#Never Cry Wolf

[ace-culture-is]

ace culture is Never Cry Wolf (1983)

[scotland-wolves]

[theoscarsproject]

Never Cry Wolf (1983). A government researcher, sent to research the "menace" of wolves in the north, learns about the true beneficial and positive nature of the species.

Is there a director that better understands a person's ability to connect to an animal than Carroll Ballard? While this feels spiritually in tune with his films Fly Away Home and The Black Stallion, this one physically supplants us in the deepest wilderness to pretty magical affect. Gorgeously shot, deeply human and honestly pretty moving, it's Disney at its best (and god, why don't they make films like this anymore?) 8/10.

[thraveenperera]

Never Cry Wolf (1983)

Directed by Carroll Ballard

A scientific researcher, sent on a government study: The Lupus Project, must investigate the possible "menace" of wolves in the north. To do so, he must survive in the wilderness for six months on his own. In the course of these events, he learns about the true beneficial and positive nature of the wolf species. Based on the book and true story by Farley Mowat.

[bones-n-bookles]

Never Cry Wolf: The Amazing True Story of Life Among Arctic Wolves, by Farley Mowat, 1963

A holiday gift I've yet to read but REALLY need to

[eregyrn-falls]

Ugh this gets long so I will add it in text:

Loved: Never Cry Wolf by Farley Mowat. (Everyone else in the class hated it.)

Hated: Ramona by Helen Hunt Jackson. (Nobody else in the class liked this one either.)

I think these were both in 7th grade?

So: Never Cry Wolf is a fictionalized auto-bio account of studying wolves in a remote area of Canada in the late 1940s; published in 1963. This was extremely early in terms of wolf study; Mowat had been assigned to study wolves because of government concerns about declining caribou population. What he discovered was that wolves in reality were nothing like the popular misconception of them as bloodthirsty killers, and they were not responsible for over-hunting caribou (that was very clearly due to other humans). In the end, despite his report, the government sent someone in to exterminate the wolf-pack he'd studied.

The book has come in for criticism in more recent years, for its fictionalization, and anthropomorphism of the wolves being studied, among other things. But, I think context is important. When it was published in 1963, wolves were regarded only as vermin to be exterminated, and Mowat's aim was not to publish a scientific study, but a book that would make people sympathize with wolves as a species worth saving.

(I really connected with it because I was already interested in wolves and nature and stuff like that. I'm not sure why my classmates hated it, but I remember they thought it was dumb.)

Meanwhile: Ramona is a book written in 1884, about a mixed-race orphan girl (white and Native American), living in southern California after the Mexican-American war (late 1840s). It was hugely popular when it was published. The aim of the book... well, I'm going to quote from Wikipedia:

Jackson wrote Ramona three years after A Century of Dishonor, her non-fiction study of the mistreatment of Native Americans in the United States. By following that history with a novel, she sought to portray the Indian experience "in a way to move people's hearts."[5] She wanted to arouse public opinion and concern for the betterment of their plight, much as Harriet Beecher Stowe's novel Uncle Tom's Cabin had done for slaves.[6] Her success in this effort was limited.

Jackson intended Ramona to appeal directly to the reader's emotions. The novel's political criticism was clear, but most readers were moved by its romantic vision of colonial California under Spanish and Mexican rule. Jackson had become enamored of the Spanish missions in California, which she romanticized. The story's fictional vision of Franciscan churchmen, señoritas and caballeros permeated the novel and captured the imaginations of readers. Her novel characterized the Americans as villains and the Native Americans as "noble savages".[7]

Many American migrants had looked down on the Hispanic occupants of California when they arrived in the region. The new settlers from northern and midwestern states disparaged what they saw as a decadent culture of leisure and recreation among the elite Latinos, who had huge tracts of land, lived in a region with prevailing mild weather and unusually fertile soil, and relied heavily on Native American laborers. The new settlers favored the Protestant work ethic. This view was not universal, however. American settlers and readers in other regions were taken by Jackson's portrayal of the Spanish and Mexican society. Readers accepted the Californio aristocracy as portrayed and the Ramona myth was born.[8]

So I can see why this was a book that our English teacher wanted us to read and analyze. But I think we were really just too young for it. What I remember thinking was that the style of writing was extremely boring, and I couldn't connect with the characters. (And I want to point out that this is not simply because it was a book written in 1884; I was already reading and loving the original Sherlock Holmes stories, which were written around the same time.) I also think that the teacher probably did not set up the background described above, in order to explain why she wanted us to read it. And since this was in the early 80s, I'm pretty sure that the teacher would not have gotten into the problematic "noble savages" portrayal of Native Americans -- although it could have made for an interesting discussion about the tension between wanting to create sympathy in the audience for a group that were not really being sympathized with at the time of its writing, but why the impression it created was still not accurate and not respectful of that group.

In fact, writing this out now... I realize that there were some pretty direct similarities between the aim of these two books (which, yes, I encountered in the same class). But I don't remember the teacher trying to make that point. Hmm!

we were all forced to read “classics” in school so reblog and put the one you actually ended up liking a lot and the one you can’t fucking stand in the tags

my fave is Lord of the Flies and I ironically enough want to burn every copy of Fahrenheit 451. trash

[thegreatdisneymovieride]

Man I feel like I should have liked this one. But alas.

[enemy-to-the-state]

Never Cry Wolf is so stunningly dignified and solitary with beautiful cinematography and quiet storytelling it’s hard to believe it’s a disney movie

[thenwothm]

INTERVIEW: LORD VOLTURE (NETHERLANDS)

The heavy metal electricity runs high in the Netherlands as Lord Volture delivery a charge that will definitely leave you smoking! TheNwothm: Greetings Lord Volture! Can you please introduce us to the band and where you are from? Paul Marcelis (guitarist): We are a no-frills Dutch heavy metal band rooted in the style of the 80s, without being dogmatic: anything goes if we like it. It is David…

[molonara]

Best music, best movie.

[meushell]

If you ever wondered what a Malek smirk looked like…

The scene with his hands up is hilarious. He looks so cute, but the character is being such an ass.

Never Cry Werewolf (2008)

[arrgh-whatever]

[cinemapphic]

HUNGRY LIKE THE WOLF!

[sholmeser]

so like it’s 1999 and solid snake is in zanzibar land and gray fox tells you that all he can do is fight. it’s all he has and it’s probably all you’re ever going to have, too, because deep down you know your father is right, you know he is right as you click the lighter and burn the flesh off his skin, you know he is right when he tells you, this will never go away. i am always going to be a part of you. it’s 2005 and solid snake is in shadow moses island, alaska and gray fox tells you that’s good, snake. hit me harder. do it more. that’s good. when you meet meryl you kill the guards, and then snake thinks he loves her, so you kill psycho mantis for her, ocelot tortures you and you withstand it for her, you beat liquid to a pulp for her and while his blood is on your fists he smiles and tells you that you two, you’ll always be the same. gray fox means violence means meryl means violence, so what’s love if not that? what is it if not the feeling of broken bones under your knuckles, if not the smell of your father’s burnt flesh? but she's too young, she doesn’t understand you and she couldn’t if she tried, because she’s eighteen years old and doesn’t know any better and doesn’t understand that after you sleep with her you’re going to get up and let the pillow grow cold, she thinks you’ll tell her everything and when you don’t, because you can’t, she’ll leave you. you kill him with your fists and for her you destroy shadow moses and you hear him say to you again that’s good, snake, that feels good, do it harder. but it isn’t a coincidence that in mgs1 you meet otacon at the same time you meet gray fox. otacon who is so scared of battle he pisses his pants and otacon who cries over a woman who could never love him back and otacon who thinks good people like dogs, kind people like dogs, otacon who passed you a meal, ready-to-eat and a bottle of ketchup across the bars of your cell and when you ask him why the fuck are you here if you cant help me he says to you, i thought you might be hungry. otacon who gives you her handkerchief that was once her mother's and will be hers once again when she dies, when you rest it atop her glazed-over irises, a cycle of love. she was a good person, snake, and so are you. she liked the wolves and you do too. otacon who cries over his baby sister’s little body, who blames himself for being seventeen years old under the touch of the woman who should have been his mother. otacon who when it's 2014 will make you the solid eye and the octocamo suit and the mk. ii to keep you safe and say to you, don't hurt anyone, snake. will say to you: i'll follow you wherever you go, like this. otacon who blubbers like a baby and cries too much and who, when it's 2009 in new york city, you have to say to, go rescue the hostages, because if you don’t he’s going to crumple in on himself, a dying star. this is how you love, you don’t say to him, and how i love, because you showed me how. wrap your arms around his shoulders and hope it’s enough.

[morganasmissus]

just saw an edit of Theo Raeken to Anthem For A 17 Year Old Girl and i will never be recovering thank you

[apricusapollo]

rummaging through ao3 and saw multiple teen wolf / the maze runner crossovers where stiles and thomas meet (and are twins or some shit) and i just can't stop giggling at the thought of the two of them in a room together. not because they're both played by dylan but because thomas would be sick of stiles' hyperactive ass SOOO BADLYY he'd be side eyeing that hoe fr