#also the fact that people are ignoring the clear protagonists of the film

[adamshallperish]

just saw someone in the drive away dolls tag complaining about how pedro pascal was only going to be in the movie for five minutes and how that meant "clearly he's being exploited". bestie i'm sorry the lesbian roadtrip movie is about two lesbians on a roadtrip and not pedro pascal.

[ghibli-collector]

Another interesting article about the new Ghibli film Boy and the Heron with great insights into Miyazaki’s relationship with Joe Hisaishi and Toshio Suzuki making films over the years. Again it has a few spoilers

What’s it like to work with Hayao Miyazaki? Go behind the scenes.

News of Hayao Miyazaki’s retirement can’t ever be trusted.

The Japanese animation master’s repeated claims that he’ll give up filmmaking are a response to the strain that creating each of his largely hand-drawn universes entails. At least that’s what Toshio Suzuki, a founder of Studio Ghibli and Miyazaki’s right-hand man for the past 40 years, believes.

"Every time he finishes a film, he’s so exhausted he can’t think about the next project,” Suzuki explains. "He’s used up his energy physically and mentally. He needs some time to clear his mind. And to have a blank canvas to come up with new ideas.”

A decade after 2013’s "The Wind Rises” was heralded as Miyazaki’s final film, the 82-year-old auteur’s newest feature, "The Boy and the Heron,” is being released in the United States after major success in Japan over the summer, where it opened without any traditional publicity.

Though the director hasn’t given any interviews about "The Boy and the Heron,” Suzuki, 75, who is also a veteran producer, and Joe Hisaishi, 72, the longtime composer on Miyazaki’s movies, describe in separate video interviews the master’s working process and how their collaborations have evolved — or not — over the years.

Suzuki is casually dressed and speaking, via an interpreter, from Japan, where he sits next to a pillow emblazoned with Totoro, the bearlike troll that serves as the studio’s logo. He says the new fantasy film is Miyazaki’s most personal yet. Set in the final days of World War II, the tale follows 11-year-old Mahito, who, after losing his mother in a fire, moves to the countryside, where a magical realm beckons him.

"At the start of this project, Miyazaki came to me and asked me, ‘This is going to be about my story, is that going to be OK?’ I just nodded,” Suzuki recalls with the matter-of-factness of someone who’s learned it would be futile to stand in the way of the director.

For a long time, he says, Miyazaki worried that if he made a movie about a young male, inspiration would inevitably be drawn from his own childhood, which he felt might not make for an interesting narrative. Growing up, Miyazaki had trouble communicating with people and expressed himself instead by drawing pictures.

"I noticed that with this film, where he portrayed himself as a protagonist, he included a lot of humorous moments in order to cover up that the boy, based on himself, is very sensitive and pessimistic,” Suzuki says. "That was interesting to see.”

If Miyazaki is the boy, Suzuki adds, then he himself is the heron, a mischievous flying entity in the story that pushes the young hero to keep going. Director Isao Takahata, Studio Ghibli’s third foundational musketeer, who died in 2018, is represented onscreen by Granduncle, a wise but weathered figure who controls the fantastical world Mahito ventures into.

Suzuki first met Miyazaki in the late 1970s, when the animator was making his first feature, "Lupin III: The Castle of Cagliostro,” an amusing caper. Back then, Suzuki was a journalist hoping to interview him.

But Miyazaki, who was working on a storyboard, had no interest in talking and ignored him. "Out of kindness, I thought it was a good thing to introduce his works to my readers, and for him to be very cranky and disrespectful, I was very angry,” Suzuki remembers.

He stuck around the studio for two more days of silence. On the third, Miyazaki asked him if he knew a term for a car overtaking another during a chase. Suzuki’s reply, a specific Japanese expression for such action, finally broke the ice and kick-started their long-term relationship.

"Miyazaki still remembers that first meeting, too,” Suzuki says. "He thought that I was a person not to be trusted. And that’s why he was very cautious about talking to me.”

Over the years, Suzuki has become increasingly indispensable for Miyazaki. "He always tells me, ‘Suzuki-san, can you remember the important things for me?’ And then he feels that he can forget about all the important things not concerning his films. I have to remember them for him,” Suzuki says.

Best friends more than mere collaborators, Miyazaki and Suzuki talk every day, even if there’s nothing urgent to discuss, and make it a rule to meet in person on Mondays and Thursdays. "What we talk about is very trivial most times, I guess he feels lonely or misses me, but it’s always him who calls me. I never call him,” Suzuki says, adding with a laugh, "Sometimes he even calls me in the middle of the night, like at 3 a.m., and the first thing he says is, ‘Were you awake?’ And obviously I was not. I’m in bed!”

In contrast, Hisaishi, the composer who first worked with Miyazaki on the 1984 feature "Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind,” has a strictly professional relationship with him.

"We don’t see each other in private,” Hisaishi, wearing an elegant sweater, says through a translator. "We don’t eat together. We don’t drink together. We only meet to discuss things for work.” That emotional distance, he adds, is what has made their partnership over 11 films so creatively fruitful.

"People think that if you really know a person’s full character then you can have a good working relationship, but that doesn’t necessarily hold true,” Hisaishi says. "What is most important to me is to compose music. The most important thing in life to Miyazaki is to draw pictures. We are both focused on those most important things in our lives.”

On "The Boy and the Heron,” Miyazaki didn’t provide Hisaishi with any instruction. The musician watched the film only when it was nearly completed but still with no sound or dialogue. At that point Miyazaki simply said to Hisaishi, "I just leave it up to you.”

"I feel he was just thinking that he could rely on me and expected me to come up with something,” Hisaishi says. "I feel like I was very much trusted to do this.”

For all of their previous collaborations, Miyazaki would bring on Hisaishi to discuss once three out of the four or five parts of the storyboard for a new film were ready. That the process changed this time was possible only because of their shared history.

"It’s as if we’ve been Olympic athletes making a film once every four years for 40 years,” Hisaishi says. "It’s been a long time of training and performing. When I look back I’m amazed that I could write music for these very different films.”

In his contemporary classical work, Hisaishi had been working on minimalist compositions with repeating patterns, and he took that approach to the new film.

While he maintains they are just colleagues, every January for the past 15 years, Hisaishi has composed a small tune, recorded it on a piano and sent it to Miyazaki as a birthday present. This tradition has now become the seasoned musician’s lucky charm.

"After about three times I thought, ‘This has probably run its course,’” Hisaishi recalls. "I didn’t send one the following year. That whole year I wasn’t able to work very well. It was sort of a jinx that I had not sent him something, so I started sending him the music again for his birthday,” he adds with a laugh.

Both Hisaishi and Suzuki say their interactions with Miyazaki have not changed much over the decades. On the contrary, the men have become staunch creatures of habit.

Asked why his profound connection with Miyazaki has endured so long, Suzuki says: "I don’t necessarily agree, but he once told me, ‘I’ve never met someone so similar to me. You are the last person that I will meet like that.’”

BY CARLOS AGUILAR

THE NEW YORK TIMES

[bimbocoreblonde]

hi!!! i saw ur fall guy ficlet post, and i got so excited because THESE ARE SO CUTE

this is a lot to ask lmao im so sorry but what if

F (friendship) but then its a friends to lovers story with G (gentle) + H (hugs) + J (jealousy)?

THIS IS SO MUCH TO ASK BUT I JUST KNOW YOU'D ROCK THIS

thank youuu and hope ur having a great day!! <33

Hi, thank you for being my first ask!!! And hell yeah you can ask for a mix of prompts, although I wrote more of a very short fic than distinct prompts. I hope that's okay!

Being an intimacy coordinator was a job that constantly kept you on your toes - never more so when the intimate scene you were coordinating involved multiple people.

In this case, the director of this film had this ‘Mr & Mrs Smith’-esque scene in mind where the two protagonists went from fighting to making out back to fighting and then into a sex scene – and since the fight scenes were very intense, that meant you were not only working with the actors, but also their stunt doubles.

Not that you were complaining.

As ‘not actors’, you had been hanging out with a few of the stunt actors while on set – particularly the stunt double for the lead male role in this film, Colt. And Colt was an absolute sweetheart.

He’d looked after you since it was your first international shoot: riding with you to set in the mornings, going exploring around the city with you, making sure you got home safely before heading to his own hotel. He was also a bit of a gentle giant: guiding you around with a big hand on the small of your back, slinging an arm around your shoulder to support you on public transport so you didn’t fall over, holding your hand to help you out of the truck he drove to and around set.

Despite him having muscles that were ridiculous impressive, and a rough and tumble nature that meant he was constantly bruised and scraped before he started work, you always felt safe around Colt.

The fact he was easy to look at didn’t hurt, either.

You never voiced that thought aloud; as an intimacy coordinator, especially one who was assisting with scenes involving Colt himself, telling him you found him attractive would be crossing a major line. You didn’t want anyone calling into either of your professionalisms, especially when a lot of this work came about through word of mouth…but that didn’t mean you were blind.

Or adverse to asking him out after filming had wrapped up.

Some people on set, though, were not as firm on professional boundaries as you were.

The male lead for this film, some hot new star named Johnny, had been flirting with you since the first day he’d seen you on set. It wasn’t subtle, but you tried to ignore it as much as you could, striving to remain professional but polite.

Unfortunately, Johnny seemed to interpret ‘polite’ as ‘playing hard to get (but obviously into it)’. He really wasn’t doing anything to dispel the stereotype that good-looking people were stupid, but that wasn’t your problem.

Another week, and filming as set to wrap up – so for now, you continued to ignore Johnny’s thinly-veiled innuendos, and barely-veiled-at-all propositions, and headed over to where Colt was waiting by his truck to see if he wanted to grab dinner at a jungle-themed restaurant you’d seen on Instagram.

“You sure you wouldn’t rather go with Johnny?” he muttered, frowning over your shoulder (presumably at the mouth actor).

You, however, were frowning at him: “God, no. Why would I want to go anywhere with him?”

“You two seem to be friendly, is all.” Colt shrugged, finally looking at you…although he wouldn’t meet your eyes.

“I wouldn’t use the word friendly.” you responded tartly: “Maybe long-suffering on my part, and really annoying when it came to him.”

Colt looked confused: “You’re not into him?”

“No!” you exclaimed, probably too loudly but you needed to make it clear you were not ‘into’ Johnny: “I’m just trying to stay professional while he…does his best to be as gross as possible before I can call it harassment.”

Colt’s shoulders slumped, and after a moment of confusion you realised he looked relieved.

You didn’t get it – surely people didn’t actually think you were reciprocating Johnny’s horndog behaviour. You might not be able to publicly tell him to wind his neck in…but you felt like it was definite subject to your non-responses!

Suddenly concerned people might think you were into Johnny, you turned to storm off and do…literally anything to make it clear to God and everyone that you thought the man was a jerkoff, when a big hand wrapped around your wrist, and yanked you back towards a solid chest.

“Colt, what on earth - !”

You were cut off by Colt spinning you round and pulling you into a bone-crushing hug.

It should have been uncomfortable, but you actually found it…really nice. Colt’s arms were strong around your waist, pressing you close to his warm chest, even lifting you off of your feet a little. It was so easy to melt into his embrace, that familiar feeling of safety leeching the tension out of you, until you almost forgot why you had been about to storm off.

“I thought you were just waiting for filming to wrap up before accepting one of his offers.” Colt murmured into your hair.

“His many, many annoying offers.” you muttered bitterly, before Colt’s words actually sunk in: “But, wait, why would it matter if I was into Johnny?”

You felt Colt swallow, his voice nervous when he answered: “Because if you were into him, then you weren’t going to settle for me.”

“Settle?” you replied indignantly: “Colt Seavers, any woman would be lucky to have you! You’re an amazing guy, and don’t you ever settle for someone you think think that they’re settling for you.”

Colt was uncharacteristically serious when he spoke, his face solemn when he pulled back to look at you: “Even you?”

“Me?” you squeaked.

“Yeah. I was gonna wait until filming was finished, I know you want everyone to see how professional you are, but…I really don’t want to miss my chance. Do you want to go out for dinner tonight? As…as more than friends?”

You didn’t even need to think about it – you grinned up at Colt, happiness bursting through you: “I know the perfect place.”

[hawkogurl]

I'll probably have more to say about this later bc I'm going to sleep soon, but I feel like, you, oliveroctavius, me, and a few other people are like the small minority I've seen anywhere who actually criticize TASM for the eugenics and ableism, and it honestly floors me that no one talks about it when it's so blatant and tumblr loves bringing up disability and ableism otherwise? Like, it's not even a case of how everyone has valid differing opinions and needs/wants when it comes to how the vast range of disabled experiences should be approached in fiction and there's nuance in how to do even tricky, but real experiences like grief and loss - we're talking about a film series where an antagonist meant to be sympathetic makes a speech about disability being a weakness of humanity that must be genetically eradicated to strengthen it (which is never deconstructed or challenged) and has no other characterization beyond sad amputee whose only interest for a decade is his missing arm, and where Peter is some kind of genetic chosen one whose Good Genes give him cool powers, and the whole mess with Harry.

The few other times on tumblr I've seen it brought up is to like, woobify (internalized) ableism even though the films go way beyond realistic personal struggle and straight into eugenics, and as someone with a Lizard niche in the Spidey fandom, I'm floored at how everywhere else, I keep seeing the TASM version of the character topping best adaptation discussions by a huge margin compared to way better takes with zero references of the ableism (this was not the case even a few years ago, idk what happened), and you can correct me on this if I'm wrong bc you would know more about the Harry side of things than me, but I feel like TASM!Harry used to be very popular and be moved, at least until MSM2017 and Insomniac came along.

Hi sorry my brother just graduated college. Anyways, in regards to the Harry side of things, I think a lot of the ableism SHOULD be pretty obvious, but apparently it’s not considering how little critical thought there is with all these villains. There’s the good genes bad genes eugenics of Harry wanting Peter’s blood to cure himself and then it doesn’t work because the spider only worked with Peter’s “good genes” (I don’t care about their in canon excuse, it still buys into this trope) and it reacted so badly with the TERMINALLY ILL CHARACTERS “bad genes” that he turned crazy and evil. And that’s ignoring my general distaste for disability or “insanity” being used primarily as a source of fear for the good, noble, and of course able bodied protagonists.

Something that’s also pretty weird that nobody mentions is the fact that like, Electro in these movies just HAD to talk to nothing. Normally it wouldn’t bother me as much or I might be willing to give it a pass, but it’s these movies, which just love to make their disdain for disabled people clear, so it comes off as super bad taste.

Like… I’m only scratching the surface. Why are there three people who consistently point out how ableist these movies are? Especially when as you said, tasm Harry is pretty popular! Ignoring my beef with him as a Harry Osborn, it’s so odd to me because so much of that is either like, sort of romanticizing his chronic illness and breakdown or getting off on that ableist insanity I mentioned earlier.

And when you bring it up, people get SUPER defensive. I don’t know if like, the amount of invalid criticism just makes people defensive or if it makes people think there’s NO valid criticism but like… these movies aren’t bad for the reasons you think. The issues they have are like… the writing saying that eugenics is cool and fun alongside generally iffy writing.

[dasboligrafo]

7 Takes on The Double Life of Veronique

You know the thing where you like the same thing as a terrible person?

I guess even Lear-esque cringey edgelords like great movies and Keith McNally is not wrong about Sexy Beast and definitely definitely not wrong about the Double Life of Veronique, a movie I've now seen 3x, 2 of which ended in helpless tears (the only way I know if something is art).

This movie was a selection by McNally at a Roxy Cinema mini-festival in October 2023. As I told the crew who I invited (tricked?) to see the movie: now it's your turn to think about it for 15 years!

I love the moment after the movie when people are asking helplessly -- but what does the movie mean?!? And I really, really love the moment when people get angry at the end of the movie. These are real emotions! What's the last time a movie made you think anything other than "god, that was 45 minutes too long?" (The Double Life of Veronique is under 100 minutes! yessss)

[I didn't hear it cause I was, like, weeping, but my friend said at the end a guy behind us was angrily griping that the movie was too slow? Huh? Stuff is literally happening every moment of the movie? There is not a single wasted scene, line or frame? What even are these senses whose proofs we can so liberally ignore?]

Since it might be another 15 years until I see it again and I don't have the benefit of just having written a college thesis that was mostly about Lacan via Zizek, I thought I would type out a few thought exercises/interpretative frameworks that I think apply to this movie:

The contingent nature of the universe/the senselessness of existense -- probably the easiest to justify, especially in the context of Kieslowski's complete ouevre, in consideration of his personal history, based on the interviews he's given, etc...

What to do about emotional apocrypha — what do you do with and about feelings that seem to come from nowhere? Feelings are "real" and we know now (i.e. the science is now there to tell us, eg Lisa Feldman Barrets's fascinating work) they're not in any way subservient in value or usefulness to "reason"; like if anything the opposite, emotions are the "why" and reason is the very patched together and incomplete "how" behind what we are and what we do. Worth thinking about why it is Kieslowski's most compelling films have female protagonists given the historical association to the binary genders for emotion vs reason.

The duality and dichotomy of post-war East/West Europe -- I think this one is sorta obvious but not less resonant? There's a good article out there about how the film predicted a lot of the consequences of the EU. Elsewhere I've read that Polish critics pilloried Kieslowski for a traitor to his kind over this theme, which reminded me of the story about how Bach's works were sometimes not well received by the church patrons who got to hear a lot of it first because they thought it was too dour -- imagine you have the greatest musician who will ever live as your church musician and your biggest peeve is his music isn't fun enough for Sunday. In any event this is a major theme in Three Colors, and I'm sure there's no accident that this movie and the Trilogy are connected by the same fake composer (key work = "Song for the Unification of Europe"...)

Return to theory in film (Zizek) -- he wrote a whole book about it. I'm not sure I agree Kieslowski's films make the case for the return to Theory (ie I think you can interpret his movies without it.) But the fact that you can so unbelievably seamlessly integrate his films to a Lacanian framework gives me that feeling of the inevitability of Lacan.

Art Cinema's enduring interest in interrogating the limits of its medium -- which of course is also present in art literature for its own medium, and frequently not only present but foregrounded in theatre. The Puppetmaster is a clear analogue to the filmmaker (and of God, lmao...they can't help themselves), but also all the unbelievably uncomfortable sex scenes in this movie are a masterclass on the male gaze and how you constitute and undermine it...etc.

Space-time Travel (Zizek) -- right away, I'm going to say I don't think this one is all that interesting, but it's what Criterion chose to accompany the 15th year re-release of the movie. So...ok 🤷🏽‍♀️ I'd say that listening to physics podcasts has convinced me of the value of a literary education (those hermeneutical skills come in so handy), so I see the relevance of thinking of these two together, but I also feel like the fake math is the part of Lacan I always found a little too silly to stand.

The agony of art as vocation -- I'm sorta lazily splitting this out from #5 just because when I originally wrote this post I had 7 points and now I can only remember 6 of them, and I like the resonance of 7....There's a Badiou-esque invocation of the four types of truth procedures at work in this movie that could easily fill the pages of another unread senior thesis: science -- the zizek time travel thing, the way the movie is, actually, concerned with the explanation of what is happening and why, rather than just accepting as a premise that there can be doubles in the world; politics -- the scene where Weronika meets Veronique is at a political rally, the east/west thing mentioned above, etc; art and love, obviously.... But the key to the "plot" of Veronique's life is "Does she keep singing, even if it kills her?"

Random closing thoughts:

I'm still thinking about and cannot resolve the mystery of the subplot about Veronique testifying in her friend's divorce(?) trial. What does it mean?

One thing that always bothered me about Kieslowski is a feeling i have that his movies are slightly (high key???) exploitative of his actresses, which seems like shabby repayment for their taking considerable artistic risks. Maybe I'm just getting this feeling from applying Lacan and Zizek to his movies though (that's two dudes who definitely don't understand about women...). I'd like to think I'm wrong about this, his masterworks are all with women and "about" women. I don't think he doesn't get this, though, see again the Puppetmaster (surely one of the creepiest dudes to ever grace an art film and that's saying a lot).

[kanzuus]

I watched this movie just out of curiosity and it's surprising how similar these two are

"Paws of Fury" Released in 2022 and lasting 85 minutes, it is an animated film that tells the story of Hank, a dog who infiltrated a country where dogs are prohibited only to become a samurai. It is a comedy story, there are clichés and at first it does not seem to be a movie beyond seeing it once with the family and that's it, but the thing is that this movie also makes fun of these same clichés, uses absurd humor and breaks the fourth wall often

However, the similarity between Hank and Yuichi stood out to me.

Environment:

Hank is a dog, in a country of cats, where dogs are prohibited and hated, so the difference between the protagonist and his environment becomes clear from the first seconds of the film. Hank wants to become a samurai, going to cat country almost knowing that he probably won't get much help just because he's a dog, and he is even arrested when he tries to enter the country illegally by the Shogun.

Hank doesn't fit into his environment

Yuichi, a rabbit who grew up on a farm, as far as we know, for most of his life, and when he decides to leave the nest, he goes to a city to become a great samurai, a farmer in a big city. Although the difference in this case is not so visible, it is there, Yuichi tries to fit in, talk to the people of the city, and this ended up being ignored by the residents themselves, and this is highlighted when he tries to help Gen, it is noticeable that when at first it didn't fit

Yuichi didn't fit into his environment

Reasons:

They both wanted to be Samurais, and they went far from home and comfort to achieve their goals, and they both have an idol that encouraged them to do this.

Yuichi has his ancestor, Miyamoto Usagi, thanks to the stories he read about him and his adventures, he had the idea of being a samurai just like him.

Hank has Jimbo, The samurai who had saved his life as a child, he never knew who that samurai who saved him was, but he did want to be equal to him and that is why he went to a world where that was impossible for him.

Development:

There is no equity here, it is obvious that the character that has the most development is Yuichi, and that is because Samurai Rabbit is a two-season series where his development can be explored adequately, but with Hank it is not the same, because it is a film that lasts exactly 85 minutes without counting the credits (There is a joke about this in the film in fact)

And although Hank's movie is the typical cliché of the hero's journey, there is still a development, no matter how minimal

Yuichi and Hank were selfish, believing that they could do anything and that they deserved the credit, believing that they were invincible to anyone. This is seen in the part when Hank claims to have defeated Sumo, although it was not really him, his arrogance reached such a point that on his pedestal he forgot and neglected something important, his honor and the village.

The village was attacked, and Hank was not there to defend it, this causes a relapse in the hero's journey.

Although Yuichi may have been arrogant, it is not the same type of arrogance, Yuichi believed that he did not even need a sensei, that what he had already learned on the farm was enough. In the first season, and even more so in the first chapters, Yuichi refuses to look for a sensei to train him properly (Unlike Hank, who looked for one from the beginning) It is when Yuichi makes a mistake that he begins to look for a sensei.

Sensei:

There are many differences between Jimbo and Karasu-Tengu

Jimbo is an overweight cat who laments between catnip and sake, remembering those days when he was a great samurai. Karasu-Tengu is a powerful and intimidating Yokai warrior.

But a similarity that I saw in the two of them is their distrust. Neither of them immediately agreed to train their disciple, they themselves earned the honor of being accepted by their teachers.

Part 2!

[jasonsutekh]

Django Unchained (2012)

A German bounty hunter befriends a slave searching for his wife but the odds are by far against them.

While a lot of Westerns manage the drama on the gore alone or at least the male posturing, this one manages to travel on a bed of comedy as well as the heavy subject matter which doesn’t get left ignored. The better humour come naturally to the situation, like how one guy gets repeatedly shot in the crossfire but never killed.

There is never going to be a way that it’d all end with out favourite characters surviving, if not because it’s a Western then because it’s a Tarantino film. Broaching a historical aspect with so much bloodshed implies inimicably that there will be a body count as well as enough loss conveyed to the audience that they’ll feel along with our protagonists.

Even though some parts of the narrative were farcicle, all the roles were played with deadly seriousness and the humour wouldn’t have occurred without this; in fact it’d have been somewhat offensive if the leads hadn’t treated it as a clear drama. There was still also enough action and cinematography to make the Western relevant again.

So few women were present in the story that one may almost forget that some slaves were women to begin with aside from the love interest who only had the role of damsell. There was also a lot of reliance on Django being a freed slave who could shoot naturally, foregrounding the point that minorities have to be exceptional to be considered human, or at least worthy of notice, which isn’t the case; people are people in their own right and that can’t even be the bar.

7/10 -Well above average, but no masterpiece-

-DiCaprio suffered a genuine hand injury while cutting open the skull but acted through it and in later scenes can be seen wearing a bandage.

-One of Calvin’s slaves is named “Samson”, after a human who was give enhanced strength by the gods, similar to the search for a “black Hercules”, Hercules was a demi-god know for super-human strength.

-Schultz was designed to reflect Doc Holiday, a dentist turned gunfighter.

[ask-artsy-oncie]

I've decided I'm not going to derail a post I ultimately agree with but the fucking level of frustration I feel at a cis person watching a Shrek movie and seeing transmisogynistic jokes - all but ONE of examples they list being from villains which exist in the story to help bolster its fucking themes - and deciding that it makes the movie harmful for kids to watch (and a bunch of idiots in the notes actually claiming that we, in fact, need to throw the whole thing away) makes me fucking insane. The theme of the movie is that society is broken and that it's wrong to judge or mistreat people based on aspects of themselves they cannot control. A good fucking number of DWA movies have that theme, actually. And yeah it's shitty that sometimes a poor-taste joke comes from the protagonists, there is no idealogically pure media out there and I'm not here to argue that, but it's pretty damn clear that there's intentions behind making villains act a certain way especially when the moral of the story is taken into consideration. It becomes willful ignorance being employed to fight on the behalf of a group you're not a part of (that's called talking over us, hon.)

Not to mention the reblog that was like "oh no, now we have to teach kids about the ills of the world and they won't get it", like how laughably fucking privileged. Nope. Some kids learn about the ills of the world from the world itself and not the media they consume. I can totally empathize with how shitty it is to have to explain that a show your kid likes did a really horrible thing and we shouldn't emulate that, but like. Fuck. Films like Shrek exist for the kids who have already been told off and/or dismissed by the world, and they'll actually benefit from seeing them, seeing themselves as good guys, seeing a narrative that goes against their oppressors. Like, Shrek 2 in particular sees the protagonist do everything he can to be palatable for his in-laws and it still isn't good enough. What an important fucking note for someone who's still figuring out respectability politics.

Sometimes a thing that can be harmful in one way can actually be beneficial in another way, who fucking knew??

But also lol at anyone who actually thought that the insane ramblings of the Fairy Godmother and Prince Charming were meant to be considered respectable by the narrative. Holy shit. A child would not make that mistake and yet that's the point of your post.

[filmsbyher]

To Be Tamed or Not To Be Tamed?

That is the question.

"Masculine and feminine roles are not biologically fixed but socially constructed."

In the 90s and early 2000s, Hollywood offered a counteract to the previous oppression of women and girls in cinema through the emergence of teen literary adaptations of classic novels and plays. These adaptations dismantled what audiences expected of a classic novel or Shakespearean film. Two films I believe stand out are: 10 Things I Hate About You and She’s The Man. 10 Things I Hate About You is an adaptation of one of Shakespeare’s earliest plays “Taming of the Screw” concerned with gender roles and the institution of marriage and She’s The Man follows the narrative of his tragic-comedy “Twelfth Night”, that incorporates androgyny, sexual ambiguity and gender confusion.

10 Things I Hate About You follows the story of two polarising sisters Kat and Bianca Stratford. Kat performs the role of the “shrew” - non-conformist, not afraid to express her opinions (which are compared to “acts of terrorism”), and independent. Whereas Bianca conforms to traditional gender roles this is displayed through the mise-en-scene: her room has lots of accents of pink and flowers, decorated with stuffed animals and dolls creating a certain archetype. Her interests also lie hegemonically in line with her gender - fashion, boys and dating - which are considered mainstream ideals of becoming popular in high school. Bianca is a clear example of the ideals of the Beauty Myth - blonde, slender, and daintily featured - and as a result, she is loved for adhering to its demands. Their father Walter Stratford acts as a vehicle for the concept that things are learnt through different environments, and parents have a distinct influence on gender and how people discover their identity. He does this by developing a rule that Bianca can only date if Kat does too - functioning as a symbol of patriarchal power and influence. 10 things offers a different kind of teen rom-com heroine: Kat’s punk, individualistic outlook, sarcastic tone, will to speak her mind, and sheer fearlessness in challenging the structures around her, embodies the spirit of third-wave feminism of the mid-90s. By making Kat and not the amiable Bianca the main protagonist, the story makes the feminist “shrew” aspirational - who lays the groundwork for other alternative and progressive women and girls paving the way for a generation of feminists.

Similarly, She’s the Man also shows gender can be “performed” in overt ways. The film belittles teen girls and their interests - Viola is shown to be at the mercy of her sexist football coach who believes that “Girls aren’t as fast as boys. It's not me talking, it’s a scientific fact,". This slur of misogyny spurs Viola to pose as her brother Sebastian to prove her worth and talent as a footballer. The film goes further in destabilising gender expectations and subverting gender stereotypes: the women are portrayed as being confident, playing sports and getting into physical fights whereas the men are seen crying, writing poetic song lyrics and screaming at the sight of spiders. By having the characters display behaviours which are contradictory to what is expected of them, the film highlights the arbitrary nature of gender roles and stereotypes. The film also shows how gender roles and expectations are prescribed - through Viola’s engagement with femininity - like 10 things Viola’s mother plays a role in highlighting her desire for her daughter’s conformity to feminine ideals (socialisation of women to be demure and “lady-like”).

Whilst both films subvert previous representations of women: there are still problems within them. Kat’s initial feminism can be rooted in the second wave of feminism where the movement largely ignored women of colour and queer women, focusing on advancing the rights of affluent caucasian women: of which Kat is representative of. This is echoes Bell Hook's idea of intersectionality where it is recognised that social classifications (race, gender, sexual identity, class) are interconnected and that ignoring their intersection created oppression towards women and change the experience of living as a woman in society.

Some critics have interpreted 10 things ending to be Kat subduing to her feminism by settling into a relationship with Patrick and conforming to the social norms of high school. However I think that the ending can be seen in a positive light: Kat is practising third-wave feminism, by marrying her political beliefs to freedom of choice, showing a sign of her growth. Bianca is also shown progressively: by choosing the less popular man for the one who truly cares and will make her happy as well as punching Joey in the face for the objectification of her and Kat. Kat learns to accept the affections of a man who respects her while retaining her beliefs and feminism. She’s the Man introduced a much more fluid concept of gender to a younger audience than was in the current mainstream. It helped unconsciously create a space for transgressive sexualities and gender identities when neither were represented in the mainstream as well as disseminating these concepts into younger audiences eyeline for them to ascribe their own meanings and interpretations. Both films effectively explore the themes of feminism, identity and gender politics in both similar and contrasting ways serving as starting blocks for a journey to equal and progressive representation in film and media.

[nanshe-of-nina]

Favorite History Books || Grand-Guignol: The French Theatre of Horror by Michael Wilson and Richard J. Hand ★★★★☆

The phrase ‘grand-guignol’ has entered the language as a general term for the display of grotesque violence within performance media, but it originates in a specific theatre down an obscure alley in Paris. The Grand-Guignol was a remarkable theatre. For more than six decades it thrilled its audiences with a peculiar blend of horrific violence, the erotic and fast-paced comedy. In its time it achieved international notoriety and became one of the most successful tourist attractions in the French capital.

It is, therefore, all the more extraordinary that, both in its lifetime and since its demise, the Grand-Guignol has been virtually ignored by academics and today has the status of one of the world’s great forgotten theatres. It is not difficult to lay the blame for this neglect at the door of institutional conservatism and general disdain in the past for the serious study of popular theatre in academic circles. For many years the Grand-Guignol was simply deemed unworthy of serious consideration and the very recipe for its success with the public was sufficient to secure its dismissal by theatre historians. It is, therefore, to be welcomed that recent years have witnessed a growing interest in popular culture; the horror genre, in its many forms, has now entered the arena of scholarly debate. This book has been prepared in that context and, partly at least, in response to the lack of material available on the Grand-Guignol, particularly to the English-speaking reader.

The Grand-Guignol emerged at a crucial and exciting time for theatre. It was conceived in the nineteenth century, directly from the groundbreaking work of André Antoine and his fellow naturalist radicals at the Théâtre Libre. In fact, it grew up to become a child of the twentieth century, emerging as a complex and seemingly contradictory mixture of theatrical traditions and genres characterized by its use of both horror and comedy plays, incorporating melodrama and naturalism, and going on to reflect the influence of Expressionism and film. Yet at its heart it always remained a popular theatre and, more crucially, a modern theatre. If the dawn of the twentieth century was a critical period in the development of European theatre, then the same can be said for the horror genre itself. As Paul Wells states: As the nineteenth century passed into the twentieth, this prevailing moral and ethical tension between the individual and the sociopolitical order was profoundly affected by some of the most significant shifts in social and cultural life. This effectively reconfigured the notion of evil in the horror text . . . in a way that moved beyond issues of fantasy and ideology and into the realms of material existence and an overt challenge to established cultural value systems.

The Grand-Guignol only became what it did because it emerged when it did and where it did. When talking of a ‘Theatre of Horror’ one might imagine the monster-iconography and Gothic extravaganzas (ironic or otherwise) on display in Richard O’Brien’s The Rocky Horror Show, Andrew Lloyd-Webber’s Phantom of the Opera, and even Anne Rice’s Interview with the Vampire. But as a realist form that never strays far from a grounding in Zola-inspired naturalism, “Grand Guignol requires sadists rather than monsters”. Although the Grand-Guignol steers well clear of all things supernatural, it pushes the human subject into monstrosity, extrapolating, as it were, la bête humaine into le monstre humain. André de Lorde sums up this aspect of the Grand-Guignol when he writes in the preface to La Galerie des monstres, ‘we have a monster within us—a potential monster’. The psychological motivation of the Grand-Guignol protagonist/antagonist—in the comedies as much as the horror plays—is dictated by primal instincts, or unpredictable mania, the plots obsessed with death, sex and insanity and exacerbated or compounded by grotesque coincidence or haunting irony.

Aside from a few books on the subject, the Grand-Guignol’s most substantial surviving legacy is the collection of scripts, housed at the Bibliothèque de l’Arsenal, fifty-five of which are contained in Agnès Pierron’s Le Grand-Guignol. There also exists a number of photographic stills, documentary footage, press cuttings, programme notes and eye-witness accounts. The most useful of these are the memoirs of Paula Maxa, the most celebrated Grand-Guignol actor; what she is able to tell us about performing at the rue Chaptal is invaluable, in spite of her subjectivity and desire to create her own mythology. Apart from this we have very little to tell us about the nature of performance in relation to Grand-Guignol and we are left to our own hypothesizing. To this end we have established a Grand-Guignol Laboratory at the University of Glamorgan to investigate the performative nature of the form. Using student actors, we have attempted to learn more about Grand-Guignol performance through the practical exploration of scripts and themes in the drama studio and many of the conclusions contained in this book are informed by that work. We would agree with Mel Gordon that the Grand-Guignol greatly influenced subsequent horror films, even though it was, ironically, the cinema that contributed largely to the theatre’s demise. In the Grand-Guignol Laboratory we have found films particularly beneficial as an entry point into our speculative study towards understanding performance practice at the Grand-Guignol. At the same time, it would be a grave mistake to make assumptions about the Grand-Guignol based solely on cinematic evidence. Cinema and theatre are different forms and so we have always trodden with great care in this respect. It is a difference recognized by Maxa herself when she says:

“In the cinema you have a series of images. Everything happens very quickly. But to see people in the flesh suffering and dying at the slow pace required by live performance, that is much more effective. It’s a different thing altogether.”

[aro-comics]

Fashion Analysis (Part 2: Outside of Amatonormativity Alone)

[Note: This post is a part of a series analyzing self-expression, fashion, aromanticism, and how they interact with other parts of identity. For full context please read the whole thing!]

Outside of Amatonormativity Alone: Sexism, Homophobia (and/or Transphobia), Racism, Ableism, and Other Factors That can Impact Self Expression 

My comic was originally meant to be a light hearted joke. I’d always been told I’d want to dress up one day, be pretty and feminine once I fell in love with a boy (BLEGH). I was so certain that I would never do that, and now … here we are. I put lots of effort into my appearance, present feminine, all in the hopes I’ll impress a very special someone - a potential employer at a networking event. I think there’s a certain irony to all of this, and I do find it funny that I managed to both be wrong and completely subvert amatonormative stereotypes! 

But having the chance to think about the whole situation, I realize now that my changes in presentation reflect far more. The pressure I felt to dress differently are still influenced by fundamental forms of discrimination in society, and I would be remiss to not address these inherent factors that were tied with my experiences alongside my aromanticism. So in this section, I will briefly cover some of these factors and summarize how they can influence people’s self expression as a whole, before discussing my own experiences and how these factors all intersect. 

Sexism

The pressure on women In This Society to uphold arbitrary norms is ever present and often harmful, and while I wish I had the time to discuss the impacts of every influence the patriarchy has on personal expression, to even try to cover a fraction of it would be impractical at best for this essay. Instead, since the original comic focuses on professionalism and presentation, this is what I will talk about here. 

Beauty standards are a specific manifestation of sexism that have a deep impact on how people perceive women. It’s a complicated subject that’s also tied with factors like capitalism, white supremacy, classism, and more, but to summarize the main sentiment: Women are expected to be beautiful. Or at least, conform to the expectations of “feminine” “beauty” as ascribed by the culture at large. 

They also tend to be considered exclusively as this idea that "women need to be beautiful to secure their romantic prospects, which subsequently determines their worth as human beings. The problematic implications of this sentiment have been called out time and time again (and rightfully so), however there is an often overlooked second problematic element to beauty standards, as stated in the quote below: 

“Beauty standards are the individual qualifications women are expected to meet in order to embody the “feminine beauty ideal” and thus, succeed personally and professionally” 

- Jessica DeFino. (Source 1) 

… To succeed personally, and professionally. 

The “Ugly Duckling Transformation” by Mina Le (Source 2) is a great video essay that covers the topic of conforming to beauty standards through the common “glow up” trope present in many (female focused) films from the early 2000s. 

“In most of these movies, the [main character] is a nice person, but is bullied or ignored because of her looks.”

Mina Le, (timestamp 4:02-4:06)

Generally, by whatever plot device necessary, the ugly duckling will adopt a new “improved” presentation that includes makeup, a new haircut, and a new wardrobe. While it is not inherently problematic for a woman to be shown changing to embrace more feminine traits, there are a few problems with how the outcomes of these transformations are always depicted and what they imply. For starters, this transformation is shown to be the key that grants the protagonist her wishes and gives her confidence and better treatment by her peers. What this is essentially saying is that women are also expected to follow beauty standards to be treated well in general, not only in a romantic context, and deviation from these norms leads to the consequences of being ostracized. 

The other problematic element of how these transformations are portrayed are the fact that generally the ONLY kind of change that is depicted in popular media is one in the more feminine direction. Shanspeare, another video essayist on YouTube, investigates this phenomenon in more detail in “the tomboy figure, gender expression, and the media that portrays them” (Source 4). In this video, Shaniya explains that “tomboy” characters are only ever portrayed as children - which doesn’t make any sense at face value, considering that there ARE plenty of masculine adult women in real life. But through the course of the video (and I would highly recommend giving it a watch! It is very good), it becomes evident that the “maturity” aspect of coming of age movies inherently tie the idea of growth with “learning” to become more feminine. Because of the prevalence of these storylines (as few mainstream plots will celebrate a woman becoming more masculine and embracing gender nonconformity) it becomes clear that femininity is fundamentally associated with maturity. It also implies that masculinity in women is not only not preferred, it is unacceptable to be considered mature. Both of these sentiments are ones that should be questioned, too. 

Overall, I think it is clear that these physical presentation expectations, even if not as restrictive as historical dress codes for women have been, are still inherently sexist (not to mention harmful by also influencing people to have poor self image and subsequent mental health disorders). Nobody should have to dress in conformity with gender norms to be considered “acceptable”, not only desirable, which leads us to the second part of this section. 

Homophobia (and/or Transphobia)

So what happens when women don’t adhere to social expectations of femininity? (Or in general, someone chooses to present in a way that challenges the gender binary and their AGAB, but for the sake of simplicity I will discuss it from my particular lens as a cis woman who is pansexual). 

There are a lot of nuances, of course, to whether it’s right that straying from femininity as a woman (or someone assumed to be a woman) will automatically get read a certain way by society. But like it or not, right or not, if you look butch many people WILL see you as either gay, (or trans-masculine, which either way is not a cishet woman). This is tied to the fact that masculinity is something historically associated with being WLW (something we will discuss later). 

This association of breaking gender norms in methods of dress with being perceived as a member of the LGBTQ+ community has an influence on how people may choose to express themselves, because LGBTQ+ discrimination is very real, and it can be very dangerous in many parts of the world. 

I think it’s very easy to write off claims in particular that women are pressured into dressing femininely when it is safer to do so in your area; but I really want to remind everyone that not everyone has the luxury of presenting in a gender non-conforming way. This pressure to conform does exist in many parts of the world, and can be lethal when challenged.

And even if you’re not in an extremely anti-LGBTQ+ environment/places that are considered “progressive” (like Canada), there are still numerous microagressions/non-lethal forms of discrimination that are just as widespread. According to Statistics Canada in 2019: 

Close to half (47%) of students at Canadian postsecondary institutions witnessed or experienced discrimination on the basis of gender, gender identity or sexual orientation (including actual or perceived gender, gender identity or sexual orientation).

(Source 3)

Fundamentally this additional pressure that exists when one chooses to deviate from gender norms is one that can not be ignored in the conversation when it comes to how people may choose to express themselves visually, and I believe the impacts that this factor has and how it interacts with the other factors discussed should be considered. 

Neurodivergence (In general): 

In general, beauty standards/expectations for how a “mature” adult should dress can often include clothing that creates sensory issues for many autistic people. A thread on the National Austistic Forum (Source 6) contains a discussion where different austistic people describe their struggles with formal dress codes and the discomfort of being forced to wear stiff/restrictive clothing, especially when these dress codes have no practical purpose for the work they perform. If you’re interested in learning more on this subject, the Autisticats also has a thread on how school dress codes specifically can be harmful to Autistic people (Source 7). 

In addition to potentially dressing differently (which as we have already covered can be a point of contention in one’s perception and reception by society as a whole), neurodivergence is another layer of identity that tends to be infantilized. Eden from the Autsticats has detailed their experiences with this in source 5. 

Both of these factors can provide a degree of influence on how people choose to express themselves and/or how they may be perceived by society, and are important facets of a diverse and thoughtful exploration of the ways self-expression can be impacted by identity. 

Also, while on this topic, I just want to take a chance to highlight the fact that we should question what is considered “appropriate”, especially “professionally appropriate”, because the “traditional” definitions of these have historically been used to discriminate against minorities. Much of what gets defined as “unprofessional” or otherwise “inappropriate” has racist implications - as an example, there is a history of black hairstyles being subjected to discriminatory regulation. Other sources I have provided at the end of this document (8 and 9) list examples of these instances.  

Racism (being Chinese, specifically in this case): 

For this section, I won’t be going into much depth at all, because I actually have a more detailed comic on this subject lined up. 

So basically, if you were not aware, East Asian (EA) people tend to be infantilized and viewed as more childish (Source 10). In particular, unless an EA woman is super outgoing and promiscuous (the “Asian Bad Girl” stereotype, see Source 10), IN MY OPINION AND EXPERIENCE it’s easy to be type casted as the other end of the spectrum: the quiet, boring nerd. On top of this too, I’ve had experiences with talking to other EA/SEA people - where they themselves would repeatedly tell me that “Asians are just less mature”,  something about it being a “cultural thing” (Yeah … I don’t know either. Maybe it’s internalized racism?). 

Either way, being so easily perceived as immature (considering everything discussed so far) is also tied to conformity to beauty standards and other factors such as sexism and homophobia, which I believe makes for a complex intersection of identity. 

[Note from Author: For Part 3, click here!]

[rollflasher]

Another Sonic ramble

So once again I’m here with one of my rambles about my incredibly subjective view of how the Sonic series should be handled! *Beat*

...anyway.

So, one of the more recurring opinions on the fandom is that Sonic games should be written by Ian Flynn, I have talked before about the gripes I have with his writing and why I disagree with this but this post is not entirely about him, but rather a more general topic that has been bugging me for a long time.

The other day I was watching a video speculating about the upcoming Sonic Rangers, there’s not much to write home since it was pretty well made but there’s a particular part that inspired me to do this post and talk about it with other fans to discuss it.

See, at one point the video critisized the fact that Sonic Forces was written by a Japanese writer because they have to re-write the script in English and that can cause problems with localization, and that it would be better to have western writers from the get-go since Sonic’s main demographic comes from there, while making an off-hand suggestion that Ian Flynn could be a main choice. While I can see where they’re coming from, my response was a simple:

‘‘Absolutely, not’‘

See, I have a lot of issues with this to put it bluntly and I’ll try to break them down and explain them the best I can since they’re pretty subjective in nature, but I’m bringing this up because I want you guys to share your thoughts as well.

So, why does it bug me so much the idea of Sonic being handled by western creators?

In my case, the main reasons are because Sonic loses a core part of it’s appeal because of this, the fact that SEGA of Japan seems to have a better grasp of the franchise’s tone and characters and there’s the very subjective point that, in my eyes, American versions of Japanese franchises were always nothing more than dumbed down products of the source material.

To start with my first point, whenever someone talks about Sonic’s creation, a lot of people are quick to point out that our favorite blue hedgehog and his games were inspired by western pop culture and cartoons, and that is true, however oftenly they forget to mention a core thing that not only inspired, but also formed part of the core identity of this franchise.

Sonic is very inspired on anime, and at heart this franchise is a shonen.

(This image by The Great Lange expresses more clearly what I mean)

Generally, the most acknowledgement anime gets on it’s hand on Sonic is the mentions of Sonic being inspired by Dragon Ball, particularly the Super Saiyan, but there’s so much more than that, as Sonic blatantly takes inspiration from Studio Ghibli films specially in games like Sonic 3, which draws a lot of inspiration from Laputa: Castle in the Sky, this great post shows proof that this is not a coincidence.

And it doesn’t stop there, Shiro Maekawa himself has stated that SA2′s story (and in particular, the characters of Shadow and Maria) draw a lot of inspiration from the manga Please Save My Earth.

Even Sonic’s character design resembles shonen protagonists moreso than the main characters of silent cartoons, don’t believe me?

Sure, Sonic has a cartoony anatomy, no one can deny that, but he also exhibits a lot of traits from shonen characters such as spiky hair/quills (?), dynamic posing, a confident, courageous and energetic personality and most importantly, fighting spirit.

If you compare Sonic’s personality and more specifically, his abilities and moves to, say, cartoon speedy characters like the Road Runner, there’s a pretty big disconnection between him and western cartoon characters. Hell, this disconnection is even just as present if you compare him with a character like The Flash from DC.

Simply put, Sonic acts, moves and more importantly, fights like a shonen anime character. He doesn’t just go Super Saiyan and that’s it. Here’s even a quick comparison if necessary.

And this is important because this doesn’t apply just to him, but the whole franchise as a whole and when it takes a more western approach, all of these details are kinda lost or more downplayed, of course this depends on the artists and there’s YMMV at hand, but I think my point is clear.

My second point is...SoJ has consistently proven they have a much clearer grasp on how Sonic’s world and characters are compared to SoA.

Hear me out, yes, Sonic 06 and ShtH exist and yes, SoJ is not perfect by any means. But hear me out...when did the characters start to get flanderized and turned into parodies of themselves? In the 2010s...and when did SEGA move from Japanese to western writers in the games?

Of course it was more then that since there’s a whole tone shift that came with this decade and the new writers, but it’s not a coincidence that when writing in Sonic started to decay, western writers also happened to get on board with the games.

Besides that, SoA has a wide history of not getting Sonic’s tone and characters, from how they made media without much of Sonic Team’s input, to altering how characters are seen in the west. (Such as how they amped up Sonic’s attitude in their media or how the English scripts of the games featured things like Sonic seemingly barely tolerating Amy while the JP scripts portrayed this as Sonic just not understanding girls all that well instead, or for more recent examples, the addition of the ‘’torture’’ line in Forces). Not only that, but even ignoring obvious infamous writers like Ken Penders, even the ‘’best’’ writers from the western side of Sonic are still not above of giving us Pontaff-esque gems.

Like this one.

Or alternatively, I feel like sometimes western writers on Sonic rely a bit too much on their personal vision about Sonic which may or may not be a good thing, clear examples of this are Ian Flynn himself and Pontaff.

By contrast, while SoJ has it’s own share of notorious inconsistencies when dealing with writing (The 2000s era is a big offender), it seems that for them Sonic hasn’t changed much and this is visible not only on the JP scripts of the Modern games which are for the most part better than the ENG ones, but also things like the Sonic Channel comics and the recent one-shots they made with Sonic interacting with the cast show that for all intents and purposes, the Japanese’s staff vision of Sonic is much more clear and consistent compared to the west. Because of this, I’d rather have a good Japanese writer on Sonic games with the localization being focused on being faithful with the original script than have a more western writers dramatically changing the characters. (I don’t mention the tone since either way, SEGA is the one in charge of that and the writers have to follow that)

My last and very subjective point is that, at least for me, everything SoA does with Sonic involving the writing and canon feels like a dumbed down version of the source material. One of the reasons it bugs me so much that in the latest decade Sonic has taken a more western direction is because a lot of what I pointed out gets lost as a result, even if some of those elements are still there, you can tell they’re more downplayed with products like the Tyson Hesse shorts having a more predominant cartoon direction. If any of you have been following my blog for a long time, you should be aware that just because I prefer the Japanese Sonic content doesn’t mean I won’t give the western products a chance, my enjoyment for Mania, the Tyson Hesse shorts and the movie should be a testament of that, but at the same time I can’t help but being sour about the fact that because of these products, we don’t have stuff like a new anime for Sonic or even a serialized ‘’main’’ manga as an alternative for the comics, and my hype for these products is generally more subdued as a result since I’d wish SEGA rather spent that money and resources on more Japanese content than just merchandise.

In particular, because Sonic is a Japanese franchise with a notorious inspiration from anime, what I get from this is a pretty big contradiction. I know Sonic is much more popular on the west but...is it really necessary for his game or products to be handled by western creators to keep their appeal?

For instance, imagine if Dragon Ball’s manga and anime got replaced by western comics and animated series because of it’s world-wide appeal, would that really be the same?

Or imagine the same thing with Fullmetal Alchemist, a pretty aclaimed anime that has a lot of western influence. Would it really not matter at all if it’s Japanese products were replaced with western ones?

At least for me, it wouldn’t.

And what I said about American versions of Japanese franchises being nothing more than watered down versions of the source material? I have that view because of countless examples.

Mega Man and how the English manuals removed a lot of important information about the story of the Blue Bomber’s game and world, causing a lot of plot holes in the process.

American remakes like Godzilla 1998 or Dragon Ball Evolution being an in-name only version of the source material.

Or the many censored anime English dubs from the 2000s, for instance, whenever I see the Yu-Gi-Oh! dubs, I only see a very dumbed down and childish version of a show that was originally a shonen.

And I know that all of these things don’t have to necessarely get lost since every creator is different and there’s franchises like Avatar which are made on the west but draw a lot of inspiration from anime and I’m aware of that, and I want to make it clear that I’m not trying to say that American writers are not allowed to work on Sonic, what I’m trying to say is that inevitably there’s always gonna be some culture dissonance and clash when writers from another culture handle a foreign franchise. And even with examples like ATLA, I think being made by one culture while being inspired by the other is actually a big part of these franchises appeal and it’s something that can’t simply be replicated by handing it to creators from that specific culture they draw inspiration from.

I think James Rolfe’s quote about the same thing with the Godzilla franchise sums up how I feel about this.

‘‘It’s like champagne, anybody can make their own and call it champagne, but unless it’s from Champagne France, it’s not real champagne’‘

So, this last part was very subjective, but I think this post in general sums up why I dislike so much the idea of Sonic having western writers specifically in the games or just focusing more on that side in general.

But what do you guys think? I guess I am too biased so that’s why I wanted to ask for opinions and discuss this topic.

[plotbnuy]

KarpReviews - The Hunger Games: The Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes

Back when The Hunger Games became a huge phenomenon, I have to admit that it didn’t quite grab me like it did for many. The original film came out on March 23rd, 2012, followed by Catching Fire late next year. These films started a trend of dystopian novel movie adaptations, with Divergent coming out on March 21st 2014, and Maze Runner coming out on September 19th that same year. By the time Mockingjay: Part One released on November 21′s, right after Maze Runner, I’d become a little burnt out on these tales of children fighting for survival against an oppressive system meant to keep society under control. Despite reading the first two books in the series, I didn’t return for Mockingjay. 

That is, until a few months ago.  I decided to give the books another try, and to my delight I grew to really love and appreciate them. Katniss is a wonderful protagonist, surrounded by a surprisingly colorful and interesting cast of characters (even though it still features the classic love triangle trope.) While the first two books were rereads, going in blind into Mockingjay was a treat, and I felt the series had a wonderfully satisfying ending. 

Imagine my delight, however, when I realized that there was a prequel to the series! The Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes features a much different entry in the story, taking place long before the events of the main series to highlight the tenth Hunger Games. In order to spice up what is comparatively an archaic and unpolished annual event, The Capitol has enlisted a large selection of students from an elite secondary school - simply referred to as “The Academy” - to mentor the children forced to fight in the arena! Who else should be chosen to be a mentor but a young Coriolanus Snow, hoping to become recognized and attain a university scholarship on his path to becoming President of Panem.

Yes, this entry puts us in the perspective of the infamous Coriolanus Snow, allowing us to see a little bit into what led to the events of the original Hunger Games novel. Not only does it flesh out Snow himself, but also how the titular event became the lavish, intricate, and audacious spectacle depicted during Katniss’s run in the arena. This allows this entry to differentiate itself immensely from the others, allowing it to feel fresh and new while it gives us a better look into the universe we’ve become a part of after three other novels and four films. With that being said, I want to dive deeper into what makes this particular entry so engaging. 

While other entries in the series have a bit of a fluid structure, our story this time is split into very neat thirds: The events leading up to the games, the games themselves, and the aftermath. This time, we get to see the perspective of the games from the capitol’s eyes, as opposed to the districts. However, while the event is massively celebrated, with banquets, parties, tours, and intricate broadcasts during the 74th and 75th Hunger Games, the 10th is much different. It’s much bleaker and more depressing, as tributes are treated like livestock, with no access to good food or proper shelter. Many citizens, District or Capitol, would rather ignore the barbaric event, only bothering to attend The Reaping before returning to daily life. There’s no reward for victory, beyond the singular tribute avoiding death, only to return to the poverty-stricken districts. Tributes die before even entering the arena, leading the games themselves to be swift and merciless. 

Ultimately, this raw and bleak depiction of the games, combined with Capitol citizens not yet disillusioned by the grandeur of future games, still recovering from the war, is a perfect choice for this Capitol-centric prequel. It keeps the citizens of The Capitol that we spend most of our time with from being completely unsympathetic, and it allows for a much more engaging story. Even before the games themselves, many things happen that impact the story, allowing for a lot of tension as things lead up to the main event. 

Speaking of the Hunger Games, this is the first time we get to enjoy them from outside of the arena itself. As the story follows our mentors, we get to watch from their perspective as spectators as the games commence in the arena. This event also happens to be the first where sponsors are allowed to affect the games, sending gifts for the tributes to possibly keep them alive. Since the mentors themselves have agency over the games, they never feel boring as you hope for the survival of our main character’s tribute. The aftermath of the games left me absolutely shocked, leading into a finale that felt unlike anything the series has had to offer before.

Even though Coriolanus Snow is designated as our main character, this story is truly given life by the people who surround him. Closest to him is Sejanus Plinth, a childhood friend who joins Snow in the tribute mentorship program as his classmate. At first, Sejanus is telegraphed as an old rival and a clear foil to Snow, and you suspect he’ll be something of an antagonist given the disdain Coriolanus seems to have for him. However, I was pleasantly surprised as the story paints a much more intricate picture of our main character’s best friend. Their relationship is one of the many highlights of this story, as even when Snow tries to distance himself, or otherwise shows dislike for Sejanus, their paths become forcibly intertwined, and it becomes unclear whether they will become bitter rivals or loyal comrades.

The real star of the show for me is Coriolanus’s tribute, a District 12 girl named Lucy Grey Baird. A member of the Covey, she’s a performer and singer who prides herself in her skill for entertainment. With both Panem and the reader as her audience, her personality and charm is utterly captivating, with an even sharper wit than Katniss. Despite the circumstances, she becomes fond of Coriolanus early on, a fact attributed to Snow being one of the few mentors that goes out of his way to forge a bond with his tribute. She leaves an impression from her very first scene, and every moment with her going forward is captivating and wonderful. Truly, if I had to give a single reason to read this book, it would be for Lucy Grey specifically. Even though her situation seems completely impossible, you can’t help but hope for her victory in the games. 

Of course, there’s always room for a good antagonist, even in a story starring Coriolanus Snow. Casca Highbottom, dean of The Academy, is one of the main obstacles making Snow’s future so uneasy. The story says little about him at first, only that he isn’t Coriolanus’s biggest fan, and that he created the Hunger Games themselves. He’s hard to read as a threat, given his addiction to painkillers and somewhat contradictory dialogue. Truthfully, he’s not much of a villain. 

Enter Doctor Volumnia Gaul.  Serving as the head Gamemaker, as well as an instructor at the Capitol University, she spends a large amount of time with both Coriolanus and the other mentors. Specializing in the “muttations” that her labs create for the Capitol, she serves as something of a mentor herself for Snow, challenging his morals and shaping his ideals. She starts off as seeming like an ally, only for her to show just how dangerous she is. She has a blatant disregard for life itself, only just barely being grounded enough to not be entirely absurd. Her presence gives the story a lot of much-needed tension, and I found her to be absolutely riveting. 

What impresses me the most about Songbirds and Snakes is how it expertly avoids delivering what could have easily come off as a tragic backstory intended to garner sympathy for Panem’s ruthless dictator. Instead, it cleverly highlights Coriolanus’s personality, nature, aspirations, and faults, adding to his character without ever trying to suggest that he’s misunderstood or redeemable. His downfall, while accelerated by his environment, can be attributed entirely to the choices he makes himself. Even when surrounded by good people who genuinely love and care for him, miles away from the capitol, he makes the choice to become who he is: a vile, treacherous, untrusting snake. Yet, despite knowing his fate, there was a part of me that hoped he would make the right choice anyway, making the end of his arc even more effective. 

Suzanne Collins is a truly talented writer. Not only is the original trilogy a fantastic read, but she managed to craft a prequel that both builds the lore of the series and has a major impact on the story as a whole. The connecting tissue between this prequel and the rest of the series is solid, not only fleshing out the world explicitly, but leaving breadcrumbs for attentive fans to enjoy. Upon reading the final chapters, there was a particular scene I couldn’t get out of my head. It wasn’t one within the book itself, but one that harkened forward to Mockingjay. I can picture Coriolanus Snow, eyes focused on the television as the rebels broadcast another one of Katniss’s propaganda videos. He can tell she’s in District 12, walking amongst the rubble of the decimated mining town. He thinks to turn away from the image of the collapsed Justice building and broken town square... until he hears Katniss begin to sing. His blood runs ice cold, every hair on his body stands on end, and in a hoarse, mangled voice, he begins to wail. Every one of his past sins comes rushing back as Katniss Everdeen unwittingly deals the most devastating blow she could ever give to Coriolanus Snow. It’s a scene that remains completely theoretical, and yet it’s perhaps one of the most powerful images in the entire Hunger Games saga. If you’ve enjoyed the rest of the series, then I urge you to read The Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes.

[broadwaycutie16]

Earlier today, I watched a video by TheTake on YouTube, exploring and deconstructing the “Nice Guy” trope in popular media.

Basically, the trope explained the Nice Guy trope and how toxic it really is, devaluing the girl’s feelings in a relationship and promoting male entitlement. Now, I’ve heard many people in this fandom complain that Adrien Agreste is the embodiment of this trope. The underdog sweet boy, pining after a girl who has rejected his feelings multiple times, persisting in his romantic advances towards her despite her making her disinterest clear.

While I must admit that Adrien does check many of the boxes for the standard Nice Guy, I quickly remembered who else in the show, besides him, checks out many of the same boxes, and perhaps a few more than him. Someone who exhibits many of the same behaviors of the Nice Guy, but whose less-than-healthy attitude of love is often overlooked and/or pardoned by most of the fandom, while they bash Adrien for similar behaviors.

Can you guess who it is?

It’s Marinette Dupain-Cheng.

I know what you’re thinking. How dare I accuse Marinette of such a toxic mindset! She’s the hero of our story! She fights off the bitches that are bad for Adrien and yet he doesn’t even give her the love she deserves! Adrien is the one who should consider himself lucky that she adores him! Hashtag Marinette Deserves Better!

But you see that right there? That, my friends, is what makes Marinette Dupain-Cheng, in my opinion, more of a Nice Guy than Adrien Agreste.

The whole purpose of the Nice Guy trope is to make us root for the underdog. Because who doesn’t love a good story where the loser that everyone expected to fail spectacularly ends up winning it all in magnificent fashion? Almost every movie has it’s underdog. With sports movies, it’s the unathletic wimp with a skinny, small, and/or weak body. In high school movies, it’s the outcast weird kid who’s been ostracized by the popular crowd for their unusual interests and/or attitude. In romantic comedies, the underdog is the hopelessly romantic Nice Guy who adores the girl and worships her like a goddess, as opposed to the cooler, more aloof, more sociotially successful man who takes her for granted. And since the cardinal rule of feel-good films is that underdog must end up getting what he’s been wanting throughout the whole movie, the movie then directs the story narrative to favor the Nice Guy’s desires, manipulating the audience to cheer him on and, in the process, blatantly dismiss all his unhealthy behaviors and obsessive traits, like stalking the object of his affections or trying to edge out any competition he has.

Sound familiar? That’s because that’s exactly what many Marinette stans who are also Adrien haters do.

I’m not saying Marinette is a bad person, but as far as Nice Guys go, she has shown us many red flags. She often stalks Adrien, trying to sneak into parties she has not been invited to just to see him, or following him to his house when he goes to study with one of her enemies. She often tries to keep away any girls she sees as competition for Adrien. With Chloé and Lila, it’s semi-justifies, because they can be total bitches. But not Kagami.

Is Kagami kind of cold? Yes. Can she be competitive? Absolutely. But she is not evil. Many Adrienette shippers often hate on Kagami, saying she is a stone cold bitch who will stop at nothing to “steal” Adrien away from Marinette. They misinterpret what she whispered in Marinette’s ear during Frozer. Kagami said, “The reason you cannot stand on your feet is your hesitation. I never hesistate.” Adrienette shippers translate this to, “He’s mine, bitch. Back off, or I’ll kill you.” But what she’s ACTUALLY saying is, “I know you like Adrien, but I like him, too, and I’m not gonna just back off out of curtesy while you fumble the ball. So if you want Adrien, you’re going to have to win him from me fair and square. That means you have to suck up whatever insecurities you have and really work to win him over.” She knows Marinette loves Adrien, but Kagami loves him, too. And she’s not just gonna wait around for Marinette to get over her nervousness and ask Adrien out of curtesy. She’s telling Marinette that if she wants Adrien, she needs to get herself together and go after him while he’s still available.

Kagami is not a bad person. She is simply lacking in social experience to properly express her emotions and desires without coming off as an ice queen. And yet, many Adrienette shippers view her through the same toxic lens as many fans of romantic comedies view love rivals of the Nice Guy. If the rival is even the tiniest bit self-serving or emotionally detached, they are automatically dismissed as bad people and therefore, less worthy of the main love interest than the Nice Guy. Thus, viewers are quick to pardon any attempts made by the Nice Guy to sabotage or undermine his rival as a necessary evil, something that must be done so that “true love” can prevail. Like say, I dunno, setting the rival up to be humiliated at a fancy party, despite all that they did to supposedly deserve such treatment was show up to said event, which they were invited to, and act friendly towards the main love interest, because they ARE friends?

If the scenario seems familiar, that’s because that’s exactly what Marinette tried to do to Kagami in Animeastro.

One thing I’ve noticed about this fandom, is that people seem to have a double standard when it comes to Marinette’s negative behaviors vs. Adrien’s. In Glaciator, Adrien seems to accept Ladybug’s rejection, claiming that her friendship was what mattered most, then takes back everything he said in Frozer, acting salty towards Ladybug for her earlier second rejection. After that, the whole fandom was on his case, calling him a jerk and a liar.

Am I happy Adrien went back on his word like that? Of course not. But in that same episode of Frozer, Marinette accepts that she may not be more than Adrien’s friend, and even helps him on his date with Kagami, despite her heartache and despite how everyone thought she was crazy for doing so. Super sweet, right? Except when Animeastro happens, she goes back on her mature acceptance and teams up with her worst enemy, all for the purpose of embarrassing the same girl who she supposedly accepted Adrien might like instead of her. Funnily enough, no one in the fandom seemed to give her any flack for that, despite the fact that it was an exhibitation of the same possessive, hypocrital and selfish behavior that Adrien displayed earlier on, which everyone hated on him for.

Many Marinette fans are projecting the same toxic, biased mindset onto her that fans of romantic comedies project onto the Nice Guy. They excuse any negative behaviors done by the protagonist, insisting that it’s for the greater good, all while hating on the love interest for not immediately falling into their arms. They prioritize the needs and feelings of the Nice Guy/Marinette while completely disregarding those of their love interests.

Marinette stans insist that she deserves Adrien’s love more than anyone else, bashing Adrien for overlooking her in favor of other girls. After all, Marinette has done so much for Adrien, while all Ladybug does is reject him in favor of some other guy, despite how he’s put his heart and life on the line for her. That means he should just cast aside his feelings for Ladybug and settle for Marinette, right? Well, by those standards, shouldn’t Ladybug do the same? After all, Chat Noir has risked his life for her several times and made it clear he adores her, while all Adrien has done is ignore her feelings in favor of other girls, even though she’s been right there the whole time. If Adrien should ignore some of Marinette’s stalker tendacies and easily-jealous nature, shouldn’t Ladybug be able to overlook some of Chat Noir’s less-than-acceptable behaviors?

Marinette fans often share the mindset of Nice Guy stans of romance as a moral issue, harboring the idea that goodness and unwavering affection should automatically earn romantic feelings. They believe that being nice to someone automatically means they owe it to you to love you back. Sadly, life isn’t that clear cut. Love is often given to someone, whether they deserve it or not. It’s both the best and worst part of it. This close-minded, morally black-and-white mindset is given to fans by the Nice Guy, as it’s his expectation that his being kind to the girl and showering her with romance should mean that she should know he is the one for her.

Sadly, this thinking by the Nice Guy is often hypocrital in the movies, because the same Nice Guy is attracted in his crush at least in part to some sort of superficiality (ex. she’s beautiful, popular, dresses well, is the Cool Girl who drinks beer and watches sports while looking hot in a tank top and short shorts). He says she’s superficial for not wanting a dork like him, but it’s not like he’s looking around for some socially-awkward, plain-faced girl on his own level or lower and falling for HER because of HER kind treatment of him and the intensity of HER feelings. Fans get upset when Adrien the teen heartthrob doesn’t give Marinette her due attention, but it’s not like they’re clamoring for her to settle for Nathanael in “Evillistrator” or Nino in “Animan”, even though they had intense feelings for her and were kind to her.

Because of the partial superficiality of the Nice Guy’s attraction to his crush, he has this fantasy built up in his head. He puts her up on this pedestal, much like the pedestal Marinette puts Adrien on. It gets to the point that he’s in love with the IDEA of her, this image of a perfect angel that he’s made her out to be, and not the real her. He refuses to admit that she is flawed, much like how Marinette overlooks Adrien’s doormat attitude and overwillingness to forgive, seeing him instead as the perfect boy who can do no wrong. This is a set up for disappointment later on, as when the love interest does not do what the Nice Guy expects from her, like instantly return his love, the illusion that he has so carefully crafted for his pleasure is shattered, and everything goes downhill.

Many people blame the love interests for not instantly favoring the Nice Guy once he’s shown his romantic dorky side, thinking they should pick up on the feelings right away, like it’s their job to know who they should be with immediately upon meeting them, that it’s their fault they miss the signs. But this misconception shifts blame away from the Nice Guy for not properly acting on his feelings. This is where the Nice Guy becomes his own worst enemy. He automatically convinces himself that he’s below the girl’s standards and gives up before he even tries. He hesitates to act on his feelings, much like Marinette is so certain that Adrien is out of her league that she lets her insecurities get the better of her and avoids confessing to Adrien or even talking to him because she’s sure she’ll mess up before she even tries. Then when the girl doesn’t immediately realize that she is loved, despite getting no clear signs or even the words “I love you”, she is blamed for leading the Guy on, much like how Adrien is blamed for not recognizing the mixed signals from Marinette as affection.

Even after Adrien has told her that he loves another girl, Marinette still decides to keep pursuing him, much like Chat Noir kept pursuing Ladybug even after she told him she loved someone. Yet, while Adrien is bashed for not immediately accepting her choice and working to move on, Marinette is pardoned from not accepting Adrien’s feelings in the matter. Viewers excusing all her Nice Guy traits while prosecuting Adrien for displaying all the same traits is what makes Marinette, in my opinion, more of a Nice Guy than him. Because the Nice Guy is usually the one that shippers root for, despite the warning signs of their behavior and the fact that the love interest has said flat out that they are not into them that way.

Do I think that Marinette is a bad person? No. Do I condone Adrien’s behavior over hers? Absolutely not. But these are fictional characters. We can’t control their flaws or talk some sense into them anymore than we can change the past or rewrite the movies that have sold us this one-sided mindset. I don’t hold their flaws against them and act like their imperfections define their whole character. I focus on the good they do, and if the characters forgive them, I forgive them, because they’re the ones who choose who to forgive, who to love, who to be friends with. So kiss off, Adrien salters. Y’all are a bunch of hypocrites. Peace out.

[reachexceedinggrasp]

Would love to hear about your beefs with Lucas because I have beefs with Lucas

(Sorry it took me three thousand years to answer this, anon.)

They mainly fall under a few headings, with the third being the most serious and the thing that I am genuinely irl furious about at least biannually (and feeling unable to adequately sum up The Problem with it after yelling about it so often is a huge part of why this post has been in my drafts for such a long time):

1. His self-mythologising and the subsequent uncritical repetition of his bullshit in the fandom. Obvious lies like that he had some master plan for 10 films when it’s clear he did not have anything like a plot outline at any point. We all know the thing was written at the seat of various people’s pants, it’s blatantly self-evident that’s the case. There’s also plenty of public record about how the OT was written. Even dumber, more obvious lies, like that Anakin was ‘always the protagonist’ and the entire 6 films were his story from the beginning. This is preposterous and every time someone brings it up (usually with palpable smugness) as fanboys ‘not understanding star wars’ because they don't get that ‘the OT is not Luke's story’... Yeah, I just... I cannot.

Vader wasn’t Anakin Skywalker until ESB, it’s a retcon. It’s a brilliant retcon and it works perfectly, it elevated SW into something timeless and special it otherwise would not have been, but you can tell it wasn’t the original plan and there’s proof it wasn’t the original plan. Let’s not pretend. And Luke is the protagonist. No amount of waffling about such esoteric flights of theory as ‘ring structure’ is going to get away from the rigidly orthodox narrative and the indisputable fact that it is Luke’s hero’s journey. Vader’s redemption isn’t about his character development (he has almost none) and has no basis in any kind of convincing psychological reality for his character, but it doesn’t need to be because it’s part of Luke’s arc, because Vader is entirely a foil in Luke’s story. It’s a coming-of-age myth about confronting and growing beyond the father.

All attempts to de-centre Luke in RotJ just break the OT’s narrative logic. It’s a character-driven story and the character driving is Luke. Trying to read it as Anakin’s victory, the moral culmination of his choices rather than Luke’s and putting all the agency into Anakin’s hands just destroys the trilogy’s coherence and ignores most of its content in favour of appropriating a handful of scenes into an arc existing only in the prequels. The dilemma of RotJ is how Luke will define ethical adulthood after learning and growing through two previous films worth of challenge, education, failure, and triumph; it’s his choice to love his father and throw down his sword which answers the question the entire story has been asking. Vader’s redemption and the restoration of the galaxy are the consequences of that choice which tell us what kind of world we’re in, but the major dramatic conflict was resolved by Luke’s decision not the response to it.

And, just all over, the idea of Lucas as an infallible auteur is inaccurate and annoying to me. Obviously he’s a tremendous creative force and we wouldn’t have sw without him, but he didn’t create it alone or out of whole cloth. The OT was a very collaborative effort and that’s why it’s what it is and the prequels are what they are. Speaking of which.

2. The hubris of the prequels in general and all the damage their many terrible, protected-from-editors choices do to the symbolic fabric of the sw universe. Midicholrians, Yoda fighting with a lightsabre, Obi-wan as Anakin's surrogate father instead of his peer, incoherent and unmotivated character arcs, the laundry list of serious and meaningful continuity errors, the bad storytelling, the bad direction, the bad characterisation, the shallowness of the parallels which undermine the OT’s imagery, the very clumsy and contradictory way the A/P romance was handled, the weird attitude to romance in general, it goeth on. I don’t want to re-litigate the entire PT here and I’m not going to, but they are both bad as films and bad as prequels. The main idea of them, to add Anakin’s pov and create an actual arc for him as well as to flesh out the themes of compassion and redemption, was totally appropriate. The concept works as a narrative unit, there are lots of powerful thematic elements they introduce, they have a lot of cool building blocks, it’s only in execution and detail that they do a bunch of irreparable harm.

But the constant refrain that only ageing fanboys don’t like them and they only don’t like them because of their themes or because they humanise Anakin... can we not. The shoddy film making in the prequels is an objective fact. If you want to overlook the bad parts for the good or prioritise ideas over technique, that’s fine, but don’t sit here and tell me they’re masterworks of cinema there can be no valid reason to criticise. I was the exact right age for them when I saw them, I am fully on board with the fairy tale nature of sw, I am fully on board with humanising Anakin- the prequels just have a lot of very big problems with a) their scripts and b) their direction, especially of dialogue scenes. If Lucas had acknowledged his limitations like he did back in the day instead of believing his own press, he could have again had the help he obviously needed instead of embarrassing himself.

3. Killing and suppressing the original original trilogy. I consider the fact that the actual original films are not currently available in any form, have never been available in an archival format, and have not been presented in acceptable quality since the VHS release a very troubling case study in the problems of corporate-owned art. LF seizing prints of the films whenever they are shown, destroying the in-camera negatives to make the special editions with no plans to restore them, and doing all in the company’s considerable power to suppress the original versions is something I consider an act of cultural vandalism. The OT defined a whole generation of Hollywood. It had a global impact on popular entertainment. ANH is considered so historically significant it was one of the first films added to the US Library of Congress (Lucas refused to provide even them with a print of the theatrical release, so they made their own viewable scan from the 70s copyright submission).

The fact that the films which made that impact cannot be legally accessed by the public is offensive to me. The fact that Lucas has seen fit to dub over or composite out entire performances (deleting certain actors from the films), to dramatically alter the composition of shots chosen by the original directors, to radically change the entire stylistic tone by completely reinventing the films’ colour timing in attempt to make them match the plasticy palate of the prequels, to shoot new scenes for movies he DID NOT DIRECT, add entire sequences or re-edit existing sequences to the point of being unrecognisable etc. etc. is NOT OKAY WITH ME when he insists that his versions be the ONLY ones available.

I’m okay with the Special Editions existing, though I think they’re mostly... not good... but I’m not okay with them replacing the original films. And all people can say is ‘well, they’re his movies’.

Lucas may have clear legal ownership in the capitalistic sense, but in no way does he have clear artistic ownership. Forget the fans, I’m not one of those people who argue the fans are owed something: A film is always a collaborative exercise and almost never can it be said that the end product is the ultimate responsibility and possession of one person. Even the auteur directors aren't the sole creative vision, even a triple threat like Orson Welles still had cinematographers and production designers, etc. Hundreds of artists work on films. Neither a writer nor a director (nor one person who is both) is The Artist behind a film the way a novelist is The Artist behind a novel. And Lucas did NOT write the screenplays for or direct ESB or RotJ. So in what sense does he have a moral right to alter those films from what the people primarily involved in making them deemed the final product? In what sense would he have the right to make a years-later revision the ONLY version even if he WERE the director?

Then you get into the issue of the immeasurable cultural impact those films had in their original form and the imperative to preserve something that is defining to the history of film and the state of the zeitgeist. I don't think there is any ‘fan entitlement’ involved in saying the originals belonged to the world after being part of its consciousness for decades and it is doing violence to the artistic record to try to erase the films which actually occupied that space. It's exactly like trying to replace every copy of It's a Wonderful Life with a colourised version (well, it's worse but still), and that was something Lucas himself railed against. It’s like if Michaelangelo were miraculously resuscitated and he decided to repaint the Sistine Ceiling to add a gunfight and change his style to something contemporary.

I get genuinely very upset at the cold reality that generations of people are watching sw for the first time and it’s the fucking SE-except-worse they’re seeing. And as fewer people keep physical media and the US corporate oligarchy continues to perform censorship and rewrite history on its streaming services unchecked by any kind of public welfare concerns, you’ll see more and more ‘real Mandela effect’ type shit where the cultural record has suddenly ‘always’ been in line with whatever they want it to be just now. And US media continues to infect us all with its insidious ubiquity. I think misrepresenting and censoring the past is an objectively bad thing and we can’t learn from things we pretend never happened, but apparently not many people are worried about handing the keys to our collective experience to Disney and Amazon.

4. The ‘Jedi don’t marry’ thing and how he wanted this to continue with Luke post-RotJ, so it’s obviously not meant to be part of what was wrong with the order in the prequels. I find this... incoherent on a storytelling level. The moral of the anidala story then indeed becomes just plain ‘romantic love is bad and will make you crazy’, rather than the charitable reading of the prequels which I ascribe to, which is that the problem isn’t Anakin’s love for Padmé, it’s that he ceased to love her and began to covet her. And I can’t help but feel this attitude is maybe an expression of GL’s issues with women following his divorce. I don’t remember if there’s evidence to contradict that take, since it’s been some time since I read about this but yeah. ANH absolutely does sow seeds for possible Luke/Leia development and GL was still married while working on that film. Subsequently he was dead set against Luke ever having a relationship and decided Jedi could not marry. Coincidence?

There’s a lot of blinking red ‘issues with women’ warning signs all over Lucas’s work, but the prequels are really... egregious.

[thesaltofcarthage]

I finally get the anger about Thor: Ragnarok

I’ll admit it: I saw it the first time in the theatre and loved it, because it seemed funny and fresh. And it was absolutely what started me on the Thorki Spiral, which I hadn’t shipped before.

It was also where I really started to get emotionally invested in the MCU, and started plumbing more of the meta depths online, and understanding the character arcs beyond the plot arcs. And of course I’ve spent two years on this blue hellsite, enjoying the GIFs and the fics and the art.

But I didn’t actually rewatch the movie.

And last night I sat down to rewatch it, and... wow.

Wow, it is really not funny.

I recall reading a defense of Taika Waititi’s choices in this film, and how he is deconstructing colonialism and puncturing the White CisHet Male Hero myth, and I totally get all that. All the NZ/Aussie voices and aboriginal cultural influences are genuinely refreshing.

But I also recall reading Waititi’s casual dismissal of the Thor comic canon, and how he viewed Thor and Loki as “rich spoiled boys whining about their problems.” How he sees Loki as an “emo goth kid” who needs to grow up. How he deliberately ignored everything which had come before. And I recall reading about Hemsworth’s boredom with Noble Thor and how he longed to do more comedy.

The problem with Ragnarok is that Waititi views the protagonists as bad guys.

Bad Guys need to be punished. They need to lose.

I was intrigued by how Odin, by way of Hela, was framed as a conqueror, and how that part of history needed to be acknowledged and rejected. But: 1) Odin was already previously presented as a bad guy because of his shit parenting 2) the narrative re-rejects that point of view by redeeming him on the cliff in Norway just before his discorporation. Odin is never punished for his conquering rampages. He never has to acknowledge what he stole, or how he hurt people or entire cultures, or make reparations. He never has to admit what he did to Loki. He just gets to melt away and join Frigga.

In Waititi’s view, the White CisHet Male Heroes who think too much of themselves and need to be taken down a peg are... Thor and Loki. The title character and the canonically queer/pan/genderfluid outsider.

Yes, Thor and Loki are played by White CisHet Male actors. That does not make both characters White CisHet Males. (And let’s be clear: while there’s a lot of White CisHet Male Privilege going around which can certainly stand to be dismantled, “White CisHet Male” isn’t automatically equivalent to “evil jackass.” Thor’s identity as a White CisHet Male doesn’t mean that by definition the narrative has to break him.)

Loki was not a conqueror in the MCU — not the way Odin was. Loki’s “conquest” was canonically forced at the hand of the actual enemy, Thanos, who tortured and brainwashed him, and was controlling him via the Mind Stone.

Loki is not a colonizer. Loki is an outsider, an Other. He may present as White Cis Male, but he doesn’t have to, and he hasn’t always. There’s the wink from Jeff Goldblum and the implication that Loki was sleeping with him to “gain his favor,” but this is presented as more of a joke on Loki than anything else. And that’s what the entire narrative does: repeatedly make Loki the butt of the joke.

Poking fun at the people in power is a well-worn narrative device. Using humor to puncture legend, to remove power from people who claimed it illegitimately and at the expense of the less powerful, is a classic function of storytelling and should absolutely be celebrated.

Mocking Thor’s pompousness? Keeping him off-balance? Cutting his hair, having him whack himself in the head with Hulk’s sparring ball? Sure, why not. Because Thor is the hero. He is the center of the narrative. He is the one who has taken power and needs to learn to live without it to grow.

Except... that was the arc of the first Thor movie. Thor is not the arrogant shitheel he used to be. And Thor doesn’t grow or change in Ragnarok. There’s no character arc. He just... blithely sails on, pursuing what he thinks is right. Granted that what he claims to be pursuing is “saving the people of Asgard,” which is a noble and selfless goal, Thor personally doesn’t change. He’s as goofy and blustery in the post-credits stinger as he is in the pre-credits scene where he’s dangling in chains.

The only moment which can remotely be framed as “change and growth” is “Are you ‘Thor, God of Hammers’?” Which, again, could have been really powerful, as Thor learned that he didn’t need the literal mark of Odin’s approval (a measure of his “worthiness”) to channel his divine powers, but it ended up being an admittedly kick-ass action scene. And he’s never shown as being utterly helpless without Mjolnir; the hammer is an excellent weapon, but not his only one.

And Loki? Loki doesn’t have power, not in the narrative sense. Loki didn’t rampage over entire realms, not of his own volition. He did not steal or kidnap. Loki was never in line for the throne; that is, again, the entire plot of the first Thor movie. Loki has nothing to puncture. Attacking someone in power to even the scales is justice. Attacking the powerless is just bullying.

Which is what it felt like Waititi was doing, over and over: bullying Loki. Dr. Strange, who has been studying sorcery for what, 18 months? can outwit Loki, who has been a seidmadr trained by the seidkona Frigga for over a thousand years? Strange sends Loki into a portal where he is falling for half an hour?

When did Loki fall last? Off the Bifrost. When he was committing suicide. When he was captured by Thanos, who then tortured him for six months.

Oh yes, that’s something to make fun of. But Waititi wouldn’t know that, would he, because he made a point of ignoring the characters’ histories.

Thor being casual, callous, even rude, to the beloved brother he thought had died in his arms years ago? Thor putting an electrical torture device on his beloved brother, the man he defended to the entire Avengers, the man he refused to surrender to Midgardian authorities, and leaving him there to suffer? Thor mocking his beloved brother, telling him he needs to change and grow? Loki is the bloody god of chaos. How is Loki the character who hasn’t grown and changed?

But Waititi wouldn’t know any of their past interactions, because he made a point of ignoring the characters’ histories.

Waititi just saw the most superficial possible reading of these two characters and assumed that they were ripe for punishment — that they needed to be reduced. Which is what he did, proudly. So when the fandom reacts and complains that he’s disrespecting beloved characters, what he hears is that we’re defending White CisHet Male Privilege.

Waititi thinks he dismantled two copies of Obidiah Stane. The fandom saw him bludgeoning Bisexual Steve Rogers, Pre- and Post-Serum. You don’t pick on the little guy. You don’t reduce your hero.

Thor and Loki’s rich and complex history, even just in the MCU, is completely ignored. It’s reduced to the throwaway line of “You faked your death” (which is not what happened) and “I mourned you! I cried for you!” and Thor’s anger that Loki managed to survive. Not relief that Loki is still alive, but offense. And if the script had explored that more — “Why did you pretend to be dead? Why did you hide in Odin’s guise? Why didn’t you find a way to let me know what happened? If you were hiding as Odin, why didn’t you act as Odin?” — I would even have bought that. There is, in fact, a lot to unpack there. But that would have meant exploring everything that happened off-screen between the Thor movies. It would have meant studying that history, acknowledging it, and expanding on it. And Waititi saw Two Spoiled Rich Kids and had no interest.

The problem with Ragnarok is not the humor, or the outsider perspective from a Maori director. The problem is that the creator chose the wrong targets. I have learned in the past two years how many fans have come to identify with Loki the outsider, and Waititi deliberately chose to remain ignorant of that aspect of the character. He created two strawman versions of the characters and proceeded to tear them apart.

I am less hopeful now for Thor: Love and Thunder than I was. I don’t know how important Jane Foster’s storyline is in the comics, but if he ignored Thor and Loki, it’s not unreasonable to imagine he’d ignore Jane’s history too. I may have defended Waititi’s Ragnarok before. I won’t do so again.