash Gordon director Mike directing it - I’ll come back to him when discussing Flash Gordon. The video was shot in November 1980 at Anvil Studios and Roger had to take a break from recording his solo album to shoot it. Mike also shot the video for Body Language (yes, that one) in April 1982 in Toronto. Here’s Mike talking about that one:

Your promo video for Queen's song Body Language was apparently the first film banned by MTV. It's certainly the most erotic piece of work you've made. How did you and the band arrive at the concept? While recording the music for FLASH GORDON, I became friendly with all the members of Queen. They were fantastic fun to work with. In fact, shortly afterwards, I shot the movie’s music video. Then Freddie Mercury approached me to do the same with a song he’d written, Body Language. There’s the eroticism you talk about - in the song itself. The concept was Freddie’s and I was only too happy to capture it on film. We completed it in a Toronto studio after a truly exhausting 24-hour (okay, that makes the lack of enthusiasm by the band even more understandable - yogurtbattle) shoot! (x)

David Mallet - Now, there’s a guy that should have his own page, so much has he done with Queen. He came to work with Queen as he had worked with David Bowie previously. His first video was the one for Under Pressure, and he went on to do the videos for Radio Ga Ga, I Want To Break Free, Hammer To Fall, Who Wants To Live Forever, I Want It All, several of Freddie’s solo videos, and some work with Queen since Freddie’s death. Other people he has worked with include Joan Jett, Def Leppard, Frankie Goes To Hollywood, Tina Turner, AC/DC and INXS.

Radio Ga Ga: Shot on the 22nd & 23rd of November 1983 at Shepperton Studios in London.

I Want To Break Free: Shot on 22nd March  (the audience part), 23rd March (the drag part), 1st April (the ballet part rehearsal) and 5th April 1984 (the ballet part performance) at Limehouse Studios in London.

Hammer To Fall: Shot on the 25th August 1984 at the Forrest Nationale in Brussels. Footage from the 24th was also used for audience shots, as not enough fans showed up.

Who Wants To Live Forever: Shot on 16th September 1986 at a warehouse in Tobacco Wharf in London (by now demolished). Of course Roger was drunk here.

I Want It All: Shot on 22nd April 1989 at Elstree Studios.

The producer on several of these videos was Jacqui Byford, mentioned in the liner notes of The Miracle.

Tim Pope - Right. This guy had previously done the oh-so-great Man On Fire video, so Queen decided to hire him to shoot the video for It’s A Hard Life. The shoot ended up lasting one week, by far the longest of any Queen video. It was shot in Munich of course, in mid-June 1984 at Arri Film Studios. Now it wasn’t just Pope, the band was getting a bit out of hand with their videos then anyway, which probably had other reasons as well. He also worked with Soft Cell, The Cure, The Cars, Hall & Oates, Talk Talk, David Bowie & Paul McCartney (there’s a bit of an eighties theme going on here).

DoRo, The Torpedo Twins or Rudi Dolezal and Hannes Rossacher - The other prominent Queen directors, from one of their favourite cities Vienna. Responsible for even more Queen videos than David Mallet, especially in Freddie’s dying days:

One Vision: Shot in August 1985 in Munich, where Queen where recording for A Kind Of Magic. Also directed the shot documentary surrounding the video.

Friends Will Be Friends: Shot at JVC Studios in London on 15th May 1986, another Fan Club call.

Breakthru: Shot in June 1989 on the Nene Valley Railway in Cambridgeshire. Starring of course Debbie.

The Invisible Man: A video for Roger’s song shot on Roger’s birthday! Not very surprising then that Freddie had those glasses on for Roger’s birthday party. Apparently there was also a birthday cake wheeled in during recording and large amounts of champagne were drunk! Date of course was 26th July 1989, location Pinewood Studios in London.

Scandal: Again at Pinewood Studios, this one was shot on 27th September 1989.

The Miracle: Shot at Elstree Studios on 23rd November 1989. Freddie was portrayed by Ross McCall, who went on to become a professional actor, playing most famously in Band of Brothers.

Innuendo: This one was actually a collaboration between Rudi Dolezal and Jerry Hibbert (mentioned in the album notes). Jerry is an animator who has also worked on Fireman Sam. The video was made in December 1990.

Headlong: Shot at Metropolis Studios in London on 23rd November 1991 and another unknown date late 1990.

I’m Going Slightly Mad: Shot on 15th February 1991 at Wembley Studios in London.

These Are The Days Of Our Lives: Shot on 30th May 1991 (Freddie’s last video) at Limestone Studios in London. Brian couldn’t attend as he was in the US promoting Innuendo, but he was later edited in, with his parts filmed in June.

The Show Must Go On: The band wasn’t in this as Freddie has become too ill, but an edited montage was release as the video in October 1991.

No-One But You: Filmed at the Bray Studios in London in 1997.

After Freddie’s death Roger and Brian also made appearances at DoRo parties in 1992 (Hannes’ 40th) and 1998 (Rudi’s 40th).

Saul Swimmer - The amongst Queen members not very popular director of We Will Rock You, by now known as Rock Montreal, filmed on the 24th and 25th November 1981. It was renamed to its current name after Queen bought out Saul in 2006, after spending 25 years trying to get of him basically.

Gavin Taylor - The director of Live At Wembley, filmed on 13th July 1986. Also directed Live At The Bowl on 5th June 1982. Sadly not with us anymore.

Zsombolyai János -The director of the Hungarian Rhapsody, filmed on 27th July 1986 in of course Budapest.

That was it for the first part of the Queen index!

[stormblessedcastiel]

The MCU Generation

So I’ve been thinking about Marvel a lot lately. Specifically Infinity War. And I have some Feelings™, so I just thought I’d share. This is probably going to be long and super inaccurate and cringe-y, I don’t mean to offend anyone, but I just wanted to get it out of my system. BTW there will be lots of spoilers.

Iron Man was released in 2008, and many people including me consider it the true beginning of the cultural phenomenon that is the Marvel Cinematic Universe. I was eight years old when it came out, man that makes me feel old. I didn’t really know much about/pay attention to/care about superheroes much at that point, but my dad liked those kinds of movies so I had watched things like the Tobey Maguire spider man movies and Christopher Nolan’s batman movies (the first two were out at that time). They didn’t really hold much interest for me at the time. Iron man rolled around and dad seemed excited about it, but it still just seemed like another comic movie that the family would maybe re-watch if it were on TV or something. No big deal, right? Well, time went on and I started to hear talk about a bigger story. Iron man 2 came out when I was 10, and introduced nick fury and Natasha Romanoff. Still, I paid little mind to the film besides casually enjoying it like any other decent action film. Then came Thor. One year later, we got the first taste of the universe outside of Tony Stark, and that universe was much larger than I had anticipated. Looking back, the first Thor movie was definitely not the best superhero film ever made, but it did a lot of things right. Most importantly, it set the stage for more heroes who quickly joined ranks. It’s at this point that I feel the MCU really started to gain traction, at least from what I was hearing. My eleven-year-old self was beginning to view this collection of movies as something with potential, something to get excited about. In that same year, Captain America: The First Avenger hit the big screen. This is where I became truly and totally hooked. I don’t know what did it, but something about the story, the characters, or the message seemed to grab my full attention. This was the movie that had me craving the next installment. It probably helped that at about twelve years old I was starting to enter the social media world, if only in small doses. I discovered Pinterest and quickly realized that other people around my age (maybe a few years older) were talking about these movies, interacting with each other, making jokes and edits and headcanons. If I wasn’t invested in the MCU characters before then, that changed rapidly. Seeing other people’s takes on what the heroes thought or did off camera, speculation about subtext relationships, comparisons and continuations of themes from the comics, all mushed together to bring me closer to this Story than I had ever been before. So I was ready for Avengers. The Big One. The superhero movie that did what no superhero movie had done before. It brought together a cast from multiple movies into one glorious world-saving group. By this point, everyone could see that this franchise would make an impact. It truly was an entire universe, and we had just touched on the surface of this super team potential. Fans were everywhere; people at school, on the street, in commercials had their favorite heroes’ logo somewhere on their clothing or bag. There had never been (or I maybe just never noticed) such a widely spread media infatuation. 

Then came phase two. Iron man 3, Thor dark world, captain America winter soldier, guardians of the galaxy, age of Ultron, and ant man. These came out between my 13 and 16th birthdays. In my opinion (back then and now), none of these movies were quite up to par with those of phase one, but nostalgia may have already been clouding my judgement, even after just a few years. However, they did give us more characters to love, and also let us enjoy learning more about our old faves. I think this phase was Marvel kind of trying to find their footing in this huge undertaking they just opened up, trying to figure out how to write their stories now that they had to feel like they were in such a large universe?? I don’t know, it just feels like Phase One took place in a box the size of a fridge, and Phase Two now had to try (or at least start) to fill out an entire swimming pool. I was still excited with every new movie announcement and was happy to watch them, but after age of Ultron I feel like I lost a bit of steam. So much that I didn’t see Antman at all when it came out. It just didn’t seem worth it.

Phase Three. Civil War. I think this movie is the turning point for the MCU, into a much darker and somber tone. Inner conflicts among the avengers that have literally been boiling for years come to a head, we see so many characters in the same place, see their stories starting to turn in different directions from each other and we, as fans, are starting to get torn apart. Team Iron Man, Team Cap, and social media is stronger than ever, and more prevalent in my life. We don’t even get a solution at the end of the movie. It ends with both sides hurt, betrayed, and with no clue where to go from here, just like us viewers. It’s fair to say that I was re-invested in this universe once more. Though it hurt, I think Marvel needed to introduce some real, lasting damage to its characters. I feel like this movie took itself more seriously as well. That was 2016. After that, we got Dr. Strange, GotG volume two, Spiderman homecoming, Thor: Ragnarok, and Black panther. While these movies were not perfect either, I think they got a lot closer to what marvel wanted to make their universe feel like. They know what they’re doing now, and we fans got some great new characters out of it, along with a fun new take on some old ones (I’m looking at you, Mr. Waititi). I do want to mention a couple little things about some of these. Spiderman was worrisome for me, because the character had had two separate franchises in the last decade or so. That’s a pretty quick turnover. Let it be known that my fears have been quelled, and Tom Holland is my true Spiderman. (Tobey will hold a special place in my heart though. Sorry Andrew, better luck next time). AND THEN. The sensation that was Black Panther. This was when I was really getting into social media; tumblr, youtube, deviantart, all that jazz. It is also when I started college, so imagine that absolute upheaval of perspective. This movie was so important for minorities, and it caused such a stir just as my life was turned 180 degrees on its head. I didn’t know what to think. But I loved it.

Everything was going good. Marvel was hitting its stride again, life was changing, and my mind was expanding and finding out things that I had never considered before. I was 18 years old.

Then it happened. The one everyone had been waiting for for several years. “The endgame.” 

Infinity War.

Let me tell you what it was like when I sat down in the theater that cold spring day. I had heard whispered rumors. About loss, about death. I brushed them off as speculation, trying not to latch onto any spoilers. I wanted to be totally oblivious as to what was about to happen, so I could experience it as mine and only mine the first time. I sat down in that dark theater with my parents, brother, snacks, tissues, and blanket. Mind you, the tissues were for allergies that had been acting up the past few days. I never cried at movies. Never. The trailers played, my family and I whispered to each other about needing to keep an eye out for this or that film when it came out. Then the lights dropped to almost nothing. We settled in for the long haul as the Marvel logo began to play. You know the one, where it shows clips of the past movies, coming together to form the name of the company? Except this one said “MARVEL STUD10S.” Did you get that? There was a number 10 in the name. I was confused for a minute or so, until it dawned on me that the Marvel Cinematic Universe had been making movies for ten. years. More than half my life. I was still in elementary school when the first Iron Man came out. And now here I was, a year into college, about to watch characters that I had grown up with and come to love, in the movie that people were saying destroyed their souls. At that moment, I knew I was in trouble. I was right. Straight off the bat, we lost my favorite villain who really just needs a hug, one who really was instrumental in bringing the Avengers together in the first place. Loki Odinson, in his own words. Right up till the end, he was a trickster, but he loved his family. He and Heimdall were the first hard losses, though seeing all of Asgard torn to shreds was a wake-up call that no one was prepared for the utter destruction that had been avoided until this film. No more clean Disney kid-friendly-ness anymore. Throughout the movie, we got to see reunions, long-awaited meetings, even more characterization and growth (geez marvel, how did you even fit that in? This is the endgame movie? How are you still teaching us new things about these people?) torture, fighting. The tension to the final battle was mounting, and at some point it became clear to me that the Avengers would not be together when this threat arrived. And as anyone who has ever seen a horror movie can tell you, splitting up only leads to death. Now, here’s where my memory gets a little fuzzy. Things were happening so fast, switching from group to group of heroes trying desperately to stave off the destruction of everything we’ve ever known. Things are going wrong all over the place, no one knows where anyone else is or what they’re doing, people we love are fighting each other because they’ve never met before now. What I do remember is when we get to the fight on Titan. Half of the Guardians, Tony, Peter, Strange. Tensions are running high. When Thanos arrives, I have no Idea what’s about to happen. They start fighting, and we finally get a demonstration of some of the more amazing feats the Infinity Gauntlet can pull off. The upper hand swings back and forth so many times, but finally the heroes get their plan to work, they’ve got Thanos on the ground, the Gauntlet is almost off. And Quill… ruins it. What else can he do? He just found out that his love is dead. So he messes everything up. Thanos gets free, pummels everyone into the ground, and then… gets the stone. Strange gives up the stone, even though he swore he would let a child die before he would ever give up such a dangerous object. What the hell Strange???? Was my immediate reaction. I knew it had to be more than just some newfound compassion for these people he met a day ago (was it actually a day?? Has all of this only happened in one short day?) Obviously the doctor has a plan, but this still seems like the worst possible idea. Now to earth. We get some truly awesome moments here; Bucky and cap’s reunion, Shuri showing off her mad science skillz, epic fight moves against hordes of zombie lizards, Thor’s entrance, his little banter with Steve, “I am Groot” “I am Steve Rogers,” Scarlet Witch dropping in at the last second with that massive power move. Everything seems like it’s going ok, and then suddenly, its not. Everything drops so suddenly into Not OK Town that I can still feel the whiplash. People are scrambling to get to each other, calling for backup, getting knocked down and thrown around, and then Thanos makes his entrance. He practically wipes the floor with our remaining heroes. The only thing standing between the universe and total ruin is Wanda. I’ve been preparing for a scene like this the whole movie, but it didn’t hurt any less to finally see it. Vision begs Wanda to destroy the stone, to destroy him, we all know that she has to give in. That’s what heroes do. So she says goodbye to the man she loves and uses her power on him. Now I don’t know about you, but I feel like I’ve seen this scenario play out before. I’m expecting someone to get there at the last minute and just fricken’ knock Thanos out cold, or maybe discover that Shuri had enough time to basically detach the stone from Vision, even if it didn’t look like it. But no. Wanda destroys the mind stone and Vision actually dies at her hands. Even after all the death that’s already happened in this movie, I was still surprised and devastated.

But they couldn’t just end it like that, could they? Marvel Studios needs to drink every last drop of pain from their fans. 

Thanos moves back the clock. He takes the stone. Vision’s sacrifice was in vain, Wanda had to watch her love die for nothing. Nothing that anyone did made a difference. Since Avengers came out in 2012, these characters have been fighting to keep this evil at bay, to protect the stones, even before they knew it. And now none of it matters. Because Thanos the Mad Titan has all the infinity stones. It’s all over in my mind, I wait for the quintessential Villain Laugh™, the gloating, and then whatever evil thing Thanos has planned. But wait! Thor to the rescue with his brand-new hammer-axe! My heart leaps as he skewers the big purple raisin. He gets his revenge for Loki, for Heimdall, for all of Asgard, for us. Except. except. “You should have gone for the head.”

Wait,

snap. .

.

. My body is rigid and I can only stare unblinking in confusion at the screen. What’s going on? What did you do? WHAT DID YOU DO? Thanos disappears. Everything is quiet. “Where did he go?” Steve asks in confusion, mirroring all of our thoughts exactly.

“Steve?”

We see Bucky walking towards us, and then he just…. Dissolves. Into dust. what’s going on what was that My mind is sluggish. I don’t understand.

Wakandan warriors disappear in the wake of the battle. T’challa tries to help Okoye up but then he’s gone. Groot. Wanda. Sam. Mantis, Drax, Quill, Strange.

And oh god. 

“Mr. Stark? I don’t feel so good.”  Oh god no.  “I don’t know what’s happening, I don’t want to go, I don’t want to go, sir, please, I don’t want to go… I’m sorry.”

Gone.

Through this whole thing, it is silent. No music. Just emptiness, confusion, fear.

And that’s where we’re left. The audience is motionless. I do not cry at movies, but my throat is tight like a noose and my sleeves are soaked from wiping away tears.

Like all good Marvel fans, we remain still in our seats. I try to comprehend what just happened to me as the white credits scroll over a void and dramatic music accompanies them. We wait for our first end-credit scene. Instead, what we get is a fading of the music. Avengers: Infinity War shows from the center of the black screen, and a familiar melody plays. A few slow, simple notes on a piano. The triumphant theme of our heroes, earth’s mightiest protectors. It sounds lonely now. The last note plays, and the title dusts. And I almost scream.

If you’ve read this far, wow! Thank you for reading my absolute monstrosity of a garbage post! It’s been a few months now since Infinity War, and I’ve had time to think. What I figured out was this; when I’m older-old enough to be a parent myself-and looking back on my childhood, these are going to be the movies I remember like my dad remembers Star Wars. I was so lucky to be just the right age when this all started to enjoy every single one, and to remember experiencing them all for the first time. I was just the right age to forge a bond with the characters and their world. I think it was a special kind of bond that only occurs when you’re young but not too young, one that weaves webs of innocence and nostalgia through your most transformative years, and grows with you as you become a new person, and stays with you like a friend even as you see things so differently than when you first started out. What I’m trying to say is that I feel like I grew from child to adult just as the MCU did. We grew together. I don’t know if anyone my age feels the same, but these movies feel like the first big mainstream thing that really belongs to my generation. Like they came at the perfect time to shape me. It feels like they were made for me.

[taybigailsweirdheart]

Anon.

Okay, well it's truly up to you if you'd like to submit this (for people to see.) Anyways... This is a very long post, I apologize. It's hard to explain.

Okay, Come Back, Be Here isn't about Harry, it's totally a rumor simply created because Harry is British, so, we naturally assume it's about him. Which makes sense, but it simply isn't true.

Come Back, Be Here was written with Dan Wilson on a two-day period with Taylor same with Treacherous.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CoWL8Bd3eS0

Source: http://www.emusician.com/artists/1333/dan-wilson/45268

Taylor's co-writer Wilson also admits that the song was written sometime in Spring of 2012, so basically from there... That doesn't disallow it being about Harry. But how can it simply be about Harry given that the fact that Taylor called off her flirting with Harry in late April 2012 -- which was a mere one month after she was first originally flirting with him. That would make it incredibly strange and unpredictable for Taylor to immediately rush to write a song about longing for him and falling in-love with him. Keep in-mind Taylor's Vanity Fair interview article is further proof she called her flirting off with Styles during that era of time (temporarily.)

Most people will still not think that's convincing enough to believe it's not about Harry. So, if you still don't believe it, well.. It is true, Harry DID had to leave for work-related reasons (like Taylor talks about in her song meaning) But, the thing is, Harry and Taylor met at the end of KCA's (March 31st, 2012). When Harry left for work, he never went to New York City, or London which the song recalls...

Harry actually was in the middle of a tour in Australia, and as soon as the KCA's were done, Harry flew back to Australia with his bandmates.

Don't believe me?

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Up_All_Night_Tour

Scroll down to One Direction's concert schedule. You will see Harry and the rest of One Direction were in the middle of a tour. Hundreds of YouTube videos were posted in early April of 2012, of Harry and his bandmates doing interviews in Australia.

Keep in mind, during the night of the KCA's ... Harry kissed another girl shortly after meeting Taylor. So, that is further proof that it isn't about Harry, because he never went to NYC and London, and because he was all over the place in terms of girls (at the time.) And, was in the middle of a tour in Australia and went back to Australia straight away after KCA's.

Now, ok.. You may assume (like most people.) The song has to be about Gyllenhaal then... The funny thing is, it isn't about Gyllenhaal either, which is the plot twist. Let's start off with Taylor and Jake's timeline as a source:

https://kaylorcastle.tumblr.com/post/156876596961/swifthaalgyllenswift-timeline-2010

Jake started dating Taylor in October.. Like officially dating.. It wasn't just dates, they were literally dating. Keep in mind Taylor's and Jake's relationship started in NYC. It also ended in NYC. They never went anywhere else, besides Nashville and LA (in the early start of the relationship.)

In November, Jake left to promote his movie Love and Other Drugs... Leaving Taylor Swift in NYC. On the 16th of November he's arrived the movie premiere alone.

Source: https://68.media.tumblr.com/d3bd41c317b1a2fd8566c6a6c7248836/tumblr_inline_okx1zebwKs1up6r6z_500.jpg

Now, this is where people actually mistake the song for being about Gyllenhaal, because he left Taylor... But, again, just like Harry, the song doesn't follow the timeline of Jake, either.

The funny part is, Jake and Taylor were not away from each other long at all. Jake as soon as he got to London arranged for a jet to pick-up Taylor right away as he couldn't wait.

Source: https://68.media.tumblr.com/d3bd41c317b1a2fd8566c6a6c7248836/tumblr_inline_okx1zebwKs1up6r6z_500.jpg

So basically... Taylor and Jake were not even apart. Ironically, Jake didn't even have to do that because Taylor was already heading to London in a week to show up to an event.

November 24th Jake's movie is then released... November 27th, 2010 Taylor and Jake are back in Nashville on a date, they continue to go on dates.

So, that being said. The song isn't about Jake. The proof is his timeline.

Also, the lyrics do not match up with Jake either, not to mention, Come, Back Be Here is about Taylor not in a relationship (like you said months ago on your blog.) Because, basically it's about meeting someone, but as soon as you got feelings for the person, they're gone. So, a relationship cannot blossom, and because of that, you're stuck wondering how would a relationship work anyways when you are far from each other? It can't. So, you deal with the feelings of long-distance, which is torture, and missing someone you won't be seeing, because you now have feelings you originally did not know, so you have to deal with them.. The hardest part is dealing with them is not being able to see that person when you're in love.

So, the question is, why would Taylor write a song "longing" for Jake, and "just falling" for him, when, her and Jake were an offical couple? And only spent less than a week from each other? They didn't even spend time away, because Jake flew her out.. Lol. Not to mention they went back on dates, again. Why would Taylor play nonchalant towards Jake... When he was her BF?

Not to mention, why would Taylor write a song about Jake (Come Back, Be Here was the newest song on the album, and Treacherous.) Few months Before RED was released... When she officially was over Jake... Cause we got WANEGBT.

Still don't believe me that the song isn't about Jake?

Ok, well, the song in the lyrics state the guy kissed Taylor from wherever he and Taylor was, then he left to NYC for work-related reasons... Jake lives in NYC, he never "left" anywhere to go to NYC for work-related reasons, he only left to London for work-related reasons then was back with Taylor right away. Also, there is no literal possible flight that flies you in NYC when you're already in NYC.

Jake left Taylor in NYC when he left for London. The song talks about.. This guy going to NYC -> London and when he finally arrives in London, Taylor finally is now in NYC and he still isn't with her.

More confirmation proof the song isn't about Jake.... :)

Now on who it's about? This one is gonna shock you, simply because nobody noticed it and it slipped under everyone's eyes... (Because no one looked into it.)

The song is actually about Zac Efron. (Gasp, I know!)

Proof? Taylor and Zac were flirting from the end of late 2011. To early 2012. In early 2012, Taylor wasn't interested in Zac (despite re-tweeting she wishes she was dating him.) It was actually until the end of February when she started liking Zac. Zac in multiple interviews says he really likes Taylor and Danny Devito exposed him (there are sources for that too.) He even says if he could have anything from the Lorax and take it to his house, he wants Audrey, lol, aka. Taylor.

Here is Taylor playing nonchalant about Zac (like the song recalls):

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PeHFU8yILUM&t=119s

Starts at 1:58 y'all.

Source 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwJv7yyW3K0 (plays nonchalant again.)

Nonchalant means, to not care, be cool, eh, not giving a shit, oh well, be coolly unconcerned. Basically to be uncaring, not enthusiastic, or angry, or even annoyed by things going on. You're calm and don't care. That was Taylor playing nonchalant in the interview (2 of them, same reactions, which were nonchalant.) 

Near the end of Feb she started crushing on him and flirting back. That's why Ellen pushes them so much because they both were flirting and Ellen could easily see (she's always right.) Taylor kept blushing over Zac, and even almost accidentally said he was cute until she caught her word. She also blushed over his body and Zac raised his eyebrows.

The day before Ellen they were flirting on the carpet, Taylor was eyeing him from the corner of her eyes (there is a source for that too and proof.) While smiling. Zac was checking her out and paused his interview to stare at her. Zac kissed Taylor on the neck. (Taylor's LAST kiss.) Which the song mentions.

In another interview (end of Feb.) They were hand holding and Taylor was doing more flirting.. Even laying on him too.

Zac then had to leave suddenly and leave Taylor behind to go promote their film with Danny Devito.

Zac is the ONLY one to follow Come Back, Be Here's LYRICS and timeline and was the ONLY one who was in NYC/London during the time the song was written.

Zac arrives in NYC on March 1st:

Source: http://www1.pictures.zimbio.com/fp/Zac+Efron+Zac+Efron+Leaving+Hotel+New+York+0uF8WmM9akPl.jpg?theme=inline

Those photos were also posted at 4 AM btw and he was on his phone.

Zac on March 7th arrives in London: 

Source: http://cdn03.cdn.justjaredjr.com/wp-content/uploads/headlines/2012/03/zac-efron-lorax-london.jpg

Out of Harry, and Jake. Zac was the last one to kiss Taylor (Harry actually never kissed her when he met her.) And there is proof of Taylor playing nonchalant about Zac in those two interviews. Zac was also the only one who left from the location he was in (with Taylor.) To go to NYC for work-related reasons then had ended up in London. As soon as Zac was in London, Taylor was in NYC.

Zac, also actually spills the tea as, his quote actually links up to Taylor's song meaning:

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0Tqqfy8DMk

Zac (asked about working with Swift): "It was great. Amazing. Taylor is the best, she's such a sweet heart, and I'm just... (catches his word) Uh.... Hopefully she's back soon, I know she's been working REALLY hard travelling and touring and doing all kinds of stuff...But, I need another guitar lesson, quick! I'm starting to lose it." (April 18th, 2012).

Taylor's quote: "I wrote about falling for someone and then they have to go away for work. They're traveling, you're traveling, and you're thinking about them, but you're wondering how it's gonna work when there's so much distance between you." 

Second quote: It's a song that I wrote about a guy that I met.. You know, you meet someone, and then they just kinda happen to go away and it's like... long distance all of the sudden and you're like... But but.. but [whispering] but.. Come BACK! Be HERE!" - Taylor Swift

Match that up to what Zac said from the interview. Him and Taylor were both travelling and working the same time, Zac was the one who left first.. Then Taylor was back to travelling and working, and because they were both apart, and working, they would've never been able to work a relationship because they were both working and "worlds away."

(It's long distance all the sudden) which she means by that is.. Because her and Zac were together for awhile then instantly had to go away in the middle of no where for work.

Lastly Taylor refers to Zac as someone she has met before.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zae8uOf8gqE

She then mentions how they never saw each other during the filming processing, despite having met each other, and why they are hanging out (because they are strangers.)

In multiple interviews in 2015, and 2014.. And even 2012.. Taylor refers Zac by his full name, Zac also refers Taylor to her full name only. Why? Because they're strangers :)

Taylor only refers her friends by first name, same with Zac, in multiple interviews when talking about friends, he'll be like; "Adam...Is a ____" (Adam Devine) Taylor.. When talking about her friends.. "Cara.. Is..."

Taylor and Zac were strangers, despite having met. They never actually knew each other well.

Finally Zac has a song called Right Here, Right Now while Taylor's is Come Back, Be Here

Which is kind of like what she did with Harry. "Take Me Home" (STYLE lyrics) while his album name was TAKE ME HOME.

:) Hope that helps, I hope you have a good day.

[popwasabi]

“Dunkirk” Review: Nolan Zips It and Makes a Great WWII Movie

Directed by Christopher Nolan

Starring: Fionne Whitehead, Kenneth Branagh, Mark Rylance, Tom Hardy

Christopher Nolan is regarded by many as one of the best directors of the last twenty years but after his last two films even his most ardent fans were getting a little weary of him.

His weaknesses as a director, namely being a bit long-winded in his exposition, overly convoluted in his narrative and too bombastic with his action scenes were beginning to wear thin on his viewers. So when it was announced he would be directing “Dunkirk” a World War II movie, some viewers were understandably skeptical if he could handle a real historical event without beating the viewers over the head with an expositional sledge hammer.

(Take a drink each time Nolan has a philosophical monologue in his movies. #whoops)

Well, it pleases me say that “Dunkirk” is not only a showcase of Nolan’s best qualities as a director but also nullifies many of his weaknesses into easily one of the best movies of the year.

“Dunkirk” tells the story of the land, sea and air events of the famous rescue operation of British and French forces in WWII. The film follows a British soldier, private mariner and pilot as the events of this rescue take place and slowly converge to its climax.

Christopher Nolan has always been a great director when it comes to using tension in a story and using the ticking clock motif, that takes a more literal feel with Hans Zimmer’s excellent score in this film, and “Dunkirk” is no different. 

In films such as “The Prestige,” “Inception” and the climax of “The Dark Knight” there’s always this sense of the plot being pulled like a thin wire, stretching and stressing it out but never breaking. That strain, alongside Nolan’s excellent use of music, creates the tension of the story and creates a real uneasiness for the audience, whether it’s dueling magicians in a frantic arms race to the top, a militarized psyche closing in on the protagonists as they try to infiltrate someone’s mind, or a mad clown getting ready to blow up two ferry ships as man bat tries to find him in time.

This is one of Nolan’s best traits as a director and it’s on full display in “Dunkirk.”

The scale of the British army’s desperation is very apparent from the opening scene onward as the German air force picks off the Brits on the beach who have nowhere to escape. The ticking clock structure of the story plays a huge role here as the audience is shown with each passing minute that times is running out and we become more and more anxious as the film goes on.

(”Alright, time to get out of this dum...aaahhh shit...”)

The sea part of the story feels purposely deliberate as the time it’s taking for them to arrive makes the dread and desperation of the waiting men on the beach more apparent. The characters at sea are going as fast as they can but with the tension of story it always feels like it’s not fast enough as we keep waiting for them to finally arrive and save the men.

The air part of the story, in probably Tom Hardy’s most subdued role ever, uses tension in a different way as the ticking clock is played up more to describe the pilot’s waning fuel and his choice to fly back or continue providing air support. We feel for the pilots as they provide what little firepower they can as each shot and use of fuel is weighed to the greater good of the war.

(”No one cared who I was until I put on the mask...”)

What really helps these three theaters of war though is Nolan completely dialing back all the exposition of the story. Most people already know most everything that needs to be known about WWII and Nolan only needed to show, in this case in a very third-person kind of way, the desperation and triumph of this one singular event. There was no need to have a long-winded, Nolan-esque, monologue about the horrors of war; it’s been done a million times before in other war movies anyways.

Nolan does this by simply showing instead of telling us for a change through the violence of each scene and it works perfectly. We don’t necessarily need to know each of these character’s back-stories, hell only a few of them are clearly named throughout the film, we just needed to see what this event was all about and how it succeeded.

(Basically.)

In this way it’s different from other WWII films as well, choosing to really just show what happened rather than go into any detail with the characters. Nolan decided with this film it wasn’t necessary to carve out any back-stories or philosophical points and I can’t imagine it working better otherwise.

Nolan monologues aren’t always bad, but after the last two movies he’s done especially, his trip away from that line of story-telling in “Dunkirk” not only was welcome it helps the story flow tremendously better between the three plotlines.

The rest of the movie showcases Nolan’s other talents as a director as “Dunkirk,” like all his films, has tremendously well done cinematography and usage of practical effects alongside another great film score by Hans Zimmer.

If you can see it in IMAX do it because the film is simply tailor-made for the largest screen possible as the full scale of each scene is exquisitely detailed by the cinematography, especially during aerial shots of real WWII fighter planes performing combat maneuvers.

(”So what’s your master plan with this WWII movie, Mr. Nolan?” “Crashing this plane....”)

The soundtrack by Hans Zimmer, which takes the literal approach with the ticking clock motif (A technique known as the “Shepard-Risset Clissando” btw as detailed in this excellent video) , sustains the tension throughout the film alongside these scenes as everything comes together in near perfect orchestral form. The score plays into a crescendo that never quite hits its zenith and this keeps the viewers on the edge of their seats anticipating the climax at any moment.

“Dunkirk” is an accomplishment by Christopher Nolan on multiple levels as it’s not only a great WWII film but in some ways rectifies Nolan’s previous sins over his last two movies. It shows he’s capable of directing a film’s plot and themes in more than one way and it’s great to see.

No one was worried about whether Nolan could grasp the scale of WWII in Dunkirk, with his history of handling practical effects and cinematography but choosing a simpler way to express characters instead of making them all sound like hyper-intelligent, long-winded philosophers, let’s just say, was a welcome change.

“Dunkirk” is an amazing film that I’m sure will inspire another generation of movie-goers to read up on this period of history in the same way “Saving Private Ryan” did and if nothing else it’s nice to see Nolan back in the win column.

Now, if only I could do something about my own long-windedness as a movie critic…

 VERDICT:

5 out of 5

Oh, and apparently Harry Styles is in this film too for those who care. He was fine. (Seriously though, when searching for appropriate images on Tumblr for this review he’s in 90% of the GIFs under the hashtag #Dunkirk. Y’all are fucking thirsty.)

[all-the-best-pictures]

All About Eve 28.3/30

Robin: before we begin, has anyone seen this before? Any strong feelings about it?

Liz: no and no. but it has Marilyn Monroe and I love her

Robin: Until yesterday, the only thing I was aware of was the title; I'm very excited to discover it's a black and white film featuring such great actresses, I'm literally bouncing in excitement at some of these names

Nick Blake: Monroe!

Liz: 3

Robin: 2

Liz: 1

Robin: go!

Nick Blake: ACTIVATE

Liz: Bette Davis!

Robin: When i gave this a test watch yesterday, I got all excited thinking it was going to be a silent movie

Nick Blake: that was a very convincing Robot Wars impression btw

Liz: (no it wasn't)

Robin: before I realised actually my sound was off

Nick Blake: any movie's a silent movie if the sound's off

Robin: BETTE DAVIS YES I am screaming i delight

Nick Blake: My Dinner With Andre, for example

Robin: I know! We could do it silent, just for a laugh

Robin: follow the progression of cinema

Nick Blake: the writer sounds familiar, I may have seen his other stuff

Robin: HOW DARE THEY QUESTION THE PULITZER

Robin: Oh wow, the comedy in this is phenomenal already - "being an actor... it is not important you hear what he says."

Liz: "Award for Distinguished Achievement"

Liz: I like

Nick Blake: these are clearly some Men of Achievement

Robin: "Minor awards are such as for writer and director" YES, THE WRITING IN THIS FILM IS DEFINITELY GOOD

Nick Blake: this man is essential to the theatre. he must be stopped at once!

Robin: "I am critic and commentator. I am essential to the teatre." THE SHADE BEING THROWN ALL OVER

Liz: I would like to take a moment to appreciate Joseph L. Mankiewicz. I already love this film

Nick Blake: good ol' Mankie

Liz: Joe Mankie

Robin: Mankie my bro

Nick Blake: I appreciate Mankie's wits

Nick Blake: who'd a thunk it, an actor quoting Hamlet

Robin: Every second of this, of the narration and of every tiny gesture they do while on screen, is so phenomenal, they've put so much thought into it

Robin: This film already deserves Best Picture

Liz: I think this project may already be over. Best Picture Ever

Nick Blake: coming out of the gate strong like a horse made of celluloid

Nick Blake: it shall never be turned into glue

Robin: like a flammable horse made of celluloid

Liz: all horses are flammable

Nick Blake: all horses are flammable. That's their beauty and their tragedy

Robin: true true

Robin: wow, A+ hivemind you guys!!

Robin: And now, Citizen Kane herself...

Liz: this is why we're getting married

Nick Blake: there are other reasons, but those are secondary

Robin: <3 <3 <3

Robin: It's mainly for the horses

Robin: FREEZEFRAME

Robin: honestly, why did we develop cinema past this point?? It's already the best

Nick Blake: record scratch

Liz: "you're probably wondering how she got here"

Robin: man, I need to watch more black and white pictures

Nick Blake: there are some quality B/W pictures to come. for instance, The Apartment (1960) which is just A++++

Nick Blake: multiple narrators? by golly, this complicates the narrative

Robin: "Where was she? I found myself looking for a girl I'd never spoken to..." GAY GAY GAY GAY GAY

Liz: this is apparently Monroe's breakthrough role so I am PUMPED

Robin: "I've seen you so often, it took every bit of courage I could raise..." GAY GAY GAY GAY GAY

Robin: Is Monroe Margot Channing? I'm bad at recognising ppl in different roles

Nick Blake: it feels odd to me to see Monroe's breakthrough. She's so emblematic of celebrity that it seems bizarre that there was a point she wasn't famous

Liz: Miss Caswell, a minor character who has not appeared yet

Robin: Wow, so Eve has been famous for less than a year?

Robin: Harp box in the corner like a coffin

Nick Blake: "write me one about a nice, normal woman who just shoots her husband" yes, good

Liz: 10/10 would watch

Robin: I have good news for you about the musical 'Chicago'

Liz: shoots the lover, abandons the husband

Nick Blake: Chekhov's Nice Normal Woman. If she's in the play in act 1, she'd better shoot her husband in act 3

Robin: "They're never indoors long enough" Kids these days, playing outside

Nick Blake: Like and share if you remember kids confined to the salon to practice pianoforte like a good boy

Robin: "My good friend and companion" is this Actually Gay? I feel so many good vibes

Liz: all old films are gay, it is a Fact

Robin: I'm surprised to find it post-30s, I guess

Nick Blake: If I may quote Sunset Boulevard "It was gay, alright, but it was about to get REALLY FUCKIN GAY"

Nick Blake: I think I paraphrase, but still

Robin: San Francisco, yes, okay, confirmed

Robin: The way the babble overlapped just then, and then Eve being interrupted, and then dead silence... wow. That's incredible writing

Liz: I'm enjoying the classic breathy-yet-stilted exposition

Liz: lean forward at the end of every sentence to emphasise the banality

Robin: Mmm yeah, makes it old-timey even for the time. Turns this into a proper fairytale about the magic of the stage for baby Eve

Nick Blake: One night, Margo Channing came to play and then BAM gay thoughts

Liz: "there were theatres is San Francisco" WHAAAAAA?

Robin: I'm sorry, I really didn't mean to turn this into me repeating GAY over and over, but:

- offscreen husband

- she goes to SF to meet him

- husband fridged

- instead she found the woman of her dreams who brought light back into her life

Robin: BIRDIE IS A BUTCH LESBIAN, AS ALL VAUDEVILLIANS ARE

Nick Blake: I'm sorry if I upset you, it's just how dang butch I am

Robin: GAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY

Liz: "what are you two, lovers?" probably

Nick Blake: "I love a psychotic" - superwholock blogger confirmed

Robin: "What are you two, lovers?" "Only in some ways." THIS MOVIE DELIVERS

Nick Blake: Only in the homosexual fashion

Nick Blake: There are probably other themes. theatre, possibly?

Liz: the theme is Eve, obviously

Liz: look at the title

Nick Blake: I thought it was All About Eaves, the Samwise Gamgee story

Robin: I really do like the Citizen Kane aspect, it looks like it really is going to be vignettes from different people about her maybe

Liz: you say Citizen Kane, I say that one scene from Mean Girls

Liz: "one time, Eve punched me in the face"

Nick Blake: Donald Duck, Ibsen and the Lone Ranger... we didn't start the fire

Robin: Loving this scene about theatre being flea circuses and cartoons too; NB, your 'non-gay theme' could be about 'what is theatre'

Robin: is it writers or is it the essential critic. broadway or television.

Robin: Her one earring is in the gay ear #confirmed

Liz: Bette Davis cannot throw, apparently

Robin: Wait, the straight ear. Oops. I take it back.

Liz: "throw that letter away" drops it but behind her head

Nick Blake: it's half about art, half about complete fascination with an individual; the impersonal and the deeply personal

Nick Blake: "Everybody can't be Gregory Peck" the attitude of a QUITTER

Robin: I like the Gregory Peck reference - I love that he's real in this fictional universe

Liz: Gregory Peck is the universal constant

Nick Blake: so Roman Holiday exists in this universe. It's a good universe.

Robin: Eve, averting her eyes from this outrageous display of heterosexuality

Robin: Wow, they're already moving in together

Nick Blake: "THE HONEYMOON WAS ON"

Robin: Hello, and welcome to our new blog 'Every Film Is Gay'

Nick Blake: If it weren't for the Hays Code, who knows how this film could have been? It's really inviting this reading in a way I wasn't expecting.

Liz: BURN THE HAYS CODE

Robin: You are going to be so happy when we reach Wings in ten years

Nick Blake: black and white is the warmest colour

Liz: quality brisk undressing there

 Liz: oh no...THE UNIONS

 Nick Blake: gosh darn them unions

 Robin: Wardrobe mistress...

Robin: unions...

Nick Blake: a beat poem by robin

 Robin: aaaw, Eve...

Nick Blake: oh no, calling a man

Robin: Do either of you know when this film is set? I suppose contemporary, if Roman Holiday exists

Nick Blake: nyet

Liz: I think the start is contemporary (read 1950)

Liz: oh ok it's based on a 1946 short story so I guess mid 40s

Nick Blake: Eve I feel may not be a good person

Robin: Mmm, if the honeymoon period is coming to a close...

Robin: I wonder how much of this is also about age - the ageing star versus the young, perfect Eve

Liz: maybe this is why Margo looked grumpy at the beginning

Robin: "a lifetime is a season; and a season, a lifetime"

Robin: much in the same way Margot is so rude to Birdie

Nick Blake: imitation is the sincerest form of I HAVE ABSORBED YOUR PHYSICAL FORM

Robin: YES loving that creepiness

Liz: she's literally wearing her old clothes...

Robin: "I'm sure that's very flattering, I'm sure there's nothing wrong with it."

Robin: BETTE DAVIS IN A SUIT THOUGH. The only thing I wanted from this film, fulfilled.

Robin: "It seems I can't think of a thing you haven't thought of." OOOOH, THE STUDENT BECOMES THE MASTER.

Liz: Eve is Anne Baxter

Liz: Bette Davis is Margo

Robin: Oops

Nick Blake: same thing

Liz: but Anne Baxter in a suit is also very good

Nick Blake: quality content

Robin: The only way this film could become better is getting these women in some trousers

Liz: ROBIN SUCH INPROPRIETY

Robin: I WANNA SEE SOME LEGS!!!

Robin: Is... is that 'french ventriloquist' joke about cunnilingus? I feel like it could be a very oblique cunnilingus joke

Liz: I googled French ventriloquist and all I found was that Britain's Got Talent dog

Robin: "I'll tell you about looking into the heart of an artichoke some snowy night in front of the fire" is what you say to someone you're about to murder

Robin: no but like... linguistics, and being good with tongues, I mean? And it was also a sex joke definitely

Liz: makes sense

Nick Blake: what is she doing with this man who is quite clearly not a lesbian

Robin: I love how Margo is really being presented as reasonable for picking up on all these things, but it still looks from the outside that she's being a ridiculous diva

Robin: and that Eve is innocent but still predatory, like a cuckoo chick

Nick Blake: that's the perfect analogy

Robin: "What about her fangs?" "She hasn't cut them yet and you know it!" Except she's currently cutting them now, on Margo!

Liz: what's Margo got against milkshakes that bitch

Nick Blake: delicious symbols of innocence

Liz: I'm 22 I want a milkshake

Robin: They're bringing boys to her yard

Nick Blake: tasty tasty childhood symbolism

Liz: but she wants girls, oh no!

Robin: Hmm, more symbolism:

Robin: - Eve taking people's clothes at the start, subservient

- Eve literally wearing Margo's clothes, donning her skin

- And now, taking ppl's coats looks like theft

Liz: It's really ridiculously well done

Liz: MARILYN

Nick Blake: "ok but this time I'm onto something" is the vibe i'm getting off Margo, which is great. It's so frustrating and fascinating

Robin: "What has, or is about to happen?" I'M GONNA MARRY THIS SCREENWRITER

Nick Blake: the first time anyone has ever said that

Robin: Wow, they got a genuine frenchman

Robin: I think I'm correct in saying "in passing" is a sex joke

Liz: has to be

Robin: "You won't bore him, you won't even get a chance to talk!" LOVE YOU, MARILYN

Robin: Margo, holding a cocktail and a cigarette and someone else's lollipop is the symbol of this film

Robin: "Play it again." HEY THERE!

Liz: do you know the story about Marilyn Monroe and pissing?

Robin: No, please tell it

Nick Blake: "I AM DYING HERE ARE MY BURIAL REQUESTS" - Margo with the sad twitter aesthettic

Liz: ok so when she was dating Arthur Miller she went with him to meet his mother, needed the toilet, and turned on the taps to cover the sound

Liz: the mother later said she was a "wonderful girl, but she pisses like a horse"

Robin: YES, I LOVE THAT STORY

Robin: There's something wonderfully meta about a film with an aspiring actress featuring Marilyn Monroe as an aspiring actress

Liz: I'm always suspicious of films about actors etc. but this is top quality

Robin: Old Hollywood was remarkably self aware

Nick Blake: I think films about actors/films/theatre should be rationed. So maybe 2 per director. You need a special permit for fourth wall breaking.

Nick Blake: Mankie's cool, he's got it right. But we need a system.

Robin: I endorse that statement

Liz: I always wondered, what order are the other walls in?

Liz: I'd probably put the back as the first wall but then which?

Robin: left, back, right, fourth?

Nick Blake: they all vie for position. It's a tough gig.

Robin: No, right, back, left, fourth. The door is on the right in all sitcoms.

Liz: that's true actually, I never noticed

Liz: ok that order wins

Robin: 1950 AND BETTE DAVIS IS CALLING OUT HOW ALL FEMALE PROTAGS ARE WAY TOO YOUNG

Robin: BETTE DAVIS, THE HERO WE NEED TODAY

Liz: YES

Liz: "I'll wear rompers and come in rolling a hoop" sass central

Nick Blake: that's my business wear

Robin: Eve is almost vampiric, isn't she? Her youth feels eternal since she too young to worry about age yet, and she is stealing Margo's lifeblood...

Nick Blake: she bite

Nick Blake: oh no

Liz: yeah it's quite interesting how much of the events are incidental to the story they're telling mostly visually

Liz: I think Marilyn might be being set up as a rival too

Robin: Sable//Gable, actors as objects

Nick Blake: "I've listened backstage to people applaud"... I think this is the key line of it

Robin: I really like this scene of two men pontificating on the stairs, and the women not merely absorbing it, but weaponising it?

Robin: Writer and critic talking about how to get ahead, while Marilyn and Eve sharpen their pickaxes and take notes

Robin: OOOOF I LOVE THIS

Nick Blake: it's marvellous just how angry Margo gets

Robin: Margo who came up in vaudeville sounding off against her friend who went to Radcliffe

Robin: Margo, so far the only one Eve has been feeding off, not understanding how no one else can see what's lurkin in the shadows

Robin: I love her

Nick Blake: she's haunted

Robin: Yes!!!

Liz: It's almost Gothic isn't it

Robin: Hitchcockian

Nick Blake: yep, Eve is her gothic double!

Robin: Yes! Eve is the Dorian Grey to her portrait

Liz: tragic heroine. mysterious draining force. double. everyone else ignoring what's happening

Liz: this is a gothic film and I'll fight anyone who denies it

Robin: And I do think she's completely innocent, Eve is, it's just that her youth and her eagerness is by definition a danger

Liz: idk I think the phonecall thing was intentional

Liz: she's trying to find a quick way to the top using Margo as a stepping stone

Nick Blake: This is a tragedy; either the brilliant Margo is exploited by a cunning trickster, or Eve is just inherently vampiric. The tragedy is either Margo's or Eve's

Robin: Love also how all those paintings (of Margo, I think?) are Ye Olde, really puts her as a symbol of the past

Robin: 'Eve is new and unpregnant'; 'I must start wearing a watch, I never have, you know!' Every line gets more and more sinister as the film goes on

Robin: "In TIME she'll be what you are" oof!

Robin: "He listened to his play as if it had been written by someone else..." Eve is stealing the play too! This is incredible!

Liz: oooh she's fighting back!

Liz: I think this confirms my gothic theory. she's fighting back against the enemy and being essentially called paranoid

Robin: Yes yes yes

Robin: Also wonderfully calling out "Hey, don't you think it's odd the way women's ages are represented in fiction?" and being told she doesn't understand and is missing the point

Liz: especially with the repeated referring to Margo as a tool or an instrument

Robin: Bette Davis putting out her cigarette defiantly on the stage is my sexuality

Nick Blake: it's very interesting how the writers and critics are men. They're interpreting and critiquing the actions of the women, putting them into context or twisting them.

Liz: oh god it's about sexism and ageism, not just gay

Robin: yesssss

Nick Blake: "a body with a voice"

 Robin: It's terrifying - he's holding her down like a bad psychiatric doctor; and it's a position/framing that could be sexual, except we've never seen them interact sexually on screen, it's only been referenced

Robin: what a film

 Robin: The thing is, what the man is saying is true? She is great and talented and at the peak of her career etc

Nick Blake: "I told you how to view things, will you comply woman?"

Robin: but she lives in her real world and is talking about the real truth that she is Too Old

Liz: "I don't like your explanation. Tell me what's happening"

Robin: THE SHOT OF HER CRYING ON A BED, AND ZOOMING OUT TO SHOW IT'S A BED ON A STAGE

Robin: Ooof, the man talking about how Margo knew Eve was her understudy when she came in and acted all shocked, therefore her shock must have been an act - it was an act! she was fighting! how could he not see, not interpret her technique correctly!

Robin: Men.

Nick Blake: Eve doesn't have to do anything, she's just way easier to work with now than Margo who is so angry

Robin: yup

Robin: "What time is it?" "When you asked a minute ago, it was..." Time is so good in this

Nick Blake: mortalityyyyyy

Liz: almost crashing and stranded in the snow? DEATH

Liz: HOW MUCH TIME HAVE WE GOT

Liz: "I detest cheap sentiment" No Margo it's because it's the song from the party isn't it

Robin: Did cigarettes kill you in 1950 or were they still recommended by the Surgeon General? Did they age you, at least?

Robin: Bc I think Margo is the only one we've seen smoking...

Robin: Oooof yeah, I didn't catch that about the song!

Robin: "I want him to love me, not Margo Channing." THIS IS THE BEST FILM EVER

Liz: Apparently the official warning was 1964

Liz: but there were lots of reports before that from the 20s

Robin: Interesting

Liz: so I guess in the 40s it'd be a "maybe you shouldn't. maybe?"

Robin: "Gender is performative" - Bette Davis, 1950

Robin: I love Margo recognising that Eve isn't the problem, it's what Eve symbolises, but that a symbol can be dangerous in and of itself

Liz: oh god there's so much sabotage going on though

Robin: YES

Liz: and this was definitely all the friend's doing

Liz: but was she sabotaging Margo on purpose or just giving Eve a little chance?

Robin: Mmm, that and at the very start - Margo didn't want to meet a fan, but the friend wanted Eve to have a chance

Robin: UMM, I CAN'T TELL THE MEN APART, BUT ISN'T THIS THE ONE WHO IS IN LOVE WITH MARGO

Liz: YES

Robin: EVE NO

Liz: AND EVE KNOWS IT

Robin: EVE MY FEELINGS ABOUT YOU ARE CHANGING

Liz: BILL YOU ARE THE ONLY GUY NOT TO CHEAT WITH THE YOUNGER MODEL IN A FILM AND I SALUTE YOU

Robin: Yeah, but I'm not a huge fan of his reasoning being "I don't like a forward woman"

Robin: it should have been more along the lines of "MARGO AND I ARE TOGETHER"

Liz: well no, but nobody's perfect, and especially not 40s/50s men

Robin: hdu, Casablanca had already come out at this point

Nick Blake: I like Dewitt's turns of phrase

Liz: Rick is an outlier and should not be counted

Robin: Dewitt wants her to leave her bathroom door open a bit, and as a human being I am deeply uncomfortable

Liz: at least she's not actually...going

Robin: "An oasis of civilisation in the desert..." uuuhhhhh

Nick Blake: Eddie Lastname

Robin: OH he's catching her on her lies and that won't be a real theatre/husband

Robin: I thought he was just really bad at knowing things about San Francisco

Liz: implies she shed his name too, which would also be interesting

Robin: oooh yes!!

Liz: since he died in the war...

Nick Blake: he died of LIES

Robin: That adds to the performativity of her being a woman - not an innocent wife and widow, but someone self-driven and playing that up to be alluring even though she already cast him aside

Liz: THIS FILM IS SO GOOD I LOVE YOU JOE MANKY WHEREVER YOU ARE

Robin: //opinions on the film do not reflect my real feelings about human women who change their names

Robin: YES JOE MANKEY THANK YOU

Liz: I like that you spell it like the Pokémon not the adjective

Robin: Pokémon are the only screenwriters I trust

Liz: we are buffering

Robin: I paused at "what are the differences between theatre and civilisation"

Robin: which is wowza

Liz: we're at reading the newspaper "vigour of which they retain but a dim memory"

Robin: Okay, tell me when you get to civilisation!

Nick Blake: eggs

Liz: I'm thinking it might be good it when we do our ratings it's kind of a box quote thing?

Liz: words words words x out of 10

Nick Blake: nice

Robin: Yeah, that sounds good!

Liz: go

Nick Blake: civilisation!

Liz: I love when people smack newspapers in things

Nick Blake: what did the newspaper do

Liz: supported eve

Nick Blake: o no

Robin: Bill called it filth! Bill gets points back!

Liz: oh god

Liz: Eve

Nick Blake: top quality Bill

Liz: the original betrayer

Liz: YOU GUYYYYYS

Robin: EVE THE ORIGINAL BETRAYER!!!!!!!!

Robin: I was thinking all this time "Eve the original woman" but BETRAYER

Nick Blake: woooooah

Robin: Who's the serpent? Fame/theatre, or the friend, or...

Liz: I think the friend

Robin: "Eve would never ask to be in a play like that!" She would never ask...

Liz: Eve seems genuinely quiet and shy at the start, even if her backstory is a lie

Liz: although maybe Eve is the serpent

Liz: tricking the friend in betraying Margo

Robin: Yeah, I'm feeling that way too

Robin: The friend is so interesting - I'm thinking of Lyra in HDM, how she was a betrayer without meaning to be

Liz: Yes so much that

Robin: innocently leading her friend to his death

Robin: It's incredible how the movie is changing my opinions of Eve so effectively, I was completely on her side at the start and now I'm reevaluating my entire life

Robin: "In a cathedral or a ball park or a penny arcade..." He's talking about love the same way he talked about theatre at the start

Robin: I do like Bill

Nick Blake: same thing #makeuthink

Robin: Oooooooooo

Robin: MARGO GONNA GLASS EVE IN THE FACE WITH A CHAMPAGNE BOTTLE IN THE BATHROOM

Robin: I'M LIVING

Liz: god that'd be so good

Liz: the classiest thug

Robin: Karen marching straight past Dewitt without looking. Blood in the air.

Liz: did she just fucking bite a bone or is black and white making veg look like bone?

Robin: I CAN'T BELIEVE BETTE DAVIS JUST BIT A MAN'S DICK OFF

Robin: I think it was celery

Nick Blake: wowsers

Robin: This movie is such #lifegoals

Liz: I think the key is to be Margo but deck Eve early on

Robin: "Don't treat me as if I was the queen mother" - she's repeating what she criticised Margo for saying. Battle lines being drawn.

Robin: Eve's face and makeup is so intent and villainous here - a real change from her in a wet raincoat at the start

Robin: Local Girl Gets Makeover And Turns Evil

Liz: it's a tale as old as time

Liz: song as old as rhyme

Liz: don't trust fucking Eve

Nick Blake: biting off a dick

Robin: And now Eve is drawing the friend back into her fold!

Robin: This is the best chess game I've ever seen

Liz: This isn't chess this is Kal-toh

Nick Blake: reminds me of the TV Hannibal - doesn't have to say what you should do, just quietly manipulates people into saying the thing and doing the thing. no culpability

Robin: "It might have been Margo's fifteen years ago, but it's my part now!" Looking up from below, black dress//white dress, holding her hand, winged eyeliner - it looks absolutely like a deal being made with the devil

Robin: AND NOW THE BLACKMAIL BEGINS

Robin: HOLY SHIT

Liz: mmmm humble pie

Robin: :D

Robin: Shut Up About Eve, the movie

Robin: I love all the references to the title

Robin: They're all master-level

Nick Blake: it was arrested development

Robin: Eve//Evil

Liz: I think I need to see more Mankiewicz

Robin: "It means I've got a life to live, I don't have to play parts I'm too old for." I want to watch this film a thousand times, just to see more of Margo

Nick Blake: I can guess what rating you're going to give it

Robin: You're not allowed to guess, I'm an international man of mystery

Liz: gay out of sassy

Nick Blake: save it for the Austin Powers episode

Robin: Seperate beds - a comment on the relationship, or sustaining the Hays Code?

Robin: EVE IS STEALING YET ANOTHER MAN

Liz: I'd guess relationship

Robin: BREAKING FRIENDSHIPS

Liz: Hays code separate beds tend to be next to each other

Robin: LURKING IN THE SHADOWS

Robin: that's true, that's true!!

Liz: oh that's some quality green screen

Nick Blake: Yes We Are Really Walking Down a Street

Liz: No That's Not My Perfectly Flat Shadow

Nick Blake: that's my butt

Robin: Very good cut though, of them awkwardly "walking into a building" and then having them walking out of an elevator - carries the movement but doesn't make it seem completely false because there has been spacial disconnect

Liz: yeah that was just bad

Nick Blake: I feel like the film started happy and gay, and it's ending sad and straight

Robin: DEWITT IS COMING FOR LOUISA MAY ALCOTT AND HE IS MY ENEMY

Liz: WHO IS LOUISA MAY ALCOTT

Robin: Wrote Little Women and also some sickass trashy scifi about throwing people into volcanos and pirates and stuff

Liz: ah ok cool

Robin: Mainly known for Little Women

Nick Blake: I can imagine being thrown into a volcano, but being thrown into a pirate is altogether beyond me

Liz: like a javelin

Liz: or a dart

Robin: Something wonderful about Eve's convo with Dewitt here - he uses his words as a weapon, and she's doing the same. Like two devils meeting.

Robin: "Killer to killer." "Champion to champion."

Nick Blake: "yes I am a critic therefore i'm going to hell"

Liz: I think killer is appropriate. They can both kill people's careers in different ways

Robin: Yes!!

Nick Blake: "you will belong to me" fucking hell

Robin: "you will belong to me" is a mix of sexism/wedding, and also of the sataic contracts that keep popping up

Robin: UUUH

Robin: DEWITT

Robin: GO FUCK YOURSELF

Liz: good post-slap face though

Nick Blake: All About Gertrude

Liz: Not a great name...

Liz: "Dead Heroes and The Women Who Loved Them"

Nick Blake: "Dead Heroes and the Women Who Loved Them", a paperback by Addison Dewitt

Robin: I read that as "dead horses"

Liz: also that

Nick Blake: Society says neigh, but their hearts say yes

Robin: "desire to love and to be loved" - interesting words from a critic, whose job is cruelty

Liz: I thought it was inability to love and be loved?

Nick Blake: if the critic can possess Eve he can possess theatre

Robin: oh, I must have misheard! That's much better!

Liz: also appropriate mind, but in a smaller way

Liz: oh it's now again

Nick Blake: aaaand we're up to the opening

Nick Blake: I feel like someone's going to die

Liz: there are guns behind her. symbolic?

Robin: The fact her whole story was fake makes it very different, the feeling when she told it how it was like a monologue from a film ten years before

Robin: GOOD EYE FOR CHECKOV'S GUN!!

Liz: I was thinking more like she'll get old eventually and be displaced by the next Eve

Robin: Yessssss

Nick Blake: it feels like her shoutouts are veiled threats

Liz: oh without a doubt

Robin: Fascinating how all the women are uncomfortable with being Eve's friend - and Bill, I suppose, who is an honourary woman by way of being a respectful and caring spouse - and all the men are seduced

Liz: I wouldn't say she seduced Addison

Robin: Mmm yeah, she lost the war on that one

Robin: She tried, but he won

Robin: I'LL BE BACK TO CLAIM IT

Liz: terminator voice

Nick Blake: "If you want me back" - the self-effacing manipulator strikes again

Robin: Interesting too that this is a film about theatre - Eve is leaving Broadway for Hollywood, Marilyn is leaving theatre for TV (which is like film but less classy)

Liz: SICK BURN MARGO

Robin: new overtaking the old

Robin: Eve talking about how the party is for the award and not for her - like Margo was saying in the car

Liz: she won, but she's still ultimately a prop

Nick Blake: thought - was Margo once an Eve?

Robin: I think so? She came up via vaudeville, but it sounds like she did the second act while Birdie - aged, over the hill - did the first act

Nick Blake: she was so angry and upset because she saw the moves that she once tried, and that means it's over

Nick Blake: the cycle continues

Robin: HERE WE GO HERE WE GO HERE WE GO

Liz: HERE WE FUCKING GO

Robin: YEAH!!!!!!!!

Robin: Extremely stalkerish behaviour, but please, it's a compliment!

Liz: It's ok because I made a club about you

Robin: "Of course, they're just movie stars..." but Eve is going to hollywood and will elevate it

Robin: Remember how Eve put Margo's affairs in order? And now here, New Kid is cleaning Eve's carpet even though Eve is so tired and the maid will get it in the morning

Liz: yeah that was quick

Robin: SYMBOLISM OF NEW KID BEING HANDED THE AWARD, HOLY SHIT

Liz: FAKE NAME, ADDISON GETTING INVOLVED

Robin: Eve looks like she's aged ten years since she picked that award up

Liz: trying on the cape like she tried the dress!!!

Robin: Yes!!!!

Robin: amazing mirror placement

Liz: she looks like the evil queen

Nick Blake: it's like a coronation or wedding

Robin: Who is Phoebe? The moon? The moon is also virginity and innocence, much like Eve in the garden

Liz: oh god oh god oh god

Liz: HOLY MOTHERFUCKING SHITBALLS BOX QUOTES GO

Nick Blake: A very well crafted film about theatre, obsession, fame, men and women and many other things. Its only drawback is being a tad on the long side.

Nick Blake: 9/10

Liz: A lesson in visual storytelling. 9.3/10

Robin: Absolutely incredible film; I had high hopes and it surpassed them by miles. I want to watch it a million times to soak in every detail. The acting, the WRITING, the cinematography, it was all absolutely phenomenal. I want to write a book about this movie. I feel very bad starting out so high in this grand experiment, but I can't give it anything less than a 10 -- it had so many incredible things that I love and adore and had wonderful, complex heroines and villains, all about excellent women and wonderfully presented. No faults. 10/10

Liz: That's a big box

Robin: shit I don't actually know what a boxquote is. should it be shorter.

Liz: All About Eve: 28.3 out of 30

Robin: Surpassed my highest hopes with its wonderful writing and acting. Incredible and complex female characters. 10/10

Liz: That was so fun!

Robin: Yeah!! I really enjoyed it!!

Robin: One question, to include or not: Do you think this film could be remade/rereleased today? With the same script and everything? It's put together so wonderfully, every line has a purpose

Liz: I honestly don't like remakes as a rule and the stuff I'd change is very minor

Liz: (Also next month is All Quiet on the Western Front, so that'll be fun)

Nick Blake: I fear what would happen to the motivations of characters. Eve would be a rote psychotic character rather than a clever manipulator

Liz: that's true

Liz: a lot of what they do is interesting in part because it was the 40s

Nick Blake: based on a true story

Nick Blake: originated in an anecdote told to Mary Orr by Elisabeth Bergner

Robin: I think my favourite moment in this film, in retrospect, was Eve's life story at the start - bc it felt like a 40s emotional monologue, which must have been a little dated even by 1950, so it would have felt very much like a performance to viewers

Nick Blake: became a short story by Orr which Mankie then went "yeah i'll make this"

Robin: and idk if that would translate to now. It's a perfect film of the time

Robin: ooooooh, interesting!!!!

Nick Blake: there's specifics about the war dead which makes it hard to alter - the fake WW2 dead husband

Liz: idk there's always wars

Robin: Her husband could still have fake died in WWII, it'd just make her Definitely A Vampire

Nick Blake: but the bodycounts are different, each one's on the news

Liz: could update it a bit and say Vietnam

Robin: No one remembers each name though - you'd have to check, like Dewitt did

Liz: or, killed in a terrorist attack

Liz: go full on and say 9/11

Nick Blake: "I was working in a brewery when my husband 9/11ed"

Robin: GOSH

Robin: You know that's an actual thing?

Robin: One of the heads of, I don't remember whether it was 9/11 survivors or if it was widows, but had no connection with 9/11 at all, built a whole false identity around it

Robin: And it would gain instant sympathy

Liz: oh god I saw that

Nick Blake: how you remake it - lean into the contemporary elements. Young woman with tragic backstory goes viral, receives help from an Ellen-type figure. Whole thing was fake and she's trying to usurp her.

Robin: Yeah; it wouldn't be theatre, but something else

[vapaus-ystavyys-tasaarvo]

Guillaume stanning for Thénardier (from Les Mis 1995)

Warning: may cause flashbacks to really bad fandom Discourse xD

I just thought I’d post this as a sort of demonstration of what this “adaptation” is like. Although this doesn’t actually explain anything. It’s really hard to describe this movie but basically it’s people talking about Les Mis while either running from Nazis or fighting Nazis... or in some cases even while collaborating with Nazis. And everybody’s favourite Les Mis characters (or the characters they relate to or the ways they interpret the story) always say a lot about who they are as people.

I’m going to analyse this scene a bit more but I need to go into some spoilers (nothing major but I’m playing it safe) so I’m putting the rest under a cut:

So here Guillaume reveals what we more or less already knew at this point in the movie: that he’s a “Thénardier”. But he also reminds the audience that Thénardier ended up (more or less) helping the main characters, justifying the fact that Guillaume also helps Henri.

In the context of this scene Henri is both a Cosette AND a Valjean. As a child he was exploited by this man and now he’s an ex-criminal with no family, so the whole conversation is a commentary on both of these characters. (Marius and “Gavroche” are also present and relevant but they don’t join in.)

Henri being both a “Cosette” and a “Valjean” is established pretty thoroughly in the film btw. Even in small details like him being mistaken for a girl as a child and wearing a skirt while working for the Guillaumes. Also he literally says it himself at one point in the movie “I’m both Cosette and Jean Valjean!”

(There are actually multiple “Cosettes” in this movie, all coming from different perspectives, and at least two “Valjeans”.)

The plot is different but the themes and characters and relationships are there, although usually out of their original context. So it’s both an independent movie AND a Les Mis adaptation at the same time.

[scrawnydutchman]

Guardians of the Galaxy: How to Develop Multiple Characters at Once

Film is an art form that has an extensive library of challenges ahead of it. The very challenge of establishing characters, setting, theme, moral and conflict within a 2 hour runtime or even less is an art unto itself. So naturally the more variables you throw in the more difficult the challenge becomes. Making one main character interesting and likable can be a difficult task to achieve, and for many people taking the next step further, I.E. establishing and developing 4 to 5 or maybe even 6 characters at once can be excruciating. It’s such a delicate balance that recent movies like Rogue One and, from what I’ve heard Suicide Squad, fails to achieve. With this in mind, how does one find the perfect balance of letting every character have a healthy dosage of backstory, intrigue, funny moments, badass moments and heartfelt moments all within such a time crunch? The successful attempt at this challenge is why I think Guardians of The Galaxy is a film worth studying.

I’ll come out and admit it has been a LONG time since I’ve seen a marvel movie and I am leagues upon leagues behind, but as it stands Guardians of the Galaxy is hands down my favorite Marvel movie. And really, bias or no bias, you have to appreciate this movie for just how impressive it is in concept alone. It establishes and develops 5 characters at once, each with no prior backstory film to aid them like The Avengers, and they are the most obscure and bizarre collection of Marvel characters you can imagine. It’s a talking raccoon and a living tree. These ideas would have NEVER flown back in the early 2000s. And yet they are each just as beloved as any other marvel characters even with their entire sagas of films behind them, and for some people even MORE so. So what’s the secret to Guardians of the Galaxy’s success? What makes this one of the most charming, hilarious and downright fun films in Marvel Studios repertoire that’s so good it caused DC to attempt to follow in their footsteps with Suicide Squad? Well, I think it boils down to one simple yet crucial element: Character interaction.

Everything we learn about these characters is spoonfed to us by observing how they react to their environment, how they behave around each other, and how they resolve their situations, and really that’s what a story is all about: digging deeper and finding out more and more as you go along. Just based on the opening of this film, (skipping over the jarringly dramatic and sort of random backstory sequence) we know Starlord is a carefree, confident, self absorbed smirking thief by how he nonchalantly dances through a wasteland, obtains a hyper valuable object and barely makes it out alive, all without losing his cool. We know from the previously mentioned jarring backstory sequence that he has very sentimental reasons for being tied to his walkman, and that he is a fluent lover of hit songs from the 70s and 80s and his song selection effects how he perceives each of his situations as well as us, the audience.

As the film progresses, Starlord eventually runs into Gamora, Rocket and Groot in a free for all fight for the item Starlord stole from that temple. They get into a bit of a fight, hilarity ensues, and we get short doses of each of our new characters. We know Gamora is a no nonsense assassin who’s very precise in her technique, we know Rocket is a snarky rude little roughouser with a love for heavy weaponry, and we know Groot is . . well . . . sort of slow. Their tangle in a public place leads to them all being arrested and ported to a high security prison, giving them reason to all work together to try and break out. For starters, this is a well established motive for them to even WANT to stay together. They all have goals that align with each other and decide now that they’re all in this together through fault of each to their own, now they must continue to work together if any of them want to accomplish anything. Compare this to Suicide Squad where the villains only work together because they are forced to by the government for reasons that frankly don’t make a lot of sense, or Rogue One where two of the members are forcefully paired up with each other and then a few more members just sort of hop on board their quest for reasons I honestly don’t remember (it felt pretty random though). In Guardians the characters actually have a motive to help each other out other then they don’t have a choice. They each realize their skills are beneficial to each other in the long run and any comedic discrepancies are worth indulging in.

During their stay in the prison they meet up with Drax, which . . . he’s my absolute favorite member of the crew. Deadly, intimidating, larger then life, yet a misunderstanding of sarcasm and figure of speech as well as social cues that make him awkward, and a strangely childlike joy for violence and destruction. Drax is like a strangely intelligent 5 year old trapped in a strongman’s body who incidentally will snap your neck if you look at him funny. And he is goddamn hilarious. Everything he says in this movie is brilliant and he looks just as funny in Vol 2. (btw super stoked for that).

ANYWAYS, he gets caught up in his cause, again not because he is forced to, but because the rest of the teams goals line up with his; getting revenge for the death of his family. They escape all within hilarious comedic fashion with jokes that really pander towards who each character really is, and from there they go on a fun adventure, realize they are a family and yadda yadda yadda.

This movie has a great setup for these characters being brought together. They take the best parts of each character and they just keep building and building their relationship based on how one perceives the other. And through each of their interaction we learn they have sides to them we didn’t see at first. We learn that Rocket, for all of his tough guy demeanor in a room of dudes literally larger then him, is actually really sensitive when Drax calls him vermin. We learn Drax is actually quite sweet if only with a little social awkwardness that makes him rude but well meaning. We realize Starlord, for all his egotistical impulses is actually quite compassionate and self sacrificing. We find out Gamora has a need for belonging despite remaining cold and distant so as to not risk being taken advantage of. And finally, we find that despite Groot only being capable of saying “I am Groot”, he actually has different meanings and implications with each delivery of the same phrase, meaning he’s actually a lot smarter and more insightful then one would initially credit him for. He’s less an idiot and more a salt of the earth kind of walking tree man. (slight tangent; I think he’s way cuter as a giant then as a baby. #unpopularopinion).

All of these things are discovered through their interaction with each other. They actually have narrative driven beats and impulses to lead them to expressing these things, either verbally or emotionally. Once again, films like Suicide Squad or Rogue One suffer from people just talking about who they are instead of showing who they are. Film is all about “Show, don’t tell”, and just like real life characters should learn more about who their around by observing them then by just being told who they are and what they do. 

And most importantly, these characters develop in a way that aids the narrative, not takes attention away from it. It really feels like the writers were thinking to themselves “alright, this is the scenario in the plot; what would each character do in a situation like this?” For instance, when the group is all around the table plotting their escape and Rocket says he needs a certain component to make his plan work, would Groot really just be standing around and listening? Or would he just take that for face value and go straight for obtaining that component regardless of it’s consequences? The writers chose based on what made the most sense for the character, and it was very effective.

All of these things are important for making a group of characters worth indulging for 2 hours. Because as I said in my Rogue One review, what’s more important then a character being a means to an end to move a plot element along is them being interesting in their own right. We don’t like Rocket because he’s a genius engineer and weapons specialist; we like him because he’s a snarky wise ass who always puts up a tough guy attitude. We don’t like Drax because he’s a badass man killer who can take down an entire room of guys by himself, we like him because he’s awkward, childish, rude-yet-well meaning but still very intimidating. Blend these very identifiable and lovable characters together and we get a fun flick where each character is understandably flawed but just kind and sweet enough for us to believe they genuinely want to help each other out. If you’re ever wondering how an audience will see a character, think first about how other characters within their universe perceive them.

[cryptiboy]

cryptiboy’s “I’m a little too excited for Halloween” Book Rec List

With October fast approaching and my love of books flaring back up, I thought I would make a list of some of my favorite books of all time. Not all of these books are horror (per-se), but I think they are all rather good. All of them should be rather funny, to say the least, and are all big contributors to my sense of humor.

Title: Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy

Author: Douglas Adams

Ah yes, we will start with a classic. Although I’m sure many of you have heard of this, I know it’s possible a few of you haven’t. If you like snarky banter, questionable morals, and weird ass british optimism in the face of death, or even if you just like a good sci-fi read, this book is definitely for you. Side note: this is part of a full series, and I recommend enjoying it fully. You may think it ends at So Long And Thanks For All The FIsh, but buddy, there’s still more books as well as multiple tv show and radio adaptations (none of which are exactly the same btw, just as the author intended).

Title: Going Bovine

Author: Libba Bray

It has been a while since I last read this book, so this summary won’t be as meaty, but if you want to see a delightful depiction of a harmless fuckboy and his dream girl (as well as a couple other great characters) going on zany adventures while he slowly dies, this is your stop. Oh yeah, and also: mad cow disease and garden gnomes. When I say wild ride, I mean wild ass ride.

Title: Horns

Author: Joe Hill

Either you know this book/movie adaption intimately, or have no idea what I’m talking about. (You know, with Dan Radcliffe? There we go.) With themes of good vs. evil, what it means to be evil or good, morals, religious imagery (heavy on the religion), and love, I could not even begin to start a trigger warning list for this book even if I tried. Severe trigger warning for rape though, I’ll tell you that. If you’re tired of all your beloved characters being nice and perfect, try out having all of your beloved characters be assholes who are each steeped in their own sins and vices. I promise it has funny parts.

Title: May Bird and the Ever After

Author: Jodi Lynn Anderson

But wait, you cry! This is a kids book! And I tell you this: sometimes kids books are just kids books, but sometimes they hold valuable subtext and lessons we can still learn and grow from. We follow a young girl who ends up in the land of the dead after chasing after her best friend and pet cat. Her cat is kind of an asshole, but you love him anyway. We also learn that death isn’t the scariest thing that can happen to you. If you want a relatable character with very real world problems dealing with them therapeutically in a semi-horror fantasy setting, hop on in, kiddo.

Title: The Lone Ranger and Tonto Fistfight In Heaven

Author: Sherman Alexie

I have a confession to make: I still have not gotten around to reading this book in full yet. But between reading snippets and watching the film multiple times, I can guarantee this read is worth your time. It may seem like a standard coming of age story, but it also has a lot of really, really great undertones and subtext, as well as fabulous world-building, bonding moments (and not so bonding moments) and character development. Besides, it’s Sherman Alexie, who is brilliant.

Title: M is for Magic

Author: Neil Gaiman

You may be surprised to see that my Gaiman pick isn’t a novel. In fact, I find that a lot of people, even Gaiman fans, have never heard of M is for Magic before. My friend, welcome to the short story collection made of dreams. Composed of 11 short stories ranging from pleasant and fantastic to sending you those wonderful shivers, you may find a few familiar faces. Includes October In The Chair and How To Talk To Girls At Parties. Honestly, I cannot suggest this read enough. Despite its horror/thriller nature, it is still kid friendly (sometimes certain things are only scary to adults, as you may soon find out).

Title: The Thief Lord

Author: Cornelia Funke

Another one I’m sure you’ve heard of if you know anything about fantasy novels, but if you haven’t, I’m kind of jealous that your first time experiencing it will be as an adult. This was probably the first book ever read to me, as it was for many other kids, because it’s just that good. An escapism fantasy set in Venice, Italy that goes beyond too far. There’s mysterious magic, a band of rough, rowdy and lovable orphans, a very tired detective, a greedy old man with dubious morals, and in the center of it all, tying it together, is the young thief lord.

Title: Everything’s Eventual

Author: Stephen King

Another book of short stories, you say? Yes, I say, because maybe I enjoy short stories. Or maybe I haven’t gotten around to reading many King novels but I wanted to include him anyway. Some of the stories I’m not as fond of, but it’s more of a preference thing more than anything. If you like horror, I can promise there is at least one short story in here for you. Also, has a short snippet of The Dark Tower.

Title: A Night In The Lonesome October

Author: Roger Zelazny

Another book that I haven’t read recently, but is a classic in my immediate family. Follow a loyal dog as October draws near and he and his master must figure out who is friend or foe, who the players are, and whether the gates will open or close. As you read, you will be surprised to find more than a few familiar faces in this dark, gloomy London setting.