#TW: YELLOWFACE

[toss-a-coin-to-your-stan-account]

june babygirl i am literally on my hands and knees begging you to reconsider it

[creativeimagination206]

The Poll Is In

This is for all of you who care about my thoughts on Murder by Death.

All two of you.

All jokes aside, it was a unanimous yes, so here we go, and uh... it's gonna be a long one, so buckle up. Y'all wanted this XD

Each of the main characters in the film are parodies of famous detectives, so I'm gonna go through each one, then talk about my thoughts on Truman Capote and the ending of the film, and then my thoughts on the film as a whole. Sound good? Here goes.

Okay, so I'm gonna be honest that I know about all of the detectives the parodies are based on except one, and that's Charlie Chan (or Sidney Wang, in the parody version). I've only done a minimal amount of research on Charlie Chan, and I have the films and books on my exhaustive to watch/read lists. From what I understand, the original character was meant to fight back against the villain stereotype that Asian characters often fell into at the time, although many critics of the detective argue that he therefore swings in the extreme opposite direction, causing him to fall into a different dangerous stereotype.

Apparently, from what I've seen around the internet, Sidney Wang (and the fact that he is portrayed by a white man in yellowface) is meant to make fun of the original Charlie Chan movies, in which the actor playing Chan is also in yellowface. Again, I can't substantiate that, and I haven't done research enough to competently talk about it, so I'm mostly going to leave his character alone. From a perspective of someone who doesn't know the character of Chan at all, Wang comes across as... pretty racist. Is Peter Sellers funny? Yes, of course. But does the character also speak in broken English and constantly spout fortune-cookie-esque "wisdom"? Also yes. Capote's character frequently berates him for not "saying his goddamn pronouns," which comes across to me as kinda skeevy. It feels less like a critique of racism than actual racism, but, again, I don't know the source material or what the critique of it might be, so I can't speak too much on that, nor can I knowledgably talk about the portrayal/representation of Asian people in film/media. So I'd definitely be open to hearing other people's thoughts on it.

Moving on! I'm gonna talk about Sam Diamond next, because he might be my favorite of the parodies. Diamond is a clear parody of famous hardboiled detective Sam Spade, a character created by Dashiell Hammett. I took a class on detective literature, and we basically ran through the history of the genre, which was my official introduction to Spade.

A quick bit of historical context here for those who don't know -- hardboiled detectives found their heyday in the 30s-40s, with most of its most popular works coming about in the 40s. Obviously, WWII was well underway, and its effects on the social ideologies of gender and power hierarchy raised tons of anxiety, especially in the minds of the men at the front. While they were off fighting, it was the women who were at home and filling their places in jobs, exploring the world beyond the domicile. When the men returned from fighting, they felt distinctly out of place -- at home, they were in the "woman's domain," but going back into the workforce meant also dealing with the women who found they quite enjoyed having jobs.

Essentially, they felt emasculated. This was also partly because the nature of jobs shifted from hard labor to office jobs, as industry and technology continued to progress. Men felt as though office and business jobs were "feminizing" men and "making them weak." Hardboiled detective literature, as well as the genre of film noir, sought out to demonize this feminization, with protagonists who were overly masculine and side characters like women or gay men (or implied gay men) who were either made out to be fools/weak or dangerous (hence the trope of the "femme fatale," who was a "bad woman" who seduced the male protagonist and sought to ruin his life -- whether or not she was successful in dragging him down with her, she was always brought to justice).

So onto Sam Diamond. My favorite part of his character is the way he speaks -- he follows very much the tone, cadence, and style of actual hardboiled detective prose. Hearing it spoken aloud feels very exaggerated, and it definitely does get absurd, but it follows the style so so well and it's so funny. He's rough and gruff and ready to tumble (and Peter Falk, Diamond's actor, had a history of playing gangsters and such in films, so he's well-suited for the role).

What I really adore about the role, though, is that it takes the homophobia and goes "what if we made him gay, though?" While it's not necessarily "confirmed," it's really heavily implied that Diamond is questioning his sexuality and is likely gay. To be quite honest, I loved the chemistry between him and Dick Charleston (who I'll get to next), but they didn't have too much solo screentime together. Very much an odd couple pairing XD but hey, maybe I'll toy around with it at some point.

The dismissiveness and denial that his sexuality is treated with might seem off-putting to some people, but knowing the source of the character parody makes it honestly really funny to me. I liked that they involved the history of the genre and the fears behind it rather than just arbitrarily making gay jokes.

Oh, and Eileen Brennan! She plays Tess Skeffington, which is the woman with Sam that he treats... horribly, honestly. I love her as a character, but she's constantly belittled by Sam, and I think it's really a reflection of the genre overall and its treatment of women. She kind of keeps Sam in line and apologizes for his crudeness and roughness, but she feels like an accessory overall. There are other female characters that I'll get into depth about after, but Skeffington really isn't... given enough credit. She's a lot smarter than Sam or anyone else gives her credit for.

Anyway. Wow, this is... long. I told you.

There's not much I can or want to say about Jessica Marbles (a parody of Miss Marple, a character by Agatha Christie). Love that we have a female detective here, but honestly, she's not super memorable (except for the fact that she's played by Elsa Lanchester, a huge huge name in acting). She does have an ancient nurse, and the tension between them is kind of funny, because the actresses couldn't stand each other. It is established that she knows Diamond somehow, which is also a pairing that never gets much screentime. I could blather on about potential connections with Jessica Fletcher, a character created later for the show Murder, She Wrote, but that would double the length of this post for sure.

A part of me wants to skate by Milo Perrier, a parody of Agatha Christie's Hercule Poirot, but I do have some thoughts. The more fun part of his character is the queer energy between him and Marcel, his driver and Hastings-esque right-hand man. I haven't read many of Christie's works, but I think Poirot and Hastings tend to have that energy in the source material and adaptations, and it's fun to see it here too. There's one part where Marcel compares the thickness of the fog to bouillabaisse and I always think of these idiots:

and the "fish stew" description of bouillabaisse when Crowley can't drunkenly pronounce the actual word.

The thing I like a little less about Perrier is the emphasis on his love of food and portly frame. Maybe I'm a little touchy because of my own weight, but it just feels... rude. It's meant to be funny, but it's really not. Yes, Poirot is often described as rotund. Using it as a point of humor is... a little tasteless. Yes, because the movie is from 1976, some of the humor is a little dated, and I get that. But it's a point I wanted to bring up. I do love that Perrier is an idiot. Like he really is. And I love him for it.

And now we get to probably the longest part of my rant, and the reason why I wanted to do this. Dick and Dora Charleston, a parody of Dashiell Hammett's Nick and Nora Charles.

I love The Thin Man. I discovered it because of this movie, and ahhhhhh I love Nick and Nora, their chemistry is fantastic. They already are more of a comedy detective duo, and they're very early established as an equal partnership. Nick is presented as the official detective, but Nora absolutely prompts him to do it and pokes her nose into it. They're one of my favorite straight couples in the entirety of the films I've seen. I adore them. They drink all the time, Nick is more familiar with the criminal types while Nora is high-society, and the blending of all of this is just perfection.

So onto their counterparts, Dick and Dora Charleston.

It took until my recent, tipsy viewing to realize that the first time viewers see Dick and Dora, Dick has a martini in his hand. While he's out at a payphone. In the middle of the woods. Hello, where did he get that martini?!?! I love to think he keeps them prepared in the car, ready to pour and drink. I also love the casting choice of Maggie Smith and David Niven -- they really play the part well. They have the same kind of banter present in the source material, which is incredibly fun and snappy. It's a really accurate portrayal of the couple.

What I do take issue with, however, is the portrayal of their relationship. Wang, at one point, comments on a blonde hair on Dick's jacket, noting that Dora has more reddish hair. He backtracks pretty quickly when he realizes his implication (cheating), and though the point is never brought up again, it really ground my gears after watching The Thin Man. Nick and Nora's relationship is so wholesome -- their jokes and banter at each other's expense are playful on both sides, and it's clear that they care about each other. Nora has ultimate trust in Nick, teasing him about his "type" but knowing that he would never be unfaithful. Dick and Dora don't seem to have that same trust, clearly, and honestly I don't think the implication is very funny. Cheating shouldn't be a joke? It feels a bit disrespectful to the source, a portrayal of a loving and equal couple in the context of the 1930s. Cheating is such a trope in hardboiled detective literature, and imposing it on a couple from a different subgenre of detective lit is really unfair.

I also think that Dora's innocence about certain things is... gross? It feels a bit infantilizing. The jokes she doesn't understand are crude, about things of a sexual or bowel-related nature. She also doesn't get the chance to explore or solve the case really at all, forced to stay behind with the rest of the ladies (except for Marbles, who is free to investigate as she pleases). Is there possibly a discussion of gender and femininity here where Marbles is more butch/masculine seeming, as well as being older and heavier set than the other women in the film? Yeah, maybe. Will I get to it here, in this analysis? No. I doubt it. But if you want to see me ruminate on it more, I will. Just hit me up in the notes or in my DMs or whatever, I'm always open to thoughts! Either way, I think it's unfair that she doesn't get to play with the boys and solve the mystery.

Okay. Now that the main cast is out of the way, we've got two other characters -- the blind butler, Bensonmum, and the deaf/mute maid Yetta. I can't speak to the representation of these disabilities -- again, I don't have enough knowledge or presence in the community to speak on its potential offensive nature (see my earlier rant on Charlie Chan as well) but as comedy, it's actually pretty funny, to me. The miscommunications (or honestly lack of communication) make for some pretty humorous scenarios. Might it be a bit insensitive? Yes, I admit that. But might there also be humor to be found? Also yes. Again, I'm open to more knowledgeable thoughts, I love hearing different perspectives!

Let's talk about Truman Capote. Just a little. For anyone who doesn't know, he was a famous author, mainly of short stories, and I think occasionally delving into mystery stories, but I can't be certain of that, I'm not entirely familiar with his work. It is true, and important, though, that he was famously and notably gay. The whole premise of the film (which I now realize I didn't explain) is that this author, Lionel Twain, invited all of these detectives to his manor for a sort of escape room/murder mystery setup. SPOILERS, the end of the movie is really just an explicit critique that he delivers practically to the viewers on the authors of the mysteries that these characters are a part of, lamenting twists that don't make sense, motivations that don't add up, and basically the idea that murder mystery writers are self-absorbed and write these stories to prove themselves smarter than their audience (even though they usually don't provide the readers all the information to correctly solve the crime in the first place). The fact that this rant comes from an author (and is presented in a somewhat serious tone) feels like a meta commentary out of left field (in and of itself a twist like the one he complains about???).

To be fair, though, the whole mystery is absurd and makes no sense, and yeah, he's basically pulling the same stunt, proving that he is smarter than all of these detectives that claim to be the smartest people ever. The comedy takes center stage, not the mystery, which means that a plot is existent... but barely. It's more fun not to pick apart the inconsistencies in the "mystery" and the process of "solving" it and instead focus on the critiques of the mystery genre.

Overall? The movie is fun! The music is great, the cast is made up of all-stars that were all pretty famous at that point, and it just... it's silly. It's goofy. I live for films that don't make sense and are absurd, especially when there is a layer of parody that I can pick apart.

So there it is. The rant that all two of you asked for. This took me legit like an hour and a half to type out, I'm exhausted and need to sleep now.

But if you want me to analyze more films (especially some of my favorite films) or just wanna hear me blather on about stupid nonsense, let me know! This was actually really fun, and I know this won't gain much traction, but it really made me happy. Film is my shit, and I love sharing it with y'all.

If you actually read all the way to this point, kudos to you, you're the real winners here (give me a detective emoji in the tags/comments/whatever if you did actually read all this way, cause you're a champion and also my new best friend).

Much love and peace, y'all. Take care of yourselves.

[fantasyrantsblog]

Yellowface is by far, my top read of 2024. I cannot believe it's taken me this long to pick it up. If you plan to read this, make sure you give yourself enough time to read it in one sitting. I genuinely could not put this down. It's gripping, enrapturing, and hungry.

It grips you immediately from the beginning with the unexpected narration and leads into a death to conclude the first chapter. That death haunts the rest of the book, figuratively and literally, to the point of insanity. I've seen significant discussion of R.F. Kuang writing for white women and seeing as I've now read all of her catalogue, I cannot disagree more. I think she writes TO white women. She writes to spite them, to create a mirror for them to look into and see the ugly reflections of their abuse of privilege. If you read Yellowface and truly believed she wrote this with the idea of appealing to white women in mind, you need to have a deeper discussion with the text.

There is a multilayered take on the inequalities withing the publishing industry. R.F. Kuang did not make June an underprivileged character with less success and strained relationships to appeal to that demographic of white women. She wrote June in that way because lack of privilege and underprivileged are not mutually exclusive.

One thing I genuinely love about this book is that it makes you feel SOMETHING. I can very objectively see how this may reign very negative reviews. It's a mouthpiece narrative. It has commentary far too on the nose. The prose is lacking in significance compared to her other works. She chose yet another unreliable narrator. She wrote an entire book with wholly unlikable characters. For me, this was an incredible take. Rather than being some trauma porn tribute story of injustice, Kuang looked into the mind of the "villain" who thought herself into circles. The performative relationships white women build with BIPOC communities, yet stay just central enough to not be seen as too radical but can't be critiqued on supporting the negation of rights.

The idea that Athena needs to be likable is laughable. R.F. Kuang was very much trying to make that point. Asian women and WOC often are demanded a level of perfection that is not asked or from WW just to maintain their success. How many controversies have you seen in the publishing industry alone where the memory dies after a short while and then everyone is flocking towards the author again? Now think about how many times people flock back when the author is part of a marginalized community. How many people are going to bat for Sarah J Maas but quick to throw an author of colors books off the shelf?

Anywho, I'll write a deeper analysis later but I hated this book in the best way. I hated all the characters and this book demands a critical thought rather than mindless enjoyment. I did not enjoy this book, I was enveloped in the story and then spit out.

[archivedblog16]

TW: Racism

Seeing other anons reimagining how Viv would write Greek and Mexican cultures, I wonder how she'd portray Asian characters (specifically Chinese). I am afraid she'd have either one of her characters mock someone for being Asian and ask if they eat dogs, know kung fu, loves anime and are good at Math.

Also, they'd be portrayed as jiangshi monsters (which are like the living dead in Chinese folklore) as bad drivers. I can imagine Blitz or anyone from Hazbin Hotel pulling a yellowface while making their eyes look Asian while saying "ching-chong-ding-dong."

A lot of her shows reminds me of every US-centric shows out there where they rely on stereotypes. Sometimes, there are almost little to no minorities and kept in the background. You also have those who just have them as the sidekick or butt of the joke. I don't wanna give her any ideas and hope she doesn't stumble upon this and then include the Asian stereotypes in her shows.

In Helluva Boss Vivziepop by extension Brandon has mocked the disabilities so anything is on the table at this point. When it comes to Tumblr, Vivziepop is basically inactive and has abandoned the account. The part about stereotypes is interesting because in 2016 she said this. I don’t know if she still agrees with this statement anymore though.

[readingwithmars]

yellowface — r.f. kuang review

rating : ★★★★★

started : apr 6th, 2025 / apr 7th, 2025

TW: vague spoilers

damn, r.f. kuang can write. i went into this book with high expectations and kuang exceeded all of them. as of now, i've read all of her books (the dragon republic & the burning god exempt) and i've loved every one of them. i've always loved kuang's way of telling stories. she is not afraid to criticize harshly and i admire that greatly. she has a fearlessly loud voice, a message that leaps off the pages of every one of her books. and although i am a sucker for her historical fantasies, i absolutely adored her take on literary fiction. i'd love to see more of it. i also think she did an outstanding job at writing an (extremely) unlikable protagonist. sometimes it's refreshing to have a main character who's insufferable — it's different! and kuang wrote out june's character so well (considering i was rolling my eyes at every page). i'm leaving this book chanting justice for athena liu, as she deserved to be the one to release her own book. "she didn't even speak chinese!" shut your ignorant mouth, juniper hayward. it was athena's heritage; athena's story to tell.

[livingfictionsystem]

So, first of all, I already knew that R.F. Kuang was a more than capable writer; I absolutely adored 'Yellowface' and I recommend it whenever I get the chance. And a great writer, they still are. Their prowess with describing battle is unmatched and their societal takes are sharp and poignant.

That being said, this book seems like two in one. The first part is the orphan girl from a small town ends up in an elite military school and Ends Up Being Special.

[SPOILERS AHEAD]

Rin is actually probably descended from a massacred and nearly wiped out race of people who can summon the Phoenix God and wield its power, so that's pretty nifty. And also, the rich kids are out to get her. Tell me if you've heard this one before.

I had been looking forward to meeting the eccentric teacher, but the character archetype was really more like purposefully nebulous and frustrating more than fun. It was like if Aang from Avatar: the Last Airbender was much more irritating. The same conversation happens over and over again. "I want to learn how to use my powers." "No, they're dangerous. I'm saving you from yourself." "So, you'll teach me how to control it and then I'll be of some use to my country?" "No. It's dangerous. Meditate." He offers no sustainable solution, just flails around if Rin is in grave danger of Doing an Action.

Then the latter half of the book turns into military fiction as a sudden invasion grips the country. A lot of the characters, particularly Nezha, are well-imagined and it was actually good to eventually see Rin's old classmates. Their presence was hardly more than a cameo and, well, Nezha just up and dies right as you start to like him, so that seemed like wasted potential.

Then came the slaughter. The gratuitous, graphic, gore-pornesque depictions of war. There's probably a good 30 pages solely dedicated to what the enemy did to the fallen city. If it's sadistic and can happen to a human, it happened to these innocent civilians in this novel. Rin is walking through mountains of corpses and hearing witness accounts from the few survivors. The more innocent and sympathetic the victim, the worse was done to them.

I'm rarely the type to clutch my pearls, mind you. I understand that the protagonist may need an extra push to master her ability and work against the enemy. But Kuang could have succeeded with that in like… three pages? The amount of attention given to the wanton massacre, SA, and infanticide just felt nauseating. Yes, war is bad. I did not need a remix of Unit 731 to understand that.

Then there was the ending. Rin, after losing most of her friends, decided to say, 'Screw it', summoned the Phoenix, and allowed it to absolutely decimate the enemy with a volcano eruption. The narrative frames this as a bad decision.

The military had no chance of stopping this awful invasion on their own, there was no other recourse, but it was somehow morally bad. There's everything from her mentor and an undead spirit begged her not to as if the nation wouldn't be brutally decimated otherwise? There's legitimately no alternative. I wonder if they're just using this as a springboard for Rin's villain era.

TW: It'd be easier to list the triggers that aren't in this one.

So, yes, I do have quite a few gripes. However, the lore was rich, the narration was superb, and the descriptions were uncanny. I just think I may stick with Kuang's more contemporary works from now on.

-Xanthe 🪶

[capitainerowen]

LECTURES DE 2024 : Babel ou la nécessité de la violence, Histoire secrète de la révolution des traducteurs d'Oxford - R.F. Kuang

Lecture terminée le 18 novembre 2024 (106/110)

768 pages lues

Genre: fantastique, dark academia

-M. Baylis." Robin sentait ses doigts vibrer d'une énergie étrange, brûlant d'être libérée, mais ne savait pas s'il avait envie de s'enfuir ou de frapper cet homme. "Je suis chinois, M. Baylis." Baylis, pour une fois, resta muet. Ses yeux scrutèrent le visage du jeune homme, comme s'il cherchait à détecter dans ses traits la véracité de cette assertion. Puis, à la grande surprise de Robin, il éclata de rire. "Non, pas du tout." Il se pencha en arrière et posa les deux mains sur sa poitrine, toujours scoué d'hilarité. "Doux Jésus. C'est désopilant. Non, vous n'êtes pas chinois."

Ma 106ème lecture de l'année a été l'excellent Babel écrit par R.F. Kuang, largement au niveau de Yellowface (par la même autrice) dont je vous avais parlé cet été!

Résumé: En 1828, une maladie mortelle ravage la ville de Canton. Un garçon en est alors arraché de justesse et se voit alors transporté jusqu'en Angleterre où il sera rebaptisé Robin Swift et éduqué sur l'apprentissage des langues jusqu'à son admission à l'institut royal de traduction des langues: Babel. Là-bas, Robin se rend compte qu'il n'est qu'un outil pour l'université, dont la seule utilité est de renforcer la puissance de l'Empire colonialiste britannique.

CW/TW: agression physique, alcool, deuil, esclavagisme, exploitation de mineurs, maltraitance, manipulation mentale, meurtre, misogynie, mort d'un proche, parricide, racisme, sang, sexisme, suicide, torture, violence, xénophobie

Les TW sont tirés du livre lui-même

L'an dernier, je me suis acheté Babel, de R.F. Kuang. J'ai longuement hésité à me le prendre en anglais plutôt qu'en français parce que le travail de traduction de la maison d'édition De Saxus est célèbre pour être pourri (ce qui est d'autant plus ironique dans un roman dont le thème principal est la traduction et son importance), mais je craignais ne pas pouvoir le trouver dans sa langue originale et il m'intéressait sérieusement alors, comme le livre n'était plus édité fin 2023 (si peu de temps après sa sortie!?), j'ai craqué pour le tome en français. Ironie du sort, après que je l'ai commandé en librairie, je l'ai vu dans sa langue originale en magasin, mais vu qu'il était déjà commandé, je ne l'ai pas pris. J'aurais dû! Parce que, je confirme, De Saxus est vraiment POURRIE pour la traduction, c'est épuisant.

M'enfin, là n'est pas le sujet. Ai-je aimé Babel, de R.F. Kuang? C'est son cinquième livre publié, son second One-Shot à ce jour, et j'ai adoré l'écriture tordue et cynique (/pos) de Yellowface que j'ai reçu pour mon anniversaire il y a 5 mois... et oui, je l'ai adoré. En fait, il m'est même très difficile de déterminer lequel des deux tomes de l'autrice j'ai préféré. Les deux sont diamétralement opposés mais aussi tous les deux excellement bien écrits, alors difficile de les départager.

Déjà, il faut savoir quelque chose sur moi. Je suis FAIBLE pour le trope "found family", au point où ça me rend naïf, presque idiot, et l'utilisation de ce trope dans le roman est superbement bien faite. C'est parfait, ça fait mal exactement là où il faut! Robin, Ramy, Victoire, Letty... J'y ai cru à leur histoire, à leurs émotions, à leurs sentiments! Et en fait, c'est très difficile pour moi de parler de ce livre sans le spoiler. Y'a des choses que je veux dire et que je ne peux pas vous dire, et donc je joue volontairement sur mes formulations et sur les informations que je vous donne pour ne pas vous spoiler.

Je dois bien le dire, Babel est violent. Les termes abordés sont violents, les actions qu'on y trouve aussi, les morales, etc... Tout y est. Et l'utilisation même des mots est violente, mais c'est nécessaire. Babel va vous faire mal, vous rendre triste, vous mettre dans une colère terrible et c'est ce qu'il faut! On ne peut pas toujours lire des livres pour aller mieux, pour être heureux, parfois on lit des livres parce qu'il faut reprendre pied avec la réalité, et là c'est un sacré coup de poing au visage, mais je conseille ce roman à tout le monde. Si vous êtes à l'aise avec la lecture, lisez-le, si vous ne l'êtes pas, essayez les audio-livres, mais sincèrement, donnez sa chance à Babel.

Aussi! Le livre est bourré de notes de bas de page. Loin de gêner l'avancée de la lecture, vous pourrez vite vous rendre compte qu'elles sont là pour aider à la compréhension de l'histoire, en nous renseignant sur des choses que Robin, notre narrateur, ne peut pas savoir, car elles sont, elles, omniscientes.

Je vous conseille en tout cas très fort Babel. Je ne peux pas vous le conseiller de la même manière que Yellowface, ni pour les mêmes raisons, mais je vous le recommande avec le même enthousiasme. Babel est d'une violence nécessaire, comme son titre complet l'annonce. Ce n'est pas l'histoire d'étudiants qui vivent leur petite existence tranquille dans une grande université, c'est une histoire de révolte, de guerre, de racisme et de haine... Le roman entier est une merveille boulversante et brutale qui se doit d'être lue.

Vraiment, si vous devez demander un livre à Noël à votre famille, choisissez Babel, de R.F. Kuang, n'hésitez surtout pas.

[the-blue-fairie]

Tom Thumb (1958) - Fairy Tale Movie Challenge

(TW: discussions of racism/yellowface ahead.)

Since thealmightyemprex is doing a Fairy Tale Month, I'm at last doing my writeups for the Fairy Tale Movie Challenge. I shall start with Tom Thumb, which thealmightyemprex suggested, directed by George Pal.

Now, I associate George Pal with special effects extravaganzas of fantasy and sci-fi from the 50s and 60s, sometimes with a kitschy charm to them. He made Destination Moon, he made When Worlds Collide, he made the 50s War of the Worlds, he made the 60s Time Machine, he made the 7 Faces of Dr. Lao! This film fits right in among these (sometimes not for the best of reasons, but we'll get there.) They're all a similar kind of "wonder movie." They remind me of Harryhausen films, but sometimes with a more American Christian preachy vibe. But I consider his Time Machine and War of the Worlds classics and excellent films in themselves, not just as 50s special effects time capsules.

Tom Thumb (1958) tells the story of a woodcutter and his wife who are blessed by a wood spirit with three wishes. After squandering them in a comedic sequence, she takes pity on them and grants them their wish for a child, the diminutive Tom Thumb, played by Russ Tamblyn of Twin Peaks and The Haunting. It's based on the Grimms' "Thumbling" tale (and there ARE elements of it) but you get the sense it's... essentially Disney's Pinocchio, for better or worse, George Pal style. Tom is duped by a pair of shady schemers a la Honest John and Gideon, has to save his parents to make amends, etc.

Ironically, the opening of the film before the introduction of Tom is one of the strongest things about it. Bernard Miles (oh MY GOSH he was in 1956 Moby Dick! I know the Manxman in a small role in the film, but he gets that monologue about Moby Dick so it's cool! AND he was Joe Gargery for David Lean!) and Jessie Matthews have such a great comedic chemistry and they make roles that, in other hands, could be overly treacly, work and work well. The sausage-nose routine is classic "squandering three wishes" material and it's really fun.

After Tom is introduced, things get a little shakier. It's not that Russ Tamblyn is bad. He's extraordinarily acrobatic and that makes the long dance among the toys a great watch, even if the pacing drags. But since it feels like the film is going for a Disney Pinocchio innocent child vibe to his characterization, he feels too old for the part. I still like him, though! It's just that line delivery can feel clunky in a way that reflects the worst of George Pal-isms.

AND ON THE SUBJECT OF THE WORST OF GEORGE PAL-ISMS, I made a gloomy quip about the use of yellowface in Dr. Lao just seconds before THIS GUY shows up.

Now, 7 Faces of Dr. Lao was interesting because, although Lao was played by Tony Randall in yellowface and that's awful, at least the character of Dr. Lao wasn't written to be the standard 60s-70s Chinese caricature. Lao was actually able to push back/shoot barbs back at racist white folks in the film. That makes him interesting. Yes, he's still one of those "mystical Chinese characters," but as Arthur Dong pointed out on the Criterion Channel, Lao has more depth and sympathy than most portrayals of the period.

Also, each townsperson's encounter with a different "face" of Dr. Lao is gorgeously written and endlessly interesting.

BUT THIS GUY? He's a toy that serves a bit as Tom's "super-dooper-magical-Chinese-man" to paraphrase Spike Lee. He doesn't have the depth of a character like Lao because he's either Tom's imagination or, if not that, doesn't have a character outside of entertaining/supporting our white lead. Also, his name is the worst thing I've seen since I saw the way that a certain character was credited in the 1925 Larry Semon Wizard of Oz.

Also, they never show the toy in the foreground here up close while looking at it head-on (the one who in this shot has its back facing the camera) but...

...is that a g*lliwog toy? Because if so, yikes.

The romance between Alan Young's mortal character, Woody, and The Forest Queen is a mixed bag. I found Woody initially bland and irritating, but he grew on me. Whereas I found Queenie so interesting, and possessed of such radiant charisma thanks to June Thorburn's performance, that I felt she could do much better than him. I warmed up to their relationship as the film went on, though. They're sweet.

The show-stealers, however, are Terry-Thomas and Peter Sellers as the villains (also, if we wanted to talk about Hollywood yellowface and stereotyping, we could teach a whole class on certain Sellers roles and... whatever Blake Edwards' whole deal was, ooof), especially Terry-Thomas. That man is hilarious. They're doing what they do best, stealing gold and stealing the movie!

Also, the coin-counting routine gave me big "Gandalf tricks the trolls in The Hobbit" vibes and I love that.

Overall, Tom Thumb (1958) gave me what I expected, good and bad - a very late-50s, very George Pal diversion that is not among Pal's best, but which has some fun moments and a lot of charm... as well as some Yikes moments that I was at least bracing myself for, knowing the period and other Pal projects.

@thealmightyemprex @ariel-seagull-wings @princesssarisa @themousefromfantasyland @theancientvaleofsoulmaking

[littlefriendlibrary]

Yellowface by Rebecca F. Kuang

TW: Rape (mentioned, no graphic depiction)

[storytellersumayyah]

The Happy Moments (01/06/23)

tw: food mention

I got a 78 in my essay, and whilst this is still pending the approval of the board of examiners, I am going to take it

Me and my friend had a catch-up and debrief about the feedback which was nice

I brought Yellowface

My dad got us pizza

[princesssarisa]

Snow White Winter: "Cannon Movie Tales: Snow White" (1987 film)

Any child of the '80s or '90s probably has at least vague memories of the Cannon Movie Tales. This series of star-studded direct-to-video musicals was produced (of course) by the Cannon Group and filmed in Israel, allegedly conceived both as an answer to Disney's animated fairy tales and as a tribute to the German fairy tale films of the '50s and '60s (e.g. the films of Fritz Genschow or Erich Kobler) that were once a staple of "kiddie matinees." While only nine films were made, the series still stands out in the memories of countless fairy tale lovers. It most definitely stands out in mine!

1987's Snow White was the fifth entry in the series. It opens with the Prince (James Ian Wright) riding home from long travels through the snow (massive quantities of paper and salt used to transform the Israeli landscape into a European winter wonderland), and yearning, as princes do, to find a princess. Straight away he finds one, but unfortunately, she's lying lifeless in a glass coffin. Beside it, he meets the seven dwarfs, Iddy, Biddy, Diddy, Fiddy, Kiddy, Giddy and Liddy, and the story leading up to this point is told as a flashback, narrated to the Prince by the eldest dwarf Iddy (Billy Barty).

Compared to most other non-German Snow Whites, this version is remarkably faithful to the Grimms' tale. It features the Grimms' opening with Snow White's mother wishing for a child with snow white skin, followed by her death in childbirth. This is also the only screen adaptation of the tale to portray Snow White as just a small child (Nicola Stapleton) when the wicked Queen (Dame Diana Rigg) resolves to be rid of her. The Queen isn't yet told by her magic mirror that Snow White is the fairest in the land, though. Her initial motive is jealousy of her husband the King's loving bond with his little daughter – hearing him playfully call her "the most beautiful lady in the kingdom" is the last straw. It's only some seven to ten years later, when Snow White (now played by 17-year-old Sarah Patterson) has grown into a lovely maiden in the dwarfs' cottage, that the mirror proclaims her to be the fairest. Meanwhile, the poor King dies during the time skip, thinking his daughter was killed by wild animals.

All three of the Queen's attempts to kill Snow White are included: the suffocating bodice, the poisoned comb and the poisoned apple. Each attempt sees her adopt a distinctly different disguise and accent, and unfortunately, the first two are embarrassing by today's standards, as she delivers the bodice in brownface as a Romani woman and the comb in yellowface as a Japanese geisha. Only for the apple does she dress as the conventional old peddler woman.

After hearing the story, the lovesick Prince begs to take Snow White's coffin to his castle to keep her safe from harm. But as his entourage rides home, a blizzard blows up, a falling tree startles the horses, and the coffin is thrown from its wagon, jolting the piece of apple from Snow White's throat. As for the Queen, this version revives the old tradition of "she breaks the magic mirror in her rage over Snow White's survival and its magic backfires on her." As the cracks gradually spread across the glass, she slowly transforms into an ugly old hag, and when the mirror finally shatters altogether, her body shatters too and crumbles to dust.

This is no perfect Snow White, but without question it has charm. Its settings and costumes strike an excellent balance between fairy tale whimsy and folksy realism. The Queen's often outlandish gowns and headdresses perfectly suit her larger-than-life personality, while the blue and white royal castle surrounds her with coldly beautiful elegance. Particularly in the eerie room containing the magic mirror, which speaks from a sinister man's face (Julian Chagrin) carved into its ornate white frame while other carved faces on the sides of the frame underscore his speech with high-pitched chatter and laughing. In contrast to this world is the rustic warmth of the dwarfs' cottage, with the endearingly eccentric dwarfs (all played by actors with dwarfism) portrayed as raggedy nature-gnomes with leaves and twigs in their scruffy hair. The songs – "Where Is The One I Long For?" "Let It Snow," "Hopping On My Daddy's Knee," "More Beautiful Than Me," "The Bed Song," "Iddy, Biddy" and "Every Day" – are tuneful and appealing too, if not Disney quality.

The film's main weakness (besides the Queen's racially stereotyped disguises) is a slight lack of heart. The scenes with the most feeling come at the beginning, where Snow White's parents are shown as a truly loving couple, her mother is given is given a brief yet touching deathbed scene, and young Snow White's sweet bond with her father is highlighted. But the second half of the script seems more concerned with moving through each plot point than with emotions. The King is perfunctorily killed off (I would have preferred to see him live to reunite with Snow White in the end), and Snow White's "death" is less poignant than usual, because the dwarfs barely mourn before comforting themselves with the hope that she's only under a spell.

But regardless of any flaws in the writing, the cast is excellent. The real star is Diana Rigg as the Queen, whose deliciously campy comic villainy is unforgettable. But both of the two Snow Whites, child and adolescent, are perfectly cast too, and the dwarfs, the Prince and the rest of the supporting actors all fill their roles very well.

For anyone who might like to see a charming musical Snow White that's more faithful to the Grimms' tale than the Disney version, and who doesn't mind a little camp, I recommend this version highly.

@ariel-seagull-wings, @superkingofpriderock

[susielesbianism]

In hindsight I don’t know how we ever feared something terrible would happen after Kris ripped the SOUL out

[ID: A cropped screenshot of Deltarune. Kris stands on the carpet of their room, their back toward the camera. They have a knife in their outstretched left arm and are looking back with red glowing eyes and a violent, bare-toothed grin. End ID]

This is EXACTLY the face of a kid who’s about to eat all the fucking pie

[livingfictionsystem]

BOOK REVIEW: 3/5

The story pivots between the three main characters--- Jin, who tries to rescue her sister who was sold off to the Walled City. Mei Yee, who is the sister who dreams of escaping the brothel. And Dai, who has his own agenda, playing with fire on a deadline.

I see a lot of people in the reviews call this 'adrenaline-packed', but I found nothing that happened really all that shocking. Granted, I do read a lot of, 'Homeless kids have to turn to a life of crime to survive and protect each other' fiction, so that may be on me. The Walled City was actually a real place in Hong Kong (Kowloon City), something I found out in the Acknowledgements in the back of the book. This lawless and densely populated area was torn down in 1987, which, given the book's chronological ambiguity, helped me gain context that the narration didn't. The inspiration had a lot of promise that the author fell short of. The characters were fine, but forgettable. Their POV and struggle for survival was interesting, but none of them really stood out as far as personality went. They seemed to simply Be their circumstances, a vessel for the story to continue. We have Good At Running, Has a Secret, and Traumatised. If you can't tell by the names, the book has a vaguely Chinese feel. And I do mean vaguely. It's primarily the names and the fact that pork buns and noodles are referenced so often. (One character even describes emotions as overcooked noodles?) It doesn't really have a lot of specific culture that I could catch. It could easily take place in just about any other country that also has drug problems, human trafficking, crime lords, homeless children, etc. It's also confusing because the characters were not speaking English, the dialogue is just translated for the reader's benefit. But they even had one character with an accent, saying, 'Let's get 'im!' Are we translating a version of English dialect to Cantonese? Is this a cockney version? Is he really skipping over the H's or is this an equivalent? This happens again when it's mentioned that 'Dai' rhymes with 'death', something one of the characters notes from their POV. How do you know that??? These characters do not understand English; there's even a scene where foreigners are in the same room and the character notes that she cannot understand it. So, it definitely has some identity issues. (The hilarious irony is that I, through hilarious coincidence, started reading this about the same time I read Kuang's 'Yellowface', about a white woman writing about Chinese culture so I tried not to linger too much on this. The author did actually live near the inspiration of this for at least a few months, so fair enough.) It's definitely gritty, and I do like that the author took it upon herself to tackle an issue like human trafficking, with even some nuanced nods towards PTSD. But in my opinion, there's more intensity in the setting than in the plot, and especially in the characters, but it wasn't a bad read. The prose and atmosphere make for good reading and the bond between the three does end up wholesome and rather sweet, but that also made for some odd tonal switches. So, yeah, it was a fine book. Not a good one, not a bad one, just fine.

TW for: Intense animal abuse, human trafficking, drug addiction, homelessness.

SPOILERS BEYOND THIS POINT:

. . . . . . . . .

Okay, so at the end, when everyone's scrambling for the ledger, it felt like a damn cartoon. You know how in Scooby Doo, you see the endless opening and closing of doors where the characters are both chasing and being chased by something? And the combination is changed up every time? That was this ending. I thought the Benny Hill theme was about to start playing. It also bothered me that apparently Dai and Jin both waited about two years to really put their plans to fruition. The book tried to draw out the suspense for making everything down to the wire, but it almost makes it funny when you sit there and think of Dai twiddling his thumbs or Jin being on the streets and having nothing to show for it. 

-Xanthe

[capitainerowen]

LECTURES DE 2024 : Yellowface de Rebecca F. Kuang

Lecture terminée le 10 juin 2024 (61/70) je passe à un objectif de 70 livres en tous genres pour cette année !

Nombre de pages : 352 pages

Ma 61ème lecture a até un autre livre reçu pour mon anniversaire, Yellowface de Rebecca F. Kuang ! Il m'intriguait pas mal, j'ai été surpris d'apprendre qu'il n'est pas aussi vieux que je le croyais. Je pensais qu'il avait au moins 5 ans, mais il a été publié l'an dernier, c'est marrant.

Résumé : June est une bonne personne, promis ! Elle ne pensait pas à mal quand, alors qu'Athena est morte sous ses yeux, elle a pris son manuscrit fraîchement terminé. Après tout, si elle ne s'en occupe pas, personne ne saura comment rendre justice à cette œuvre finale ! Et puis, si elle l'a fait publié à son nom plutôt que celui de son amie, c'est bien sûr parce que son travail de correction a été tout aussi important que celui d'écriture d'Athena, aucune autre raison mal intentionnée...

CW/TW : mort accidentelle, nourriture, étouffement, menaces de mort, agressions psychologiques et physiques, racisme et xénophobie, sexisme, mépris de classe, dénigrement, chantages, etc...

C'était tellement bien ?? Si bien que quand je l'ai fini, j'étais sur le cul. Par moments, j'ai eu du mal à savoir comment me placer, j'avais l'impression d'être manipulé tout le temps (faut dire que je suis franchement crédule parfois), et j'ai été dégoûté, mal-à-l'aise, choqué... ce qui était génial !

Si je devais être honnête, Yellowface est bien un thriller psychologique, oui, mais c'est clairement un roman d'horreur surtout. Les personnages sont horribles, l'histoire est crade et choquante, tout est incroyablement bien fait.

Franchement, je vous conseille Yellowface, c'est génial dans son écriture, n'hésitez surtout pas !

[letterboxd-but-make-it-a-meme]