#a perfect capture of a relationship where one person is idolised but from that person's perspective

[finallysignedupforthis]

Mitski's song I'm your man is peak Bi-han and Tomas. Ship or not this song is perfect for them.

[whitewolfofwinterfell]

An exploration of Willow’s magic addiction and Dark!Willow

On my recent BtVS re-watch I found a new found appreciation for Willow’s character and her magic/dark arc, in particular. I’ve seen a lot of fans comment on this over the years and there’s a lot of criticism of the arc, so I wanted to give my own opinion on it. 

So this post will provide an exploration of Willow’s character, her addiction to magic and Dark!Willow. It’s divided into two parts. Part 1 will explore the reasons why Willow’s magic addiction is valid as an addiction and Part 2 will look at why this dark arc makes perfect sense for Willow’s character. 

This meta was inspired by an ask I saw a few months back that discussed Willow’s magic addiction and the person essentially said that they don’t understand how Willow could have been addicted to magic and they felt the concept didn’t really fit. Annoyingly, I can’t seem to find this post anywhere, so if you’re the person who wrote this or you know who did, please let me know so I can share a link to it here for those that are interested in reading it. 

Part 1: Willow’s addiction to magic 

I understand the validity of questioning whether the word “addiction” fits with Willow’s struggles with magic, since magic isn’t something that exits in reality so we can’t fully grasp how this works. However, within the BtVS universe where magic does exist, I feel that Willow’s addiction to magic is completely valid. 

The NHS (UK) website describes addiction as: “not having control over doing, taking or using something to the point where it could be harmful to you” (x) It also lists examples of addictions such as are work, the internet, solvents and shopping. 

Generally, when we hear the word “addiction” our mind immediately goes to drugs or alcohol, but there are two primary aspects of addiction. One is substance abuse which is obviously drugs and alcohol, but the other is behavioural addiction which can be any kind of repeated behaviour such as gambling, shopping or eating. 

The main argument I see against Willow’s addiction arc is that it doesn’t make sense as a drug addiction.I agree that at times the lines become blurred and her addiction is framed as a substance addiction, but it’s not that kind of addiction. Willow’s addiction is a behavioural addiction rather than a substance addiction (although there is a substance element involved).

Addiction is rooted in a “high”, and that can be of the physical, mental or emotional kind. It becomes an addiction when the person develops a cycle of repetitive behaviours in chasing that “high.” Over time, as the addiction grows it can have negative consequences aspects the person’s life and their relationships with others, because the addiction consumes them and they prioritise it above everything else. 

Willow’s descent into magic addiction was completely in-line with what addiction generally consists of and was built up gradually over time. Initially, it was subtle with her enjoying being able to contribute to the Scoobies through her magic because it made her feel more important and valuable. Eventually that started to progress and she began to actively enjoy the power and high that magic provided her with. This led her to practice it more and more until she was using it to do menial everyday tasks and everybody around her was noticing that she was starting to become dependent upon it. It also became a coping mechanism for her, a way to resolve problems in her life. We saw this when Willow used magic to erase Tara’s memories of their argument in ‘All the Way’. This was one of the first clear signs that Willow’s magic had gotten out of control, because instead of resolving her argument with Tara respectfully and maturely, she turned to magic as an easier and quicker solution to her problems. 

Throughout season 6, Willow’s addiction to magic was organically developed (even if it may have been fast paced at certain points) and was also very believable within the context of her character. On the surface it can seem surprising that sweet, meek, nerdy Willow would turn into such an intensely morally grey character who becomes consumed by addiction and power. But actually, the signs that she could potentially go down this path were there very early on in the series and were solidified when she met Tara in season 4.

Part 2: Willow’s characterisation 

From very early on in the series, there were aspects of Willow’s personality that suggested she had the capacity to become addicted to magic and that explain how and why that happened. 

In season 1, we saw that Willow wasn’t afraid to push boundaries and break rules. She used her knowledge of computers to hack into highly confidential records that she could be prosecuted for breaking into if she was caught. However, there are two core aspects to Willow’s characterisation that I perceive to be consistent with her addiction to magic and descent into Dark!Willow. The first is the way she feels about and perceives herself and the second is her unhealthy love for Tara. 

Regarding the first, Willow at the start of the series generally lacked a lot of confidence and felt undervalued. She had no friends (except Xander) and the way Cordelia treated her suggested that she was considered one of the school nerds and therefore a bit of an outcast. When she met Buffy, it was fantastic for her to find a new friend, but it also resulted in her feeling supplanted and inferior. Buffy was naturally the opposite to Willow - extroverted, charismatic, charming, outgoing, conventionally beautiful - and got a lot of admiration and attention from others. All of this capitalised on Willow’s insecurities and emphasised what she perceived to be her weaknesses. What was even more upsetting for Willow is that Buffy managed to capture Xander’s heart. That was such a huge deal for Willow, because Xander was her only friend and the only person that knew her and valued her as a person. She placed all of her confidence in Xander’s validation and perception of her, so the fact that Xander was unable to view her in a romantic light but was immediately smitten with Buffy really affected Willow. 

The importance Willow placed on Xander was the start of a pattern for her whereby she invested her sense of self into others perceptions of her. First it was Xander, then Oz (though to a lesser extent) and finally Tara. The reason she did this is because she had low self-esteem, meaning that she didn’t believe in herself or value her own opinion of herself, so she turned to others that she did value to confirm her worth and validate her. This desire for external validation from those around her also explains why Willow cheated on Oz with Xander. She spent years of her life invested in Xander, he was her best friend, she had romantic feelings for him and she desperately craved his validation above anybody else’s. So when his head was finally turned by her and he was attracted to her, she couldn’t do anything else but give into that. That was all she had wanted from Xander for years and particularly at the time of their first kiss, Willow needed to feel that admiration from him to reassure her that she was more than just nerd girl Willow and that she was also a beautiful, attractive young woman. 

Although Willow loved Oz, she never actively sought validation from him to the same extent that she did with Xander and Tara. I can only assume this is because her relationship with Oz was healthier and less co-dependent than her relationships with Xander and Tara. Willow valued Oz’s opinion but the fact that he wanted her from the second he saw her and genuinely liked, respected and admired her meant she never had to actively seek it, because it was given willingly. I would actually argue that the period when Willow was with Oz is when she seemed most content and comfortable in her own skin and I largely attribute that to the fact that her relationship with Oz was balanced and equal and she didn’t have to beg or pine for validation. However, unfortunately, whatever validation or self-esteem Willow did get from Oz was destroyed when he cheated on her. Being cheated on is a huge dent in their self-esteem and pride regardless of who they are, but for someone like Willow who was already suffering from low self-esteem it was particularly devastating for her. Now in Willow’s mind she has to face up to the fact that the only person that’s ever loved her and wanted her didn’t love or want her enough to stay with her, betrayed her and chose another over her. That’s a hard pill to swallow. 

When Tara entered Willow’s life it was a game changer. Willow liked and idolised Tara from the moment she met her. From the beginning, Willow placed Tara on a pedastal which is dangerous because Willow had a tendency to inflate the importance of others’ validation of her. What adds to this is the fact that Tara fed Willow’s need for validation by telling her that she was worthy, special, powerful and capable. It’s everything Willow wanted and needed to hear (particuarly after being cheated on by Oz) and it’s the start of a relationship that was incredibly co-dependent and which correlated directly to her struggles with addiction. 

Meeting Tara enabled Willow to practice magic openly and to learn more about the craft. Not only that, it showed Willow the magical side of magic which came from practicing it with Tara. Immediately, Willow became exposed to the seductive side of magic and the way in which it brought her closer to Tara created a positive perception of magic which became entertwined with her feelings for Tara. The praise Willow recieved from others (but Tara in particular) about her magical abilities fed her ego more and more. We know that Tara liked and loved Willow for who she was as a person, but from Willow’s perception it was always about her magic. Magic is what brought them together and it was always a core facet of their relationship and something they shared. Willow’s love for Tara was undoubtedly a huge aspect of why her addiction spiraled. She didn’t just want or crave Tara’s validation, she needed it. In fact, when Tara said she didn’t think their relationship was working Willow actually said, “I need you”. Likewise, after Tara’s death dark!Willow said: “The only thing Willow was ever good for, the only thing I had going for me were the moments, just moments where she would look at me and I was wonderful. And that will never happen again.” This quote, perfecly encapsualtes everything I’ve spoken about regarding the importance Willow placed on Tara and the validation she provided her with, to the point that Willow felt she was nothing without it. She also idolised Tara to an unhealthy extent which made her feel like she needed Tara in her life to keep her in check and bring out the goodness in her. Although Willow was using magic too much and showing signs of being unable to control her addiction the first time she really crossed a line was in ‘All the Way’ when she erased Tara’s memories; something she only did because she couldn’t stand Tara being angry at her and their relationship being in jeopardy. 

Whilst Willow’s relationship with Tara was significant in her addiction, the most significant person was of course Willow herself. Her relationship with Tara, just like her addiction to magic, was all an extension of her characterisation. Willow was always capable of developing this kind of issue because of the very nature of who she was. She constantly felt inferior, overlooked, unimportant, undervalued and undesirable. When someone feels like that it can cause a lot of resentment and pent-up anger to build, along with a desire to be able to control those aspects of themselves and their lives they don’t like. That’s exactly what magic did for Willow; it enabled her to take control of every aspect of her life and influence the opinions and actions of those around her. Why have to deal with the disapproval and anger from the person you love most when you can say a little incantantion and fix everything? It’s not difficult to see how and why the addiction would develop and particularly for someone with Willow’s personality. The conversation she had with Buffy at the end of ‘Wrecked’ really sums this all up perfectly: 

WILLOW: But I mean if you could be, you know, plain old Willow or super Willow, who would you be? I guess you don't actually have an option on the whole super thing. BUFFY: Will, there's nothing wrong with you. You don't need magic to be special. WILLOW: Don't I? I mean, Buffy, who was I? Just some girl. Tara didn't even know that girl. BUFFY: You are more than some girl. And Tara wants you to stop. She loves you. WILLOW: We don't know that. BUFFY: I know that. I promise you. WILLOW: I just...it took me away from myself. I was free.

This encompasses everything I’ve discussed in this post. Magic made Willow feel safe, without it she felt unimportant and useless, just “some girl”; she likes that Tara didn’t know her before magic because Tara has only seen her as someone special; she fears that Tara doesn’t love her which explains why she tampered with her memories to keep her close and she had a desire to get away from herself which comes from her low self-esteem which is engrained in her and had been from season 1. 

Hints and whispers of Willow’s descent into magic addiction could be seen long before season 6. The seeds were planted from the beginning since dark!Willow and magic addiction speak to the fundamental way Willow felt and how she viewed herself. At high school she was branded a nerd and had to suffer the negative connotations, sterotypes, inferiority and insecurity that comes with such a label. Although she had friends in Xander and Buffy, and her relationship with Oz, her self-esteem was still low which we saw through the way in which she sought validation from others (particularly from Xander and Tara). Even after she left high school and grew and changed, she never stopped seeing herself as that invisible nerd that had no value. However, her relationship with Tara validated her in a way none of her previous relationships had, and magic gave her power, value, purpose and made her special. Willow is unlike any of the other Scoobies in that she was inherently insecure and had a complete lack of confidence and self-esteem. The addiction arc wouldn’t have worked with any of the other characters because they didn’t have that gaping hole at their center where their sense of self and self-worth was. Willow, no matter what point of the series she was in, always had that hole. It’s sad that we never got to see Willow build herself up and find the self-love, acceptance and esteem that she needed and deserved. But the way Willow felt and the struggles she faced as a result of those feelings are something that I’m sure many of us can relate to. 

Thanks for reading. 

[uncheckedtomfoolery]

Any thoughts on Shou? (Please no lost Pagoda jokes)

I would like to begin this post with an apology to @rabbiteclair, who has probably been waiting for a prompt like this for several years. Anything about Shou necessarily has some overlap with Nazrin and Bishamonten. This post about Nazrin here touches on their relationship a fair amount, and also on Bishamonten, so it may be useful (having said that, I might repeat myself a bit).

Rest is below the cut, per usual.

There are a lot of stories about how an ordinary tiger became a guardian youkai, and avatar of Bishamonten. No wonder, really; it’s not the sort of thing that happens every day. Most of them conflict, so it’s really best to go to the source, right?

Except that Shou would probably just shrug, look a bit sheepish and/or awkward, and steer the topic elsewhere. It’s been a very long time, and before all this, she was an animal. All of that combines into not… actually knowing exactly what happened. She might ask Bishamonten if she thought it was actually important. She’s mildly curious but a kind of ideological “I am who I am now, looking back would be Wrong” hangup has kicked away what little temptation there is. 

What she does know, though, is that she knew Nazrin from before all this, and they stayed together. I read it as Shou getting caught up in all this, and Nazrin deciding she’s not going alone, but that’s mostly because I consider Shou to be significantly more into this whole Bishamonten business than Nazrin is. 

Since we’re talking about origins anyway, I might as well note that I believe them to both be from India for fairly obvious reasons. The exact road trip that brought them to Japan and whether it’s pre- or post-Byakuren is one of the flexible blank patches in their history. I’ve made some posts about the idiosyncrasies that come out of this, half-jokingly. Some examples follow, if you like: (1, 2, oh dear I thought I had more of these).

Shou is basically the leader of the Byakuren fanclub. Her adoration and admiration for She Of The Crazy Hair knows no bounds (though I would say this is not necessarily, and is indeed wildly unlikely to be romantic or anything; this can take other forms, after all). When Byakuren got captured, she took it very hard, It’s a personal failing (or so she’s chosen to believe, at least) that she carries to this day, long after everyone else has stopped holding it against her - they never did anyway - and it affects a lot of things. She led the UFO rescue party, for one. She’s probably fairly overprotective and trying too hard to compensate for something that’s not even her fault, to this day.

More on that in a bit, though. I talked about Nazrin before, and briefly about Byakuren now. Let’s touch on the other major figure in her life: Bishamonten.

It’s not hard to see how Bishamonten is a big deal to Shou. Uplifted her from a regular animal or youkai to an avatar, for one. Two, he’s a generally virtuous and heroic sort, it would appear. Three, she’s an avatar, she’s kind of contractually obligated to approve of him even without the other stuff. Suffice to say it’s no real surprise she has a glowing opinion of him. 

Let’s look at him a bit, though. If any Buddhists in the audience feel I am in need of a correction or possibly a swift kick in the shins, please let me know; I’ve done research but that’s never really the same.

With that preamble out of the way: Bishamonten always struck me as someone who doesn’t… quite fit in with the general Buddhist picture. He’s big and loud and fiery-tempered, he’s a god of war and (often material) fortune, he’s known for a great deal of smiting, he’s usually depicted with a world-class scowl (no, seriously) and a big fiery halo, et cetra. On countless levels, he does not come off as a lotus kind of guy. Not bad - he’s a god of justice and protecting the weak as well, after all - but just kind of wandered into the wrong group.

You can characterise him as just different, or necessary, or failing to follow Buddha’s doctrine, but in any of the above cases, I think anyone who idolises both Bishamonten and Byakuren might experience some clashes in how to act. My impression of him is someone who’s probably a great friend, stand-up guy, always there for people, et cetra, but you really wish he picked up an indoor voice and stopped getting into bar fights every day. 

Shou’s picked up a bit of all of the above. Again, avatar, can’t be helped. More on that later, though.

Your impression of Shou is largely a matter of whose eyes you see her through. To the average person, she is probably utterly awe-inspiring, a picture of charisma, effortless grace and an imposing, almost regal air all at once. If you want someone who impresses people into signing on just from seeing her, congratulations! You found her.

She’s aware of that, though, and she tries her best to take the edge off it by being friendly and amiable wherever possible. The effect is rather like a golden angel coming from the sky to a booming choir, only to ask how you’re doing and if you need any help carrying those radishes. And yet, she makes it work: Again, charisma and people skills are kind of her thing. She’s also built up a reputation as someone you can always go to if you need anything, whether it’s a thief caught, or a blessing of good fortune to last the winter, or just advice (though she’ll always try to direct you to Byakuren or Nazrin for that last one, unless you insist). Shou is happy to help, no strings attached, and everyone knows it. It’s the Meiling factor: A combination of a guard and a friendly face. Even people who dislike the entire Myouren temple will probably vouch for Shou. Byakuren is definitely up to something, but Shou? Not a chance, pillar of the community, don’t know what she’s even doing in a place like this.

To other youkai, she’s a touch more open, and uses a different tack. She’s Byakuren-lite: Just as nice and caring, but a little more in touch with the thoughts and concerns of youkai, and somewhat less uptight, easier to talk to, that kind of thing. Whether Byakuren is particularly unapproachable or whatever is beside the point: It’s how people see Shou by comparison.

In private and around non-Byakuren friends, Shou is loud, cheerful and boisterous, quite a contrast to her usual self: The sort of person that some might call ‘a handful’ if anyone actually minded. They don’t. Everyone within this small circle has stories to tell about Shou, all of them good. They’re usually told to people who were actually there, though. Shou’s got an image to keep up and everyone knows it. 

Shou herself has no particularly glowing opinion of herself. Have you ever heard that “nobody’s perfect”? Well, she hasn’t. Or at least, she heard, and then quickly dismissed this as an excuse (though only when applied to her; she’s fairly laid back about others). She does not give herself a break, and never has.

Part of this is kind of a… lack of perspective. She always has to do better, to measure up to Byakuren and Bishamonten. She, however, refuses to see either as anything less than utterly perfect, despite “we’re decent people, but boy have we taken some wrong turns in life” basically being the Myouren temple slogan, and Bishamonten being- well, see above. Not only are these contradictory, but a hopelessly idealised vision of another person is, in fact, not actually feasible as a goal. 

Essentially, Shou is already good enough to leave most people somewhat awestruck. She’s entirely unaware of this, and is instead bitterly disappointed that she’s not somehow perfect,  or reaching a set of contradictory, unattainable standards of people who are basically imaginary.

I imagine Nazrin tries to talk her out of it now and then, with middling and temporary success. It doesn’t help that, yeah, Shou does miss the mark occasionally (see: being a bit of a heavy drinker etc.) In practice this isn’t something you’d find out about, because Shou can still project  confidence very well. She’s good at this stuff, remember.

A couple odds and ends to close this out. One thing I’ve always liked from… some book or other (I can never remember the titles anyway) is that Shou is pretty much complete rubbish with a spear. It’s entirely ceremonial. I’ve seen people read this as “she’s basically helpless without the pagoda”, though, and I don’t think that’s quite true. A tiger is scary. A youkai is scary. A tiger youkai demigoddess is probably a whole lot scarier when she puts the spear down. 

As for blessings of fortune, I’ve always seen it as coming in two varieties, broadly. There’s good luck of the “huh, everything seems to be working out for me lately” kind. Then there’s the unsubtle kind where a sack of jewels just shows up in your living room one day. She can do both, and… yeah, sure, ideally you should cut off material attachment, but in practice people need things just to get by, and she considers helping with this to be an important part of her work at the temple.

That’s about it for my big rambly mess re: Shou, so I’m just gonna add a really silly idea I’ve had in my head for a while.

Shou once earned a single wish from Bishamonten in recognition of her services. She requested an arm-wrestling match with him, lost badly, and has been delighted about the whole thing ever since. Still kind of sore, though.

[connorcarter32]

Hauntology and Nostalgia

Provocations:

Consider how these themes are applies to practises and how art remakes are prominent in contemporary art and design.

Emotional investment.

Melancholy for something that has passed and is no longer happening now.

Particular works have a nostalgic quality, usually when they are repeated or if it was observed during childhood.

Clip showed from 'Lala land', it's a rejuvenation of pre modern musical with its colour and historical context.

Nostalgia: homesickness or a sentimental yearning for a past period.

Disney remakes preying on this phenomenon. A good representation of its value.

Repurposing and remix are good examples of adaptation of nostalgia.

The keep calm poster is an example of nostalgia within British culture and how it has been reused for it's original purpose in market crashes.

In psychology we usually amend our memories to make ourselves seem superior.

Nostalgia is very prevalent in political policies.

Svetlana Boym, theorist who wrote 'the future of nostalgia' "nostalgia is a longing for a place, but actually it is a yearning for a different time". I disagree with this statement, as I find the euphoria comes from the place entirely, and it can be recreated with the correct conditions in my own experience.

Hauntology: as much about our relationship with the past. A binding of memories to your present self.

David Lowery's 'A ghost Story' has a good example, focusing on ideas of being and memories.

Personally disagree with 'stranger things' being hauntological and more nostalgic, as the time period is extremely fetishised. It preys on general audiences yearning for the past, that they have some semblance of control over in their mind; perhaps offering comfort, or peace of mind.

Hauntology has a more theoretical angle, rather then deconstructing the past it focuses on the pasts effect on the present.

Jacques Derrida "it incorporates the notion of non-origin in which the present is neither present nor past".

Jonas Mekas - Lithuanian American filmmaker, who believes a merging of the past and present (hauntology) is beneficial in film works, as its unclear where any piece of life goes together. In a sense, there is order in disorder.

Mark Fisher on electronic music believes that the genre no longer sounds like it has a sense of the future. "Anything recorded I the 2000's could have been recorded in the 1990's.

Sounds that once had a sense of the future now have a sense of the past (seen within synth music and such).

Mark Fisher’s Belief that electronic music sounds less of the future now then it once did, is very reminiscent of what we now consider genres such as ‘synth wave’, which focuses on retro themes, much unlike electronic music’s intended purpose. This has inspired the development of my own scores within screencraft, as our aestheticism is one of the 60′s. that coupled with the genre of sci-fi makes synthesised music a perfect reference for creating my own music for the film. At first I began looking at genre’s like ‘dream wave’, since our film has a light-hearted tone, and the euphoric nostalgic tone of the genre would work well. During production I decided not to use this, as a sense of euphoria was already apparent in the visuals and sound design, therefore music of this calibre would be wasted. 

Piece inspired by dream wave, specifically the work of  Kenji Yamamoto in ‘Metroid’

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1gPdpLFvNVroa1mB8Uz__pViz3W7ZjqG7

This piece went unused as the film already touches on its nostalgic, euphoric feeling, stemming from the enthralling, yet familiar nature of video game music. Furthermore the dramatic nature of the synth choir and the drastic melodies is out of place in the world of the film (as mentioned from peer feedback). 

Electronic theme:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1rsXRmoOFE0rhTBADhz9eLXywtyg5ENY1

The sense of nostalgia in this piece is apparent in its wispy, ethereal tone. Furthermore the simplicity and lack of layers makes it seem more familiar, like most traditional sci-fi soundtracks. I also find that the electronic sounds I produced are also reminiscent of the past, relating back to its nostalgic aura and Mark Fisher’s beliefs. 

This piece we decided to use in the final film, however peer feedback deduced that at times it could seem quite sinister, so some amendments are still required, however I am much more content with the feeling this piece produces, rather than the others. 

Hauntology and Nostalgia Cont-

Concept of future nostalgia: Present in Tarantino’s ‘Pulp Fiction’, since you are not; as a viewer nostalgic for the beginning, since it’s quite dowry, instead you are nostalgic for the scenes or the end of the story, shown before the end. 

Term nostalgia coined by Roman soldiers, when they were sent to new lands and found a longing for home. Research has shown it’s not just a yearning for home, but a romanticised past.

British propaganda is not shy on this topic, i.e. Take back control, send them back, all past pronouns. 

Examples of nostalgia and hauntology in film disciplines.

We still shoot on film, which is inherently a nostalgic medium, however in a lot of instances it’s used to idolise a period of the past, since it’s iconographic of the historical context.

Forming an argument for non-nostalgia.  

Film is more a portrayal than a romanticism. Just because it’s being shown dosen’t mean it’s good.

Sometimes used for homage, you may not miss it, but enjoy it. Film more relevant to hauntology.

Film being nostalgic implies anything of the past is nostalgic.

Currently there is a choice of digital too, which is much more accessible, demonstrating a lack of demand for an ode to the past.

Hauntology Cont:

Technological determination: belief in future technology solving modern problems I.E. the common consensus on climate change.

The return of vinyl records, craving the return of imperfections, despite past technologies attempts to remove them.

Animorphic lens, similar to fish eye, makes images pop out, but blurs the edges. "Ultra close up lens". Used in 'John Wick' to capture action at a mid range with a close up effect. (For practical reference).

Hauntology is idealised by ghosts, something that can have an impact from the past. It's more of a practical response then nostalgia, since it discusses how something has influenced someone, not the act itself.

Derrida is a very iconic theorist amongst academics, due to his work on hauntology. Later in life he discusses social issues around christmas, and ethics of animals and consumption. Most known for post-structualism. Looking at a wider sense of social life and challenging its structures. 'Spectres of Marx' is his most accomplished publication, being made after the loss of his friend. One sentence is mentioned about hauntology, but mainly focuses on mourning, especially in 'Hamlet' misquoting "time is out of joint." The period of mourning is what created the ghost, time is our own application, and anything that comes from it is from deep within man.

"Film is a time based media", we can capture a moment in time for whatever need. Ghosts create a problematic issue in the timeline, it portrays the past through the filmmaker, for a medium bein used in the future.

Films including a dead cast or crew, are momentarily revived in that moment of time while watching.

Hauntology is a play on ontology, the study of being (referenced in 'me, myself and I' blog).

Epistemology, related moreso to our knowledge and what is learned. Considering how a child would be sired. That act of consideration and tension.

When co-prescence is removed, a phantom is replaced. Communication is done indirectly, therefore as a ghost.

[sleepdragon]

Burn it ALL Down: The Story of a Super, a Sidekick and Fans at a Comic Con...

Comic Con is a magical time of year where we get to see the actors out and about promoting their show to dozens of places, chatting about themselves, each other, fans and their characters.  It’s a time where we get to experience behind the scenes of those shows we love, and as fans do we ever look forward to it.

 This comic con ran sour for many people, and people feel what they feel and I’ll never invalidate the if’s but’s or why’s.  But I am going to take a moment to discuss some unsettling things I’ve been seeing in the Supergirl orbit, then I’ll address the giant elephant that has been shitting on the carpet.

 1.     Representation Matters:  Alex came out in the most amazing way; it was positive, uplifting, embracing and beautiful really – she got to be all of Alex.  Fan-fucking-tastic and about bloody time.

a.     She got the girl.  Yay? Except I feel that Alex lost herself in the girl.  She forgot that she had a sister.  She marginalised Kara in every possible way.  She didn’t plan to spend Earth Birthday with her sister, her sister who is celebrating the day that she lost everything.  The day that represents her being on Earth longer than Krypton – but hey, she got the girl.  

b.     The girl is played by someone who, from all accounts is a lovely woman.  She’s dating Casey Affleck; oh noes fire her, we don’t like him.  Wait, the girl isn’t a POC because she is part Italian and Irish.  People, Italy has black people.  They do.  They can quite marginalised there too.   But she wasn’t good enough to play a POC on TV (which BTW she has never been referenced on the show has Latina)… wow, are you fucking kidding me?

2.     Diversity Matters: James has nothing to do, let’s make him the most useless vigilante since that relationship with Kara didn’t work out (thank god, it was so shoe horned and not sustainable).

a.     Diversity Matters but just throwing a POC on screen isn’t enough.  Give us something more.  James was not my favourite character, still isn’t.  He still deserves better.

b.     Diversity doesn’t mean that the character has to be likeable, but they have to get the same amount of thought as every other one.  But even much of the fandom didn’t care about his side lining, that was disappointing.

3.     Relationships are invaluable but the romance, and the ‘shipper wars have not been.

a.     Sanvers I want to love, but I don’t really think I like Maggie, and I don’t like who Alex has become with her.

b.     Karamel Not the best, but I can understand why Kara would latch onto someone when she was literally abandoned by everyone in season 2.  No, I don’t think it’s okay he lied to Kara about who he was, but it was unsurprising Kara forgave him.  Probably the most believable thing in the relationship.

c.     J’onn and M’gann if people want to talk about toxic relationships – she saved his life and he repays her by imprisoning her for no good reason, and during that time M’gann developed Stockholm Syndrome and fell in love with her capture. Yay! Positive.

d.     Danvers Sisters who now?  Were they a band or something, because damn if they didn’t break up in season 2.  They were once the heart of the show, and when that was lost the show was lost.  

e.     ‘ships are important and there is plenty of ocean out there for them ALL to sail.  Problem is that the infighting started and it became every ship for themselves, because obviously the individuals chosen ship was the least toxic of them all.  IMO, all the canon romantic relationships this season were shit, they devalued every one of the characters.  Speaking only for myself, I still struggle with what J’onn did to M’gann…

                                               i.     Some fandom ‘ships were toxic and when a guest star comments on that, at a convention, and the threats and vitriol he received there is a systemic problem.  Thankfully not all SuperCorp fans are like that, but the problem is for the actors and creatives they may not see the flip side.

                                             ii.     All fandom ‘ships had toxic members who screamed loudly and sounded like spokespeople for the ship.  It’s unfortunate, but it happens.

f.      Friendships are important if anyone can remind Kara’s friends of that, I’d be forever grateful.  Remind her Foster Mother and Space Dad for extra points.

4.     KARA MATTERS: The show is called Supergirl, so obviously the most important character should be her.  Although Supergirl did get more time than Kara, but I feel as we moved away from Kara we lost the humanity too.  It’s why I did adore the addition of Lena to the show (if they make her evil…)  I feel that when we lost Cat, we lost Kara.  I’m hoping we get more Cat this season to make up for that.

 And yeah, Melissa said that Kara’s world ended when she lost Mon-El but she expanded on it in the ET interview – the woman has lost next to everything and the hits keep on coming.  All she is seeing is loss – and that, that is the product of someone who has terrible abandonment issues.  Now, if they could actually explore this throughout the season…

 Now, much of the online fandom has been shitting on each other (I will reiterate not all), the actors and creatives and then Comic Con happened.  One of their first interviews of the day Jeremy was asked to reprise a little skit he did last year and sing the events of last season, so he hit on the main storyline affecting those in attendance (which is why Sanvers was overlooked) – unfortunately he made a tone-deaf joke that hurt people, Melissa kinda joined in and everyone laughed.

 I do believe he hit on it because of the SuperCorp fandoms notoriety, but I don’t think it was designed to invalidate the LBGT community.  I don’t believe it was a homophobic remark, I just think it was a stupid moment that any human has had.  Not even a saint could claim they haven’t accidently hurt someone by not understanding something, or joking about it.  It happens, but to assume that the intent was malicious goes against everything else they have both done in the past, and Melissa said later the same day (before all this blew up). It even goes against what Melissa said later in the same interview.

 Yes, I am aware that she called Jeremy “brave” for what he said, but no I don’t think that means that she wanted to invalidate the ship.  I think it means that she thinks he is brave to want to take on the fans, and that he was fucking stupid to do it.  Melissa may not really do cons, may not do many signings on set – but she does stop for fans on the street and she has been an ally for years.  I do not believe a single moment erases everything they have done in the past, nor do I think it makes them a bad person now.

 What I do believe is that it makes them human.  The problem is in many cases that’s the last thing we want (or need) celebrities to be, we hold them up as the perfect representation of whatever we need them to represent.  We falsely idolise them, so when they fall it hurts, it hurts a lot.  But that hurt, the hurt from our idolisation, isn’t their fault.  That’s like when we discover that our older siblings, or parents or grandparents are just human.  They didn’t hang to moon and the stars, even though we thought they did.

 Now, these humans did something well, human.  As a member of the LBGT community I will only speak for myself (and I do ask can everyone do that, no one voted for official spokespeople so lets not pretend to have them), they didn’t upset me.  I don’t feel devalued by them.  They owe me no apology.

 Jeremy has issued a 2 part apology, and no it’s not perfect but he isn’t perfect.  None of us are, I’m not going to tell anyone to give him a chance or forgive him.  I am going to say that you should forget but c’mon – people are telling him and Melissa to choke.  They are wishing a show that hires hundreds of people to be cancelled.  They are calling out and attacking their personal lives, how it any of that okay?  So much of fandom is NOT okay with the way it’s responding. Being hurt I get, threats of any kind is just ridiculous and intentionally malicious.

 Maybe this can be a learning curve for everyone, starting with realising we are all but human.  And we will all make mistakes.

(I also decided not to tag sanvers because I will not go into a tag when I don’t like the ship)

And for the love of god, don’t ask an actor to validate your ship.  They see what they see, you see what you see.  That’s okay, that will forever be okay, they never have to meet.

[mysticprima]

Spider-Man Homecoming Thoughts

People may not want to read if you haven’t seen Spider-Man Homecoming yet, but I’ve just seen the movie last night and I’ve gotta say, wow! I thought it was a brilliant movie! I’m not saying it was perfect in every way, but there were so many things they got right this time and I am so happy they seem to have done a good job of rebooting the Spider-Man franchise.  Anyway, this is just me sharing some of my thoughts on the movie.

*SPOILER ALERT*

1. Tom Holland as Spider as Peter/Spidey Perfect casting choice and great acting from him all around. Tom’s Peter is exactly how I imagine a young Spidey to be. He isn’t obnoxious, too much of a nerd or too cool (like Garfield was), but he’s is still an introverted kid, kind of nerdy, not to mention cute, adorable and most importantly, relatable. Prior to this movie, I always thought Toby Maguire did it best, but Tom is definitely the one true Peter Parker for me now (other than Drake Bell as my fave Spidey VA but that’s another somewhat controversial rant in itself). I loved how Tom really captured the spirit of a young Peter. He gave an incredibly realistic take on the character as being a young, scared kid underneath it all with a huuuge responsibility, but he is still having fun with his powers and reacting as you would expect a kid to do. I actually found his performance very credible.  One question, though. Did Peter have Spidey sense in this movie? I don’t recall it being showcased or mentioned. 

2. Marisa Tomei as Aunt May - I am a huge fan of Ultimate Aunt May, so it goes without saying that Marisa Tomei’s Aunt May is my favourite version too precisely because she is shown here to be a character who has her own life which doesn’t just revolve around Peter. It was a good casting choice.

3. Zendeya as “Michelle”. For the record, I really liked Zendeya’s character. Loved her tomboy look and she had a lot of sass and one liners in the movie. She was generally a great character. However, I did have some issues with this character, particularly surrounding what she reveals at the end of the movie. Okay, so she is called Michelle Jones which, I get, is “MJ” for short. Fair enough. But if Michelle is “MJ”, then why not just call her Mary Jane? I wouldn’t have minded if they had had just done what they did with Flash who is obviously a very different take on his character, but at least they still called him “Flash”. Michelle’s personality could have easily fit with a cooler and nerdier Mary Jane, similar to kind of how she is in Ultimate Spider-Man comics and cartoon, so I don’t know why they had to invent this “Michelle” character, who is the “MJ” of this universe. Like I said, I don’t dislike their take on the character. I’d take her to Kirstin Dunst’s Mary Jane any day of the week, but why “Michelle?”

4. Robert Downey Jr as Ironman and Tony and Peter’s relationship – Robert Downley Jr was great (as you’d expect), but it goes without saying that having Ironman and his relationship with Spidey feature in this movie was one of the highlights. Now that Peter is finally in the MCU universe, we get to see the dymanic between them on the big screen and it is perfect. I’m a big IronSpider fan and this movie did not disappoint. There was so many great Tony + Peter moments to appreciate such as the awkward “hug” scene, Tony giving Peter a lecture after the Statten Island Ferry incident and Tony comparing himself to his own father while lecturing Peter. There were so many other cute moments between them and so many feels, needless to say I love the Tony/Peter dynamic of Tony as the mentor/older male figure who pretends he’s too cool to care and Peter as the teen who idolises and wants to be like him. At first I was disappointed that Peter did not make his own suit, but actually I can now see how it made more sense that Ironman was involved. At least Peter still made his own web fluid. It was more realistic, I guess. But yeah, loved seeing Ironman and Spidey in this movie. 

5. Michael Keaton as the vulture. We actually have a great bad guy for once in Michael Keaton. Having a strong villain is just as important as having a strong hero and this is something the other Spider-Man movies have previously lacked (with maybe the exception of Otto in Spider-Man 2). Usually in Spider-Man movies, they either try to cram too many villains in at once (here’s looking at you Spider-Man 3) or the villains are just plan forgetful (I honestly cannot remember who the villain was in Amazing Spider-Man). Keaton, on the other hand, did a great job. There is also that great scene where the twist is revealed and the characters come face to face. You can actually see the fear and shock on Peter’s face when he realises who The Vulture is outside of costume. When I was at uni, my tutor (a professional writer who writes scripts for various UK TV shows) once said how in every great action movie, there always have at least one scene where the hero and villain come face to face off the battlefield, where there is a moment of understanding between them.  This really was one of those great moments which made this movie so much better because of it. 

6. Other supporting characters, such as Ned Leeds, Flash and Liz – I felt the supporting cast was mostly good. My initial worry is that Ned was too much like Ganke. To be honest, I still think that’s the case, but I can see how he was a nice addition to the movie and a funny character who was actually useful to the plot. I’ll be honest about Flash. I hated this take on Flash, mainly because I have always associated Flash as being a jock but then, as it has been pointed out, this movie is trying to move away from stereotypes like the “big dumb jock” and “preppy girl.” Liz was fine as the beautiful but smart girl who has depth. I’ll be honest, I do not like Liz as Peter’s love interest in any universe, but she played her role well enough. Flash…well… I’m still not sure about Flash to be honest, but I see what the writers we’re trying to do and I’ll give them a nod for that. But the true star of supporting characters was Happy!! Can we talk about HAPPY?!!!

7. Conclusion

Overall I thought it was well written, well acted and entertaining as far as superhero movies go. It has it’s flaws, but it is so much better than the mess that was Amazing Spider-Man (in my opinion) and it provides a much more up-to-date version of the character which was needed. There are some things I might have liked to see, like maybe a quick cameo from J K Simmons as J Jonah Jamerson, even if they had just flashed his face flash on the screen like they do in The Ultimate Spider-Man Cartoon.  I for one am glad we didn’t get a repeat of the same story with Uncle Ben and the Osborns. It will be interesting to see where the series goes next.