#and his clearly fractured relationship with masculinity play into this | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

casually-inlove · 5 years

Text

No, anon-san, I don’t believe that. He Tian probably bought that earring because he thought it would look good on Mo and perhaps because he might have known the studio was looking for a model. Evidently, He Tian acted on a presumption that Momo had his ears pierced of his own choice.

I doubt that’s the case with She Li.

I think it’s clear to us readers that Mo Guan Shan cares very little about such superficial things as his appearance (or fashion, very much unlike He Tian it seems), so there’s no way he would have willingly agreed to modify his body for the sake of looks or for the sake of fashion trends. Just as it’s clear that She Li has some very twisted shit going on in that head of his – so I very much doubt he had any aesthetic intentions in mind.

No, it’s something different.

According to Momo, it happened two years ago, so he must have been around thirteen y.o. I’m pretty sure that at that age boys are beginning to worry about their masculinity. I think that perhaps “earrings” on boys at that age are seen as something effeminate? So perhaps it was She Li’s extremely twisted way of getting back at Momo for something, a blow not only to his pride but also adding a lasting stigma of being “effeminate” due to “girlie” ear piercings? Because Momo clearly had a tarnished reputation due to his father’s imprisonment, and She Li attempted to add insult to the injury. Like “hey not only that guy is dregs of society, he’s also a pansy, a weakling, etc”. That would explain Mo’s fixation on wanting to act “like a man”.

Of course, it’s all just guesswork, and until OX clears it up, all we can do is speculate.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Aloha!

I’m not sure why it seems weird to you. It’s his regular heavy expression when his mind is clouded by dark thoughts and seething anger. In fact, you see him glaring daggers at She Li and then asking Momo if it hurt him. I’m sure that many people have pointed that out, but Momo was elusive with his answer. His “it was two years ago” pretty much reads as “I don’t dwell on it and you [HT] shouldn’t dwell on it either”, i.e. Mo doesn’t wish to discuss it. This is the moment when He Tian explodes – because he caught on that Momo was hurt because somebody presumably maliciously inflicted pain on someone He Tian came to care about, because he wasn’t there when it happened to prevent it. Remember, HT has this unhealed trauma of not being able to protect the puppy, of not being there when He Cheng “buried” it. Idk, if you look at his reaction to the coke can thing, compared to this, he was absolutely chill about the coke. But here it’s a spur of the moment kind of reaction and He Tian isn’t able to reign in his temper (his anger, his contempt, his pain, his desire to protect, and many-many other things), hence why his genuinely good intention (=to make She Li keep away from Mo) came out sounding harsh and demanding. I expect Momo won’t take it positively, and perhaps will rebuke He Tian rudely. It all boils down to He Tian’s inability to express his feelings in a proper way. And again, his outburst had NOTHING to do with jealousy or possessiveness. If anything, it was about wanting to keep Mo safe and wanting send She Li a clear message that he’s doomed to FAIL.

I suspect it’s from the same anon, so I merged them 😂

Well, their relationship does have a layer of toxicity, which I believe, was done by OX on purpose. The end goal for Tianshan is to gradually do away with it and form a healthy bond, and luckily for us, we can see all the negative stuff gradually dwindle.

I think the fandom overreacted with whole “jealousy” thing in the latest chapter, however, I do want to point out that HT failed to keep his temper in check that moment. It’s pretty ironic since a moment ago he was chastising Momo about having a poor temper. He Tian’s words sounded harsh and demanding because he wasn’t able to control the wave of emotions and his anger towards She Li.

Now, this is a crucial point for TianShan. The expression He Tian wore was that of pain, so I’m beginning to think he’s piecing the puzzle now, cause like you said Mo has been used and abused nearly all his life and that hard shell of his was engendered by mistreatment. Momo’s trust issues are well-founded, just as his apparent loathing of physical touch or anyone invading his personal bubble. Maybe this is the moment when He Tian realizes that some of his teasings have been rather insensitive.

Somehow, I also have a feeling that Momo has never told anyone before. Not a soul knows the truth behind it. I think that part of him is ashamed of this scarring instance.

Regarding She Li. Personally, I expected She Li to reappear at some point. OX gave him a unique design, meaning he has yet to play a bigger role – just compare it to the generic designs of Mo’s henchmen, and you’ll see who’s the fodder here. Also, let’s not forget that for some bizarre reason She Li had been sniffing around Jian Yi and kinda targeting him as well. On a side note, a while ago, I made a post where I speculated, that once He Tian leaves abroad (he apparently does in future chapters), Mo will be left to deal with She Li on his own. So one way or another, the shit with She Li must reach some sort of resolution before HT leaves. I do expect we’ll see more of him in the future, perhaps also trying to fuck around with Jian Yi. Other than that, I’m quite frankly disgusted with what She Li had been doing. I doubt that their “relationship” with Mo had been anything other but power struggle and maybe blackmailing. Certainly, they were neither on friendly terms nor were they romantically involved.

I can’t say that I’m entirely on board with “piercing = punishment” theory, nor do I believe it was as simple as a lost fight. However, I don’t really have any plausible ideas either.

One thing for certain though, ear piercing seems to go waaay beyond of how one might get back for a fight. Fights between boys at that age are cruder, I think. It’s about broken teeth and fractured ribs or bloodied kneecaps. Going for ear piercing – a lasting thing – is something else entirely. It seems personal, very cruel, vindictive.

It could have been some form of humiliation because earrings might be seen as a girlie thing, and thus She Li would be branding MGS as pansy, effeminate, etc. Idk.

Or maybe it was a very clever set-up? Mo had a reputation of being a petty thief (children claimed he had stolen a pencil box). Perhaps She Li for some bizarre reason stole jewelry/earrings, and had Momo pierce his ears so that later he could conveniently pin the blame on him? Every other kid would think “stolen earrings? omg I just saw MGS with his ears pierced, it must have been him”?

We have to wait and see.

#19 days #tianshan #she li #mo guan shan #ask

150 notes · View notes

headcanonsandmore · 6 years

Note

I think it’s adorable that Harry’s one request of Fred and George when he gives them his triwizard winnings is to buy Ron better dress robes. I feel like Harry is the only character who never neglects Ron

I like that bit aswell. I think (with the exception of characters like Luna and Neville, who werenice to virtually everybody who treated them well), out of all Ron’s loved ones;Harry seems to understand Ron the most.

Harry knew Ron hatedhaving to wear hideous dress robes for the Yule Ball, and (this is the bigthing) made sure that Ron didn’t find out that it was Harry who suggested it. Anice way of improving the relationship between the brothers without making itseem like he had interfered.

Harry just gets Ron more than other people do (andyes, I include Hermione in that). Harry knows that Ron wants to be appreciatedand given the opportunity to stand out from the crowd. Harry understands thatRon hates feeling like he’s the spare part.

Aside from when theywere briefly not speaking in GOF, and when Ron briefly left in DH, Harry andRon have an incredibly close and caring relationship. They understandeach-other more than possibly anyone else.

Hermione? It’srepeatedly shown that Hermione can be extraordinarilytactless when it comes to Ron’s feelings, especially in relation to hisinsecurities and self-doubts. HBP is full of such moments (ignoring Ron whilstpointing out all of Harry’s fanciable qualities, for example). Heck, she evenlaughs at his arachnophobia in COS (admittedly, she wasn’t very old, but that’sstill not cool). She became better at being supportive of him over time(eventually showing her appreciation of him more openly in DH) but, for most ofthe series, she doesn’t really understand what Ron needs emotionally: supportand respect. Her feelings for him often clouded her ability to be a good friendto him, as she was terrified of being too obvious, and that he wouldn’t feelthe same way. For all Hermione’s talk of Ron having the emotional range of ateaspoon, the vast majority of the time, it’s her who doesn’t understand Ron’sfeelings. I mean, she clearly changed for the better by the time the seriesfinished, but for most of it (at least, after she develops feelings of Ron) shehas difficulty understanding what he needs emotionally.

Ginny? For much of theearly part of the series, I think Ginny and Ron had quite a good relationship. Theyseem fairly close, and (during Ginny’s first year) Ron was always looking outfor her. However, I think that their relationship began to fracture once theyboth became teenagers. Ron gets profoundly irritated by Ginny dating MichaelCorner and Dean Thomas (protectiveolder-brother alert), and Ginny later virgin-shames Ron for his lack ofromantic experience. I know Ron wasn’t pleasant either during that fight, butit was still unfair of Ginny to shame him for not having romantic experience atthe age of sixteen. Ginny knew full wellhow Ron felt about Hermione, but still exposed Hermione’s secret about kissingViktor Krum (Ron was the only one of their group of friends who didn’t know).In my reading of it, Ron was saving his first kiss for Hermione, and would havewaited for her. Ginny throwing that in his face seemed to clarify his fear thatHermione didn’t love him at all and only saw him an idiotic friend. Ginny alsopokes fun at Ron’s apparent lack of masculinity compared to Harry (the PygmyPuff tattoo joke), despite knowing how much of an inferiority complex Ron had,and how much he mentally compared himself to Harry. As much as I like Ginny, Ialso find it grating just how much she seemed to enjoy poking fun at Ron’s insecurities.I know siblings bicker a lot (me and my siblings are no exception to this), butwhen a popular, favoured child is continually poking fun at their moreanxiety-ridden, often-ignored sibling, it becomes unpleasant to watch. And theworst thing is that Ginny (like Hermione) is never really called out on this;she never deals with the repercussions of her teasing of Ron. Such as the factthat the Lavender situation was almost entirely Ginny’s fault, and yet all shedoes is call Ron a ‘hypocrite’ because he’s trying to get romantic experience(like she suggested he do, I might add). There’sdefinitely a hypocrite around here, Ginny, but it sure isn’t Ron….

Molly Weasley? She’sloving, kind-hearted and a great person in general. But she had a habit of notshowing Ron attention or appreciation when he needs it. She repeatedly shows favouritismtowards her other children (Percy and Ginny especially), and tends to ignoreRon’s own emotional needs. Heck, Ron was the only Weasley child to startHogwarts with a second-hand wand (even Ginny got her own, whilst Ron had tosuffer two years of school with a hand-me-down wand that was broken beyondrepair for most of his second year). She also had a habit of flat-out ignoringhis own concerns (corned beef sandwiches, his utter disgust at his awfulsecond-hand robes, etc.) and then got angry at him when he quite-understandablygot upset. There’s a reason the horcrux locket played on Ron’s fears of beingthe least loved of his siblings; there’s a whole load of pretty damning proofthat he was.

But, to come back toyour point, yeah; Harry definitely understands Ron the best. Sorry about myranting, but this is a topic that I’ve wanted to talk about for a while.

Thanks for the submission, anon! Sorry it took me so long to respond.

96 notes · View notes

imustgo-on-icantgo-on-illgo-on · 6 years

Text

FITZ: I’m just like Ward

I have been thinking a lot of things about Leopold Fitz since the last season, so when last night’s episode aired I realized that the post I was already working on would not be enough. For the purpose of clarity I have decided to split up this meta into two parts. The first part is about Grant Ward. The second is about our beloved Fitz. Last night hurt, but so does life. Now let’s get into it.

Grant Ward’s history of abuse is well documented by the fanbase, and as someone who faced very dissimilar, though not without great overlap, abuse, it was always extremely fascinating to follow Ward as a character. For those less familiar, abuse is about power and control, and because of how people acclimate themselves to the world and their relationships within it through socializing, this can lead people to assume that power and control is what life is about in general, thus prioritizing feelings of strength and squashing weakness. Ward felt weak because his parents tortured him. He felt weak because his brother did the same, and even felt weak being forced into bullying his younger brother, Thomas (The Well). Finally, in a desperate attempt to feel a sense of strength and satisfaction, Ward tried to burn down his home with his parents and older brother inside at the age of 17 (Ragtag, and though I’ve seen a lot of people say it was when he was 15 because the flashbacks say “15 years ago” Thomas says he was 17 in season 3’s Closure, and it makes more sense that his older brother, Christian, tried to have him tried as an adult at 17). Undoubtedly he justified this attempted murder (we all know that he knew who was inside) as a way to free him and his little brother from his more abusive family member’s clutches. However, I can still accept this as a product of environment, and not a grown adult making rational decisions. This didn’t make Ward a villain.

John Garrett was the answer to Grant Ward’s prayers. Of course he went on to constantly gaslight and manipulate him, but Ward didn’t want to let go of his past and seek love, he wanted strength, and here comes a man saying he works for a secret organization, and that Ward impresses him. Thomas, I believe, is the side of the coin we never saw, who did grow up to seek love instead of more hate, but Ward was already being used as a weapon from a young age, so he understood plays of power and control, just not his complicity in the actions he committed. Garrett then kidnaps him, calling it a favor, which is hard to argue with considering how long Grant could have spent in a very adult prison for his actions, but it also unfortunately starts the blame game that abuse is built on. Garrett kidnapped him and demanded thanks. Garrett dragged him to the middle of nowhere, then left him there and called it Grant’s own failure to have not prepared for anything (because why would a kid who follows a man who claims to work for the government NOT be prepared to be abandoned in the middle of nowhere, I type sarcastically). Garrett specifically left a dog with him, not just to help, but with which Ward could bond, and then forced him to kill it while implying that any reservations would be a sign of weakness. Even Ward’s accomplishment of surviving, Garrett can credit himself because he said he thought Ward could do it. That’s what abusers do, they make what they do bad your fault, and what you do well their credit (Like Kylo Ren saying “You’re nothing, but not to me”). Ward believes he owes Garrett everything, including things he did for himself, but also blames himself for what he still does wrong. And after two fat paragraphs, we’ve reached the very beginning of the show, and see in action how Ward’s truest desire was always strength, and how much it clearly burned him that he didn’t know how to love.

When Ward got brought onto the bus, he was on mission for Garrett, but this became a perfect vehicle for the fantasy Ward must have held onto since he was a kid. Ward got to be the hero. Sure he was a milktoast kind of one, but that was just part of his cover. He got to stop Russian superweapons, and jump out of planes to save people (The Hub, FZZT). He got to mentor (The Asset) a woman who looked at him and saw a goodhearted, if defensive and closed off, guy. In short, he got to be a part of a family. Yes, in “Yes Men” he is raped, and they do nothing about that, but nobody knew about that and Ward never told anyone. It’s that same toxic masculinity at work where he thinks he has to ignore pain, assuming that that’s what strength is, so he wasn’t changing yet, but he was (under false pretense) loved. Then HYDRA came out of the shadows, and with his reveal at the end of Turn, Turn, Turn, we began to see how great that desire for strength was, and how much it conflicted with this newfound feeling of being loved. He killed Hand for Garrett, alongside dozens of SHIELD agents, but he killed Koenig for Skye (The Only Light in the Darkness). He killed Koenig, not just to keep his cover, but so she would still see him as a hero. As worthy of love, because he knew all the things he did were wrong. This was his first chance to really confess and own up to who he is, but he killed Koenig instead to continue the fantasy. In fact, the moment he is fighting HYDRA agents in Turn, Turn, Turn even becomes sort of twisted after the reveal, especially the smile he has right before he kills them all. They are a means to him feeling like a hero. Koenig was a cover-up to continue that feeling. And when he discovers she knows who he is, in that diner, he wants to explain himself, and kills two police officers (at least) in order to do that. He doesn’t care about people’s lives, even Skye’s, who he loves. And I believe he does, he just didn’t know how to. I learned a lot of abusive behavior from my own father, and though some of it was directed at me, more was directed at my mom, and it made me not realize what I had picked up until recently. When the only Ex of mine I ever loved would fight with me (not to say they were the cause, just when we would fight) she would often ask for space, and too many times if I had done something wrong I would come visit her and apologize over and over and over, but I wouldn’t leave when she asked because I wanted to show I was sorry. Makes sense right? Except I didn’t care about what she wanted, I just wanted to apologize and “work it out” or really just make myself feel better. I loved her, still do, but I needed to learn that that meant putting her needs ahead of my own desires because duh. Ward is the same, except also, you know, a serial killer. But what finally destroyed his Hero fantasy wasn’t Skye. It was Fitzsimmons. When they manage to disable Garrett and free themselves, they hide in the escape pod, and Ward can’t get in. They did that. All the while, Fitz begged for Ward to realize that they care about him, and he even cares about them. But in that moment, this fully grown man in his 30s, when confronted with a choice between love and strength, opted for the latter. Caring is weakness, to him. Garrett taught him that years ago, and even after months and months with the team, and sharing in their love, love that could have continued, that belief didn’t change. Ward’s hero fantasy was gone, so he had to search for a new feeling of strength, despite the fact that it was actually weakness that lead him to try and kill Fitzsimmons. He tried to search for that strength in Garrett, but the man he knew was already gone before his death, and when asked what he wanted he chose, again, something selfish. Skye. He approaches her with a gun, threatens to rape her, and thus placed her at the center of his desires for self, a hole that had been created by Garrett’s change, and subsequent death. As Coulson asks “Who are you without [Garrett]”.

When the team locked Ward up, Coulson continued to check in on him, giving him another chance to own up to who he is and what he has done. Everyday for three weeks, and Ward refused to say anything unless he could talk to the woman he once kidnapped, locked up, and threatened to rape. That same abusive cycle continuing. Just as he carried out missions for Garrett, he tried to make promises to Skye to prove he was deserving of her, but it was still all about him and not what she wanted (Shadows). He told Fitz that he gave them a fighting to chance to survive, because he didn’t shoot them, but they hid themselves in the escape pod, so there’s no other way Ward could have killed them but dropping them into the ocean (Making Friends and Influencing People). When he escapes we spend an episode being gaslit ourselves as the audience, questioning our own memory of the well when we finally meet the adult Christian Ward, who is a senator no less (A Fractured House). For many people the gaslighting worked so well that they thought that Ward tortured an answer out of Christian when threatening to throw him down the well (The Things We Bury) ignoring that the existence of the well itself proves that Christian is a liar and a gaslighter. But we don’t see Thomas, because he wanted real closure. The kind you can only find within yourself. But Ward wants to lord the power and control he now has over his family now that he’s free, and a highly trained killer. He wants to keep his promise to Skye, introducing her to her father, and then we WATCH HIM FORGIVE HIMSELF (What They Become). He just starts acting like he and Skye are together on a mission or something, despite kidnapping her for a SECOND TIME. When Kara saves him from the gunshots Skye pumped into him, a new relationship is formed, and we see as he continues the cycle of abuse. She asks over and over again in the back half of the season to just run away and leave SHIELD behind, but Ward is obsessed with the idea that it will bring her closure, because really he just wants to torture SHIELD. To make them suffer. As Daisy says in s3, Ward kills because he feels too much (Closure). He tried to be a supporting figure for Kara, but he ends up being a controlling one. He even offers us the line we want to hear in saying that there’s “not enough good” inside him to help her. But it’s all lies, which shouldn’t be a surprise at this point in the series, as he has yet to own up to his actions in a way that isn’t saying the words “I take responsibility for my actions” My father would say over and over again, after he hit me, that he was sorry, but he doesn’t regret it and he’d do it again. That’s what Ward was doing, saying he takes responsibility, but normal serial killers stay in prison their whole lives, and he wanted to be free after a couple months of helping SHIELD. It was this path of blaming and petty emotional power plays that lead to Ward killing Kara with his own hands, proving that if they just left it all behind they could have been happy. Ward, in his constant fleeing from his own actions, always causes what happens to him next. And with Kara gone the only way for him to exert his power over the people in SHELD is to commit to his new role as the head of HYDRA, and give him the feeling of strength he always yearns for.

Brett Dalton does a brilliant job of playing Ward in S3 with the same hungry, smug look in his eyes that he had that moment before killing all the HYDRA assailants in Turn, Turn, Turn. This is his new hero fantasy. The villain. And boy does he do it in style. He makes himself the head of HYDRA and specifically uses his power to control the organization through force. The thing he knows best. Only the literally physically strong survive in his new regime, and when it comes time to take down SHIELD, to take down Coulson, he believes he’ll be fulfilled. Ward swaggers through S3 taking down dozens of men singlehanded (Purpose in the Machine, Many Heads, One Tale) threatening, attacking, and killing people’s loved ones (Devils You Know, Closure, both with Ros, and with Simmons. The Simmons one is especially indicative of Ward because he first tries to take credit for their relationship, back to that blame game of abuse, and then tortures her personally after saying he would never hurt her, because his word only as strong as his patience, which only ever holds for Daisy). The perfect symbol of this is the scene he has with the flight attendant on the airplane he terrorizes, where he flirts with her and gets to feel wanted and sexy, before whispering in her ear the terror of what he is about to do, winking before finally exiting the plane. Ward loved the feeling of strength, but we as an audience know that killing Coulson never would have satisfied him. It isn’t until Malick comes along and tells Ward the full history of HYDRA, praises him for how strong he is, and asks him to lead that things click into place for Ward. He finally gets to fulfill his fantasy. He may not be the hero, but the HYDRA mission makes him important. Ward has been turned into possibly the ultimate human killing machine, and the idea that through adversity, through failure and turmoil and all the bloodshed, he had become the one person who could finally fulfill the mission that HYDRA was founded upon, and he didn’t even know it. He chose the organization for “petty, personal reasons”, but now this path has lead him to do something millenia in the making. I believe Ward believes it when he says that he’s “part of a grand plan” on Maveth, and it’s hard to argue with his pov (check out my meta on destiny in AoS for why I think it’s possible). Many people have argued that Alveus essentially rapes Ward by taking his body, as a corpse cannot consent, but he consents as much as person can while he’s still alive. Ward goes to Maveth to finish the mission, and believes he is the secret super soldier that HYDRA needs to do it, and bring their god back to earth. And he does it. I’m not saying it makes it right, I’m just pointing out that Ward knew, to a degree, what he was getting into. Ward chases the feeling of power all his life, and the only thing it lead him to is a death, and a disregard for his autonomy just as he disregarded other people autonomy. As Daisy said back in season one, Ward is “just weak”(Beginning of the End). He desires strength because he feels weak, and that desire made him self-centered, even in his love for others. That happens to people in life. I agree that it’s tragic, but I don’t agree that it absolves him of anything. Nikolas Cruz had a history of not fitting in, and had a problematic homelife, but does that excuse him killing those children in Parkland? He’s 19, and Ward was in his 30s when we met him. Men in this country, and all over the world, get taught that strength matters more than anything, and at their core it just makes them weak and in search of power. Power over others. Control of things that are beyond their control. And this is how Ward became who he became, and how he continued to change. Hell, it’s why, when we meet him in the framework, he’s already been “saved” by Victoria Hand. Because in real life, he was already lost when we first met him, chasing strength above all. To save him, the team would have had to have known him years ago. It just shows how disturbing abuse can be, and how hard it can be to demonstrate its effect on tv, but the show does a good job of showing what a person who holds onto that abuse looks like (Grant), and what a person who moves on looks like (Thomas)

Now what does all of that have to do with Fitz? Check out my next meta to find out. Sorry this turned out so long, I just love this show (Been watching since it started, watching in my dorm when it began my freshman year) and this fanbase, and these writers. Part two should be out in a day, and should be much more succinct. I promise. Peace, and love, and prosciutto and buffalo mozzarella with a hint of homemade pesto aioli :)

#aos meta #aos spoilers #fitzsimmons #leo fitz #grant ward #Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.#renew agents of shield

62 notes · View notes

homenum-revelio-hq · 5 years

Photo

Welcome to the Order of the Phoenix, Emmy!

You have been accepted for the role of SEVERUS SNAPE, along with the biography changes you have requested! I am so incredibly thrilled to have you as our Severus, and to have a Severus at the start of this roleplay. You brought his personality and his drive to life so clearly and I can’t wait to see you play his switch over to the Order! I am so excited to have you as part of this roleplay!

Please take a look at the new member checklist and send in your account within 24 hours! Thank you for joining the fight against Voldemort!

OUT OF CHARACTER:

NAME: Emmy

AGE: 25+ (Old)

TIMEZONE: EST

ACTIVITY LEVEL: Variable, but available for posts at least every week and on the dash likely every day.

ANYTHING ELSE: I don’t like clowns

CHARACTER DETAILS:

NAME: Severus Snape

AGE: 21

GENDER, PRONOUNS, and SEXUALITY: Masculine, He/Him, Greysexual

BLOOD STATUS: Half-Blood

HOUSE ALUMNI: Slytherin

ANY CHANGES: A small/large change on the bio

The bio talks about how Severus views James has having ruined his life and Lily betraying him by dating him, but if he truly did see James as still looming so large in his life, he would have gone out of his way to have killed James already. Severus hates him, obviously, but it doesn’t rise to blaming him. That would both be saying his current life is ruined, and be denying Lily the power of her own choices. Severus and Lily were separated by his screwup – and he doesn’t feel entitled to Lily afterwards. He never felt entitled to her; Severus didn’t feel worthy enough, and was too afraid of losing her, to feel entitled, to have that sort of arrogant self-assurance. He still loves her, but there isn’t that possession. He wants to protect her, and earn back her trust and friendship and he does not like her choice of Potter, and it hurts but at the same time, why wouldn’t Lily date Potter? He’s handsome (please read with a dismissive sneer), rich, a Pureblood, which means something, and has that charming manner he uses to convince so many he’s not an absolute asshole and bully; he hates and resent Potter because of all his successes, which means acknowledging them. Only makes sense that Lily would acknowledge them too – and she always did want to see the best in people. On his own, James Potter has very little ongoing impact on Severus’s life and motivations. It is only because he’s involved with Lily, and that involvement endangers her, that Severus gives him any thought in the present.

CHARACTER BACKGROUND:

PERSONALITY:

‘Friendly’ is not a term anyone would ever apply to Severus Snape: more likely terms are ‘acerbic’ and ‘abrasive’. Even with the few friends he has, he is extremely guarded, relying on his sharply honed dry wit as a form of defense, as well as his more harshly violent reactions. He is a man who knows the world as an unforgiving place of hurt and judgement, and that is how he behaves in response to it. Naturally a pessimist, only one person has ever given him hope that perhaps he was wrong and things could be different. Respect and power are the things he knows is a guard against that harsh world; knowledge is how Severus sees his pathway to those two things. Ambition combined with natural genius and skill leave him far ahead and beyond most of his classmates, to the point where the majority of classes he took in Hogwarts bored him. His seeking out of darker magic is rooted in these two things: as something new for him to learn, to challenge himself with, and for the simple desire to know it. Knowledge alone can never be dark; ignorance is the true darkness. No, ‘evil’ magic is as evil as the person wielding it. That so many refuse to see that, want to suppress and silence swaths of magic because they are frightened or, perhaps worse, judgemental of it, appalls him. The people Severus trusts is a small number; it is something rarely extends to even his few friends. Failed again and again by the adults in his life who were supposed to take care of him, starting with his parents and continuing to his teachers and then the professors at Hogwarts, he’s developed a wariness of others, especially those in authority, and a disinclination to accept help from anyone. Despite that, or perhaps because of it, he has a sense of loyalty towards his fellow Slytherins; they accepted him. That doesn’t give them a pass from his critical nature, or excuse them from his high and demanding standards. Severus had never truly believed blood gave anyone an entitlement to magic; having magic made you special, different, better, and that was the simple end of it. Plenty of people who had it certainly didn’t deserve it – that perhaps the reverse was true is a thought he tries not to linger on. He has too much resentment and anger for the Muggle world to want it to be true, anyway. His practical alignment with the Purebloods involved with bloodism started merely because they were the people who took him in; certainly their influence over the years has made him question and re-evaluate his stances, but there was never a full hearted agreement with them. Not that it ever seemed to matter; they were the ones with the influence, the power he craved. And now it’s clear that they are the ones who are going to win. He cares too much about his ongoing survival to let his uncertainties about anything show – especially not this. Lily is, always has been, and always be the exception to most things in his life. But not how closely guarded he is; no one knows the extent of her ongoing importance to him. Perhaps some closest to him might know enough of the past to tease him about his prior misguided association with the mudblood, but how many others would really think much of that odd pairing that fell apart, or give it any significance. No, to the outside world, Lily means very little to Severus now. He prefers it that way.

BRIEF OVERVIEW OF FAMILY:

Eileen Prince has always viewed herself as a tragic romantic; underappreciated, destined for more, at the center of a story more sweeping and doomed than anyone could fathom, with a vividly private fantasy life. . She has also always been selfish and spoiled and stubbornly refuses to see anything except through the lense of her sense of gothicly romantic drama. Going against everything her family stood for and seeing a Muggle man, even after the heavy threat of disownment? How just like a novel! Especially when Tobias Snape was the swarthy, Byronic man of her dreams. With an ardency that would have surprised her schoolmates, who always found her a sourly straightforward dullard, Eileen threw herself into a relationship with little regard for the practicalities. The romantic bliss landed long enough for Eileen to become pregnant, but not much longer. The cramped, dingy terraced house lost its allure as Eileen failed to be capable of any of the things Tobias might have expected her to do, left home alone during the long hours of his shifts at the factory. Or at least unwilling to do them, so used to a life of house elves taking care of such grungy practicalities as dishes and scrubbing floors and changing linens. A task not made easier by the constant, pervasive soot from the nearby factory. Severus was born into this atmosphere of growing discontent and resentment and, in the normal way of babies, failed to make anything easier. Arguments became more common, and Tobias took to spending more time out at the pubs to avoid the wife who was perpetually disappointed in him, only stumbling home drunk early in the morning to more recriminations and disgust. Thus Severus grew up in this atmosphere of self-fueling misery, anger and Eileen’s stubborn refusal to take any responsibility. She could have, after all, swallowed her pride and returned to the family willing to take her back (at least until she finally and definitely alienated them), bringing her son with her to give him a much better environment. But that would have reduced her ability to cast herself as the tragic victim, the downtrodden, corrupted vision of her childhood dreams. Instead she fed Severus a steady diet of fantasies and stories of what should have been his birthright, if not for the stultifying, suppressing influence of this dreadful Muggle world.

OCCUPATION:

Potioneer and Magical Researcher: Severus works in a potion shop in Diagon Alley; he started merely stocking shelves of ingredients, but when the owner discovered his brilliance with brewing, he was moved to the back workshop, where he makes the ready made potions the store sells. It suits him fine; less interaction with customers. What he considers his real occupation, though, and what his income as a potioneer funds, is his magical research. His fascination with spellmaking didn’t end with his time at Hogwarts, and while he has yet to get any of his work published in the theoretical journals, he is refining his studies and working towards that goal.

ROLE WITHIN THE ORDER/THOUGHTS ABOUT THE ORDER:

He’s only here for one person. He thinks the Order is doomed; aside from them being fractured in purpose and goal, the surviving people in it are mostly morons. Severus’s only purpose here is to keep Lily safe and convince her to get out before it’s too late. If that means betraying everyone and everything else around him – so be it.

SURVIVAL:

Severus Snape has survived purely on his own merits. Being on the winning side isn’t without its dangers, after all. He is cautious and guarded even with his fellow Death Eaters. His inner thoughts are hidden from Voldemort himself. He has always operated on caring for himself first – well, second. It is not for nothing that he is a snake; cunning, willing to use people, ambitious for his own goals.

RELATIONSHIPS:

Severus has been functioning as a follow of Voldemort since essentially the late days of his schooling, and will only be coming into the Order in a plot drop as he turns traitor against the Death Eaters; he largely doesn’t have any standing relationship with the majority of the Order Members in play. His general opinion of them as a collective is, as stated before, that they’re a bunch of idiots clinging to a lost cause. His relationship with them going forward is bound to be tense. Below are some stances on past relationships and connections. James Potter has lived a live totally opposite to Severus’s: born to parents who loved him and could provide him everything he could ever want, he is also well liked, with a charming manner paired with a handsome face that earns the admiration and respect of seemingly everyone he meets. The bloody bastard has it so easy and doesn’t even realize it. Of course, that lone Severus could have ignored – it was the boy’s relentless need to rub it in his face how much more he had then Severus all through school that earned James his lasting loathing. Despite that, though, Severus wouldn’t care about the man now, aside from one thing: he’s dating Lily. An association Severus is certain is the only reason Lily is involved in the Order, endangering herself with that doomed cause. Idiot Potter. Only an idiot like Sirius Black would willfully ignore all advantages he was born to, and flaunt how he threw it all away. A stable family, the advantages of wealth, the respect of society simply because he was born Pure. Even worse than his mate Potter, Black seemed perpetually determined to mock Severus for not having what he was born into. Severus would have liked to forget him, but there is the constant awareness that given a chance, Black would kill him without hesitation. He’s done it before, as well, and with less fuel for twisted motivation. Plus, Severus has further first hand experience with how unhinged the Blacks as a whole can be. Frankly, he wouldn’t classify Black as anything above a loose canon, dangerous to everyone around him. He doubts he would have enough sense of mind to be a spy, but knowing that others suspect the man brings him a gleeful sort of joy. Severus’s childhood memories of Lily are the things most dear to him – and the most closely guarded thoughts in his mind. Losing her friendship, and the trust, respect, and love that came with it, is the single most devastating event in his life to date. And yet, at the time, it came with a finality, a definite end. They were taking separate paths, and all he could do was wish her well. Only now she isn’t well. This war is a mess, he’s fighting for things he doesn’t really believe in, keeps glimpsing her on the other side, so close to death and destruction, and he can’t bear it. So, fine. If it means swallowing his pride, giving up those bitter prizes he’s earned in a life without her, and getting repeatedly kicked by those idiots in the Order for having the audacity to point out their obvious flaws, he’ll do it to keep Lily safe.

OOC EXPLORATION:

SHIPS/ANTI-SHIPS:

Largely, Severus has bigger issues to be concerned with than romance. This is a war, after all. But hey, this is a war and shit happens. He’s not going to cross any student/teacher lines, but that shouldn’t be an issue in this game.

WHAT PRIVILEGES AND BIASES DOES YOUR CHARACTER HAVE?

Severus’s biggest privilege is being accepted among the people who are winning. They trust him, all the way to the top. Of course, his participation in the Death Eaters is still illegal, but for how much longer? It’s only a matter of time before they’re completely in control. Severus’s driving bias is and always will be Lily. What he considers necessary to her well being will come first – even if it goes against what she wants. His own survival comes next, as an extension of necessity for protecting Lily. He is deeply capable of holding grudges, and does, against the people who hurt him. The few people who have genuinely helped him (primarily the Malfoys) have earned his respect, consideration, honest friendship, and his willingness to go out of his way to help them as long as it doesn’t interfere with his primary motivations (the survival of Lily and himself).

WHAT ARE YOU MOST LOOKING FORWARD TO?

The exploration of the shades of ‘Good’. The differing, even conflicting motivations of this group of people we, growing up with the stories and perceptions of the ‘Good Guy Order’, tend to metagame out or flatten. Getting back to this being a vigilante group of deeply flawed people in a society of not always acknowledged biases, and the deep realness of that

#homenumaccepted #hp rp #hp roleplay #marauders era #marauders rp

0 notes

filmanalysis21341753 · 6 years

Text

AV Essay

MELISSA COFIE

21341753

Hypothesis: Zootopia employing a Neo noir framework in order to present a criticism by creating an illusion with comparison to the film Se7en. Is Zootopia criticizing the genre?

The genre of Neo Noir can be known for its ability and power to provide filmmakers with a method of engaging, reacting and responding to current social and cultural factors playing a part in our present day society. An example of this would be the Disney animation Zootopia (2016) directed by Byron Howard and Rich Moore. This film utilises and demonstrates the stylistic traits and character types represented by political reactionary through racial and gender stereotyping. The Disney animation has won a Golden Globe, an Annie Award, including an Academy Award for Best Animated Feature film as it approaches its audience in all levels and ages. The film’s collective central style and subject matter of the fictional storyline can be classed as a classic Neo noir film as what initially started as a clear and minimalistic plot gradually revealed itself as a deeper social conspiracy.

Zootopia can be analysed and described as an immersive toon noir which indirectly covers controversial topics such as systematic racism and socio political affairs. The sequence successfully works as it directly reflects the episodic truth of our human daily lives with regards specifically to the animal kingdom and the process of classification rather than directly addressing racism, alienation, prejudice, sexism and patriarchy. Through this lighthearted and upbeat animation, Moore and Howards reflect and describe our reality through a fictional world and utopian society where all animals, both predator and prey learn to live amongst each other in harmony with the mantra that “Anyone can be anything”. The city of Zootopia, that the film takes place in, is crucial to the key element of character building throughout the story by mimicking an entire society, this including a variety of subcultures interacting with real social dynamics. “Film Noir was a movement restricted by time and place” (Paul Schrader, 1997) The family friendly neo-noir tale with political undertones quite clearly addresses societal problems of today’s world with fictional political situations. This is most evident through the introduction of anthropomorphized animals talking, dressing and working together similar in comparison to the way human beings live, with emphasis on their goals, motives and emotions. On a scene by scene basis, the film tries to provide the viewer with an understanding of the way prejudice works through the heavy use of allegory.

Co-writer of the film, Phil Johnston, “Audience expectations point towards female characters needing a love interest, and that is not the case”. This marks a turning point for Disney as this is the first film where the motives of the protagonist and female lead are led without the addition of romance as a key aspect to the film’s plot. Especially evident with Judy being the only woman working in the police department, women are integral to the plot especially when referring to the villain, the assistant Mayor of Zootopia and female sheep, Dawn Bellwether (Jenny Slate).

When Judy Hopps (Ginnifer Goodwin) joins the police force, she is challenged in terms of power and authority, being the first female and first of her species to join the specific sector of work. Her incentive being the determination to prove herself against the stereotypically masculine species, that predators and prey can work amongst each other in harmony despite size or gender. “The more sophisticated we get as storytellers and stray from that old formula that is so tired, the more exciting films are going to get and the more interesting female characters we’ll see in movies.” (Phil Johnston) Despite the strong sense of masculinity in the work environment, Judy quickly adapts to how toughness required to enforce the law by taking on the main mysterious and unsolved case facing the precinct. At this point in the film and throughout, her main aim and motives remain the same. Her challenge being working alongside criminal, Nick Wilde (Jason Bateman), a sly fox who proves to make her job harder with emphasis on the predator prey relationship between the fox and rabbit population.

On the whole, although Judy pushes for equality alongside more domineering animals as her colleagues, this is not only as example of a woman in a hostile working environment but essentially a woman of a different race, in this case species. Similarly, Bellwether wants to subvert the system and put herself on top. Together these two represent and symbolize the competing ideologies of matriarchy and female equality, therefore accentuating further the power given to the female protagonist and antagonist by Disney in this particular example.

In relation to the topic of cinematic masculinity, Zootopia is far more oblique, as it never comments on Judy's singleness. In strict comparison with David Fincher’s ‘Se7en’ (1995), Fincher has a very strong reputation for his protagonists consistently being male. When looking at both Somerset & Mills, both characters initially seen as complete opposites. Somerset being the calm, calculated & experienced while Mills the young, loud and irrational. This demonstrates the difference in generations and foreshadows the way each character will react as the film progresses and more clues are picked up. The element of emasculation is also a strong and steady theme explored in the film. This is first shown when Mills is attacked and he’s not able to fully defend himself ending with scars and cuts on his face and fracture of bones. This results in his manhood being threatened because his character is a very loud hothead but is suddenly kept at bay. This is the calmest Mills is in the film. Another aspect of when Mills is emasculated is the moment the John Doe reveals he murder Mills wife. The audience see Mills break down and start to cry – this is the most vulnerable we have seen him throughout the course of the film. And his inexperience is really brought forth when he makes the decision to kill John Doe. One can see this as glorious and justifiable rage but also brings out the inner ‘Monstrosity’ that John doe had proclaimed was dormant within mills.

In addition, the use of males and guns is seen regularly in neo-noir. It can be interpreted as a form of masculinity, with regards to the use of phallic symbols, as the protagonist usually would do their final deed with that specific gun. Similarly, it can also be viewed and interpreted as a modern aesthetic of male ego and confidence. This also links back to the aspect of hyper-masculinity. It adds a persona to the character and their traits would either be centered around that item or be altered once they have received it. In the case of Se7en, Mills is always swaying his gun and ready to use it. It is tool that he uses to showcase his position of power and level of authority by ranking as compared to Somerset who was armed but barely brought it out. He consistently carried and used tools like pens, paper and books thus showing his older and more experienced persona and furthermore throughout the film, each character traits are exposed and brought forth through the tools and aesthetics they have.

On the contrary the film Zootopia doesn't directly address or comment on the aspect of the protagonist being female, despite this the understanding still exists. Judy is dismissed and degraded as too adorable, too miniature in size, too weak and overly emotional. A kind of prejudice mainly aimed at women, not just race in particular. “Neo-noir develops new vocabularies for classic themes” (Spicer, 2002). One element often used in neo-noir is the use of police officers or detectives as protagonists. Through this it changes the method one would follow a basic character. From their introduction to developing them as the film progresses. When dealing with someone in a position of some sort of power they are much more complex characters. Their decision making usually have a butterfly effect – as the story goes on each choice they make either takes them forward or brings them back. With officer Judy we get the sense of she knows her position and ranking but in order for her to rise to the top she must be willing to make mistakes and grow as a person to reach that next level. Her arrival to the ZPD, she is immediately stereotyped and looked upon as just young and inexperienced. Through the spectacle of neo-noir we see that she uses that as a catalyst to go on and beyond what she initially though her work was set to be. She as a character and a hungry enthusiastic officer has now gained a motif of not wanting to be the overlooked and underappreciated. When looking at se7en, each time Mills was irrational in his actions they would end up with another dead victim and John Doe out of their grasps again, which for some part became more of a cat and mouse chase. Their egos and high ranking causes them to go back to square one and restart and review their investigation multiple times.

Additionally, by having a female character as an officer – something that is male dominated throughout neo-noir. It can be seen as an advancement and upgrade of the genre. It can be used a tool to challenge the male and patriarchal gaze. Certain utterances and behaviors that would be deemed as normal because of the over-exposure of male characters performing them. By Judie playing that role of an officer, who is faced with trials and tribulations – seeing her perspective and her execution in addressing the situations open up a different element to neo-noir. Something that had been narrowed to a specific distinct way on how the protagonists or officers of power were to be portrayed had now been broadened to a contemporary audience.

All in all, Film Noir is argued as not just reduced to a genre, but mainly defined by its the tones, themes and qualities which describe it. Zootopia has managed to keep the key elements of neo-noir such as solitude and social hierarchy but able to embed new values and topics of discussion, through this it is able to prove the wellness of the neo-noir genre but also critiques the strongly held traditional neo-noir structure in aims to update and contemporize it effectively.

Bibliography

Spicer, A. (2002) Film Noir, Longman/Pearson Education

Porfirio, R & Cornard T M. (2006) ‘The Philosophy of Film Noir’, University press of Kentucky

Mohanty, C. T. (1991) ‘Under Western Eyes: Feminist Scholarship and Colonial Discourses’ Indiana University Press, pp. 51-80

Crenshaw, K. (1989) ‘Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics’, University of Chicago Legal Forum, pp. 139–67

Timothy Shary, E. (2013) ‘Millennial Masculinity: Men in Contemporary American Cinema’ Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press

Kirkham, P. & Thumim, J. (1995) Me Jane : masculinity, movies, and women, New York : St. Martin's Press

Articles

Superhero Feed (2016) ZOOTOPIA Movie Clip – Assistant Mayor Bellwether

Flint, H. (2016) ‘People want Disney to #GiveElsaAGirlfriend because of the lack of LGBT representation in their films’ [online] Metro

Travers, P. (2016) ‘Zootopia’, Rolling Stone, 3 March [online]

mtv braless (2016) Is Zootopia an Intersectional Feminist Utopia? [online]

Genzlinger, N. (2016) ‘Review: In ‘Zootopia,’ an Intrepid Bunny Chases Her Dreams’ [online] The New York Times

Lucas, S. (2016) ‘Why Disney’s Zootropolis might be the most important film you see this year’ [online] The Conversation

Aekaputra, S. (2017) ‘Zootopia: A Film Theory of Gender’ University of Cambridge [online]

Collin, R. (2016) ‘Zootropolis is the Chinatown of talking animal films – review’, The Telegraph, 24 March [online]

Woods, A. (2016) ‘Zootopia’s Judy Hopps: A Unique Female Protagonist in a World of Animated Men [online] Animation World Network

Romero, A. (2016) Zootopia, An Analysis of Female Characters as Active/Passive Females [online] Women Watch Films

Dominick, S A. (2016) Film Review: Zootopia A cute, manic Disney movie that has a little extra to say [online] Consequence of sound

Christensen, M. (2016) The Gender Politics Of Zootopia [online] Biola University

No Film School – The stylist elements of Film Noir

BFI – 10 great American noir films

0 notes

mrmichaelchadler · 6 years

Text

"You Were Expecting Someone Else?" Why a Non-White James Bond is the Franchise's Logical Next Step

On the heels of false rumors that Idris Elba was next in line to inherit James Bond's license to kill, arguments for the inclusive casting of the character and against a non-white actor playing Bond have landed like thunderballs. This makes sense. For going on 60 years, audiences have only ever seen Bond as white. Now it finally appears that, per director Antoine Fuqua, producer Barbara Broccoli has concurred that “it’s time” for a non-white Bond. A non-white Bond appears an easy choice in 2018, when a culture once dominated by straight white men has started making room for once-marginalized voices. Casting a Bond of color would indeed change the franchise.

And if you look at how Bond and the franchise have evolved over the last two decades, you'll see that this wouldn't be an arbitrary change, but an evolutionary one. You could even say that it's what the Bond series has been building towards, as it strove to infuse stories with political details drawn from recent headlines while making Bond seem like even more of an outsider than he did already.

We should begin by enthusiastically stating that, in the character's earliest incarnations—on the page as well as in the first few decades of films—it made a world of sense for Bond to be white. Although reflexive resistance to casting Elba, or any non-white performer, tends to be rooted in racism, it's not accurate to say that it doesn't matter whether Bond is white. Bond’s race is indeed a part of the character, and a key bit of context necessary for understanding how he functions. As opposed to Bond’s race being a neutral character—or Bond’s actions not being motivated by race, as Matt Miller asserts—it seems fairer to say that Bond’s whiteness was inevitable, considering the era and culture that birthed him.

Bond debuted in Casino Royale, published in 1954 by former British Naval Officer Ian Fleming. Fleming's politics were written into the books: rather than appearing as apolitical, Bond explicitly works for Her Majesty’s Secret Service, and is born out of Cold War paranoia. His enemies and allies often are associated with the respective international relationships that the United Kingdom had with such countries as the United States, Russia (formerly the USSR), China, Japan and Germany. First played onscreen by Sean Connery in 1962's "Dr. No," Bond is not just an action hero with good taste in cars and shoes. He is an arm of of state politics and an emblem of midcentury British imperialism.

"You Only Live Twice"

Once you realize that Bond’s actions are never apolitical, you start to understand how deliberate the political subtext (or super text) in these films can be.

International tensions and cultural stereotypes and resentments are all over the series from the start. They grow harder to ignore in later films. And they're largely shaped by the point-of-view of the Hollywood-adjacent British film industry which, like the British government, is run by white men, and has been slow to cede ground to other points-of-view.

Bond appears in yellowface for nearly a third of the running time of "You Only Live Twice," and the tense relationship the UK and Japan is discussed in dialogue. When Bond strolls into a hotel room sopping wet in "Die Another Day," the Chinese manager declares decisively, “Hong Kong is our turf now, Bond,” just before he goes to face the film's bad guy, a North Korean dictator's son who has had cosmetic and DNA surgery to become white. In "From Russia with Love," Bond … well, you get the picture. The appeal to the Bond movies implicitly is its geopolitics, even when it’s we're simply reading it as "Bond fights the Russians," and even then, Bond represents certain ideas. (SPECTRE, the recurring terrorist organization that Bond battles against across multiple titles, is fascinating because they are bound not only by ideology, but by the awareness of fraught international relationships: see "You Only Live Twice.")

But Broccoli is right to say its time for a different kind of Bond. Every entry in the series has, to varying degrees, had to justify the necessity of existing, but that urge became more overt as the distance between Bond and the Cold War turned into a chasm. The Pierce Brosnan films, which kicked off with 1995's "Goldeneye," were already referencing the Cold War in faintly nostalgic terms, as a conflict that was at least more clearly defined than the chaos the character had to deal with after the USSR broke apart. The context of Bond had to change again for 2006’s reboot/origin story "Casino Royale." The shadow of September 11th and the international War on Terror hung over the character, who was now angsty, angry, gritty, and world-weary. Daniel Craig became an emblem of post-9/11 trauma and frustration, even ambivalence.

The Craig films (consisting of "Casino Royale," "Quantum of Solace," Skyfall," and "Spectre") do what the rest of the franchise don't do: they constantly interrogate Bond’s relevance to the world. Craig's version of Bond is shaped by the brokenness of the society and politics around him. His struggle to “become Bond” in a definite, easily communicable way, as Sean Connery or Roger Moore did so easily, is indicative of how stunted and fractured the world has become. He’s worse at his job (he barely succeeds at missions anymore), and his relationship with his license to kill has soured. His masculinity is starting to bend. Maybe he’s starting to realize the world doesn’t need him anymore.

In "Spectre," Bond returns to the exotic locales the movies were once iconic for, and encounters little else but rubble and ruin: the result of British Imperialism and colonialism. The film begins somewhat pretentious (in a delightful way): “The dead are alive,” it tells us. Does that makes 007 the ghost of the British Empire? What does Bond even mean in the 21st century? We already know he's a relic of the Cold War—and as M [Judi Dench] calls him in "GoldenEye," “a sexist, misogynist dinosaur”—and he knows it. So now what?

Such questions are central to the Craig films. The answer so far has been implicitly argue that Bond doesn’t need to exist in a world where warfare and espionage are no longer on-the-ground affairs—a curious example of a wildly popular franchise arguing against its own existence.

All of which brings us to the first reason that a non-white Bond would be not just fresh, but sensible and necessary: casting Bond as non-white would make the franchise's politics a lot more sophisticated and challenging, without contradicting anything that it has shown us in the past.

The Bond franchise has, over the course of its run, turned increasingly inwards; in its last decade or so, it’s been hard to argue that Craig’s cycle of films demonstrated unwavering support of the British government and its implicit heroism, crimes, and misdemeanors. "Quantum of Solace" showed us that Bond, often a stand-in for British imperial powers, could rampage. "Skyfall" and "Spectre'"s pair of Shakespearean monologues from M (Dench) and Blofeld (Christoph Waltz) confirmed that if the Empire hasn’t already fallen, the series is critical of its nihilistic need to keep going no matter what.

A non-white Bond would push international audiences to realize that the world view and behavior represented in Bond moves aren't just a white thing. White people are no longer sole arbiters of colonialist attitudes or actions, on the ground or otherwise.

In that sense, a non-white actor playing Bond would not so much be a subversion of Bond’s politics, but an admittance that those politics are bound to statehood and institution, not always just to race.

"Quantum of Solace"

However, it would not be sufficient to cast an actor of color as Bond and not change anything else about the movies.

A non-white Bond would not be a one-dimensional representational win if the franchise continues to make only minor tweaks. A white Bond doesn't demand that we reconsider the politics of the entire franchise. Pretty much any other race or ethnicity would compel it.

Imagine an Asian Bond after having witnessed the character’s (and Britain’s) relationship with Asian countries in such films as "You Only Live Twice," "Man with the Golden Gun," "Tomorrow Never Dies" and "Die Another Day." A black Bond would make us to think about Britain’s slave territories, represented onscreen in "Live and Let Die," essentially a blaxploitation movie with a black villain and a white hero. What thoughts would be inspired by an Indian Bond, considering the colonial history so glancingly referenced in "Octopussy"?

More to the point, Bond is, in effect, a very handsome supercop. “You are just a stupid policeman,” Dr. No derisively says to him. He has, as Patti LaBelle is want to sing, a license to kill. And while he’s more inclined to work with other government agencies, local and state police are technically his allies. “As lawless as his actions may appear to be, underneath it all Bond really believes in Goodness and Order and Freedom and Democracy and, yes, even Law. Scratch the tuxedo and and you’ll find a police uniform,” writes scholar Greg Forster.

Considering white-dominated police forces' typically unstable relationship with nonwhites, a black Bond would complicate our racialized understanding of Bond and law rather drastically. As recent films like "Crime + Punishment" are exploring the complicated racial dynamics at play for black police officers, it would be irresponsible for the Bond series to not confront a nonwhite Bond's feelings about being a part of an institution that routinely exercise force against people who look like him.

None of this should be daunting to the people who hold the keys to the Bond franchise. They should see this moment as an opportunity, in between car chases, gunfights and seductions, to explore new dramatic as well as political territory, and even tackle questions of race and institutional power.

That institution is England.

"The Spy Who Loved Me"

Bond is so representative of Great Britain and all that she stands for that the series that its self-awareness began to mushroom as early as 1973, when Roger Moore slipped into Bond’s shoes in "Live and Let Die." Only a couple films later, he would he ski jump off a mountain and reveal that his parachute was the Union Jack in "The Spy Who Loved Me" (1977). That was a statement, joking yet serious, that Bond was the UK.

Politically, the history of the UK is a history of whiteness.

What would it feel like to drop someone like Elba or "Attack the Block"'s John Boyega into Bond’s suit in, say, "The Living Daylights," which takes place in Afghanistan? Could he make jokes about sex and England, about other national cuisines or customs like in "Octopussy"? Would that feel natural, or would there be something off and unusual about shoehorning in a black Bond without somehow addressing those racial implications?

And what about "GoldenEye," and the line “For England, James?” Alec Trevelyan (Sean Bean) asks that question of Bond, bookending the film, wondering if they still believe in what they’re doing. The answer is different both times. At the end, Bond is allowed to be a little skeptical. Could Boyega be skeptical of England’s ultimate goal, the implication that their version of goodness and lawfulness should be the standard for the rest of the developed world? Would we laugh at the very idea of a black Bond agreeing with the sentiments of a character like Alec Trevelyan? In "Casino Royale," M remarks to Bond, “Any thug can kill.” Could an actor like Daniel Kaluuya shrug off that kind of casual designation of the hierarchy of killing? Or would the moment be more pointed, barbed? Could Idris Elba unquestioningly wear a Union Jack that’s shot out of one of his gadgets, or would doubt begin to inform his character?

Whiteness is also what allowed Bond to come and go from the institution that employs him. Bond has left MI6 or has gone rogue a number of times over the decades, only to be welcomed back. Only someone who was white who could be part of a white dominated institution, doubt it, leave it, and return without much fuss.

Of all the iterations of the Bond franchise, it's Craig’s films that pave the way for a non-white bond. They have a different understanding of Bond altogether, beyond a broad “grittiness.” Daniel Craig's Bond is alienated.

"Casino Royale"

Jokes can be made about the one dimensionality of Bond’s character throughout most of the series, but "GoldenEye" nodded to unlocking his psychology and how he felt about the destruction he’s left in his wake. Trevelyan sneers, “I might as well ask you for the vodka martinis that have silenced the screams of all the men you've killed ... or if you find forgiveness in the arms of all those willing women, for all the dead ones you failed to protect.” The Craig Bond films go further, suggesting that you have to be a bit dead inside in the first place to work for an institution like Bond's employer. In "Casino Royale," Vesper Lynd (Eva Green) asks, “You can switch off so easily, can't you? It doesn't bother you? Killing those people?” Bond retorts, “Well, I wouldn’t be very good at my job if it did.” There is unsureness on his face after he says this. Through Craig, we understand how Bond became a shell.

If the Craig films are implicitly arguing that Bond has not, as we have assumed, been able to assimilate into the role of a Double-O agent, working for Her Majesty’s Secret Service, what if that extended into a metaphor about how people of color struggle with assimilation on a broader level?

A non-white Bond could be portrayed as someone who's wearing a white mask in order to survive. That's an intriguing and potentially powerful step beyond the already considerable alienation that Craig brought to the part.

The most wonderful thing about the Bond franchise is its malleability. The character has been played by many actors. The films constantly morph to fit within whatever genre or style is popular at the moment. And has become increasingly intricate as a character.

It would be a level up for Bond to confront what it actually means to be Other, not just alienated or ambivalent.

A non-white Bond could articulate a struggle to assimilate into a broader national or governmental politic, and better establish the push and pull of the character's own agency, and his often unknowing role as a pawn. The unsureness that Bond already exudes, via Craig, would be grounded in psychological and concrete reality. Subtext would become text, but in an electrifying way. A nonwhite actor would make a lot of things official, and turn Bond into something besides a spectre of the past.

from All Content https://ift.tt/AQty5c

0 notes

nntodayblog · 6 years

Text

Don’t Let Blockbusters Keep You From Seeing Indie Movies This Month

A24 Great Point Media/Paladin Film Amazon Studios

Snag a ticket to "Lean on Pete," "Where Is Kyra?" or "You Were Never Really Here" before the blockbuster deluge.

Now that blockbusters ― namely reboots and franchise fare ― have graduated from summer escapism to year-round fixtures, April is no longer a safe space at the multiplex. The month that once birthed “Field of Dreams,” “The Matrix,” “Election” and “Mean Girls” now belongs to the “Fast and the Furious” vehicles, Marvel and “Clash of the Titans.”

To see “A Quiet Place” rumble into theaters last weekend was to witness a small miracle. Heralding John Krasinski’s directing talents and notching an august $50 million opening, the post-apocalyptic creature feature is the sort of studio product meant to warm jaded cinephiles’ hearts: a high-concept crowd-pleaser that manages to be fresh andwhip-smart ― an increasingly rare sight in the year of our big-budget Lord 2018. “A Quiet Place” boasts the highest-grossing April debut for an original film in history, as well as the heftiest intake for an original live-action release since “Happy Death Day” last October.

The rest of April’s wide releases are, well, less thrilling. Oversized beasts are stampeding Dwayne Johnson and Naomie Harris, “Isle of Dogs” barks its way into more corners of the country, Shia LaBeouf flaunts short shorts in the otherwise staid “Borg vs McEnroe,” Amy Schumer stars in a feminist “Shallow Hal,” we finally get a sequel to ... “Super Troopers” (?), “Truth or Dare” turns its titular pastime into something deadly (Tyler Posey doesn’t take his shirt off in the trailer; skip it), and the Avengers threaten to put more superheroes on one screen than a VH1 Divas telecast.

Those movies will flood multiplexes in the coming weeks, ushering us toward the blockbuster domination that is May, June and July. Meanwhile, three worthwhile underdogs opened opposite “A Quiet Place,” shouldering the month’s indie marketplace. “Lean on Pete,” “Where Is Kyra?” and “You Were Never Really Here” are hardly light fare, but isn’t there some adage about bleak movies being the perfect way to escape April showers? No? You’ll want to invent one after seeing this trio.

We talked to the filmmakers responsible for these gems. If you don’t live near a theater where the movies are playing, add them to a list of rainy-day streaming options for later in the year, when you find yourself wondering who among us requested yet another Robin Hood retelling.

“Lean on Pete”

For fans of “Boyhood,” “The 400 Blows” and “The Black Stallion”

Written and directed by Andrew Haigh Starring Charlie Plummer, Steve Buscemi, Chloë Sevigny, Travis Fimmel, Amy Seimetz and Steve Zahn

A24

Lean on Pete is a racehorse whose cantankerous trainer (Steve Buscemi) describes him as a “piece of shit” ― catnip for our protagonist, Charley (Charlie Plummer), a motherless 15-year-old working the stables for $25 a day, partly as a respite from his aloneness and partly to gird his father’s (Travis Fimmel) limited income. Gentle Charley can’t stomach the thought of Pete being carted off to Mexico, where aged steeds are slaughtered once they are no longer moneymakers. So, in the dark of night, this spindly boy absconds with his beloved horse (an expert listener), trekking through the Oregon desert toward a broader horizon.

On paper, it’s a quintessential coming-of-age tale. But in practice, writer and director Andrew Haigh sees “Lean on Pete” as the events that occur before Charley comes of age. And he’s right: Charley doesn’t yet have the means ― the familial support, the peers, the finances ― to determine his place in the world. The only thing that steadies him is a tender heart. “Until he finds somewhere to have a base, in order to grow, he can’t even deal with ideas of identity or who he’s going to be or what kind of man he wants to be,” Haigh said. “And also, I suppose, in all of my films, I can’t help but want to show a different version of masculinity.”

Haigh is the master of compassionate relationship dramas, having explored a one-night stand in “Weekend,” a long-term marriage in “45 Years,” a group of gay friends on HBO’s “Looking,” and, now, a teenager and his equestrian companion in “Lean on Pete,” based on the novel of the same name by Willy Vlautin. It’s Charley’s desperate need to be kind, and to receive kindness from others, that grounds this particular relationship and separates him from the average teen boy. Whereas most kids his age are striving to master schoolyard politics or sibling rivalry, Charley is trying to conquer the oppressive ugliness of the world around him, hoping that relatives in nearby Wyoming will provide the stability he lacks.

“What do you do in your life if you don’t have support from your loved ones?” Haigh said. “Or you don’t have support from the society around you? It felt like it was something more important, almost, than just questions of identity. It was about something like, how do you survive in the world if you don’t have a framework?”

Charley’s journey makes for a magnificent travelogue in which none of the travel is glamorous. With a parting shot that evokes “The 400 Blows,” this is one of the year’s best movies to date. Another recent release, “Ready Player One,” centered on an orphan in an ugly world, but its virtual-reality bedlam lacked humanity. “Lean on Pete” more than makes up for it, sending its hero ― Plummer’s performance is a wonder; a true star is born ― on an expedition through the great Northwestern outdoors that ends with an introspective discovery. Bring tissues; you’ll need a bunch.

“Where Is Kyra?”

For fans of “Klute,” “99 Homes” and Gena Rowlands movies

Written by Darci Picoult • Directed by Andrew Dosunmu Starring Michelle Pfeiffer, Kiefer Sutherland, Suzanne Shepherd and Sam Robards

Great Point Media/Paladin Film

“Some people say it almost feels like a horror film,” Darci Picoult, the writer of “Where Is Kyra?,” said. “It becomes this terrorizing psychological deterioration.”

Those horror trappings are evident in Picoult’s sparse script, but they’re largely owed to Andrew Dosunmu’s shadowy direction. Working with Oscar-nominated cinematographer Bradford Young (“Selma,” “Arrival”), Dosunmu shades Michelle Pfeiffer’s titular Brooklynite with fuzzy grays and anesthetized blues. Laid off from her job and cashing her late mother’s pension checks for income, Kyra is often framed from a distance, the atrophy she’s facing as she nears senior citizenship foregrounded to reveal a genre of poverty rarely explored in popular culture.

Picoult wrote “Where Is Kyra?” in 2013, surveying the aftereffects of the late 2000s’ economic crisis. She first set the movie in Detroit, which filed for bankruptcy that same summer. But Picoult and Dosunmu, who also collaborated on the Nigerian drama “Mother of George,” relocated the backdrop to New York, where the glaring disparity between haves and have-nots underscores everyday economic strife. What is a middle-aged woman to do when she finds herself unemployed and undesirable, reduced to placing advertisements on vehicles’ windshields and being turned down for gigs at fast-food restaurants in favor of younger candidates?

“I always envisioned Kyra being someone who, if you will, had a life that had promise, someone who believed things were going to work out,” Picoult said. “And then, when they don’t, it becomes even more disparaging because she’s holding on, hoping for something better that doesn’t happen.“

Pfeiffer, who made something of a comeback last year with “mother!” and “Murder on the Orient Express,” has found one of the richest roles of her career, looking more desperate with each rejection and more weathered with each dignity-shattering wakeup. Kyra’s corner of the world struggles to blossom into anything sunnier; farther and farther she drifts down the rabbit hole of anguish, Pfeiffer’s oceanic eyes absorbing every psychic bruise.

“You Were Never Really Here”

For fans of “Taxi Driver,” “Good Time” and “Drive”

Written and directed by Lynne Ramsay Starring Joaquin Phoenix, Judith Roberts, Frank Pando, Ekaterina Samsonov, Alessandro Nivola and Alex Manette

Amazon Studios

“You Were Never Really Here” demands to be seen twice: once to absorb its ethereal grime, and another to peek more clearly into its protagonist’s fractured mind. As Joe, a contract killer (and PTSD-addled war veteran) paid to extricate young girls from corruption, Joaquin Phoenix dances with the camera, angling through the New York streets, slipping between past and present, reality and hallucination. Joe is purposefully elusive, a design that is at once frustrating and hypnotic.

“I thought I was making an action movie, but it also became a character study,” Scottish director Lynne Ramsay, who adapted Jonathan Ames’ novella of the same name, said. “I think I just gravitated to the inner workings of the character.”

Those inner workings are bleak: At home, where he cares for his ailing mother (Judith Roberts), Joe sometimes covers his head with a plastic bag, wondering what would happen if he finally ended it all. Outside, he seems as likely to take a gun to his own head as he does to avenge the brutes holding innocent preteens hostage. But that’s familiar territory for Ramsay, who treats grief and death as leitmotifs (her other credits include “We Need to Talk About Kevin,” “Morvern Callar” and “Ratcatcher”). What makes “You Were Never Really Here” powerful is its ability to place us next to Joe, psychologically and physically, as he flits between avenger and avoider. Think Travis Bickle with a splash of the adrenaline-pumping “Good Time.” The movie telegraphs a woozy paranoia, aided by another stirring score from Jonny Greenwood, who composed the music for “We Need to Talk About Kevin” and last year’s “Phantom Thread.”

For Phoenix, the role encouraged a certain visceral improvisation. “We would make decisions in the moment, and sometimes there are things I’m reacting to in the moment,” he said. “There are times when other actors didn’t know what was going to happen because we didn’t know what was going to happen in that moment. And I think I probably like that way of working in general, but I think it was probably really applicable to that character and this experience.”

You won't find that in "Rampage."

RELATED...

It's Time To Take John Krasinski Seriously As A Director

What If Joaquin Phoenix Is Friendlier Than He Gets Credit For?

Andie MacDowell Is Back, And We Should Never Have Let Her Go

Download

BEFORE YOU GO

Matthew Jacobs

Entertainment Reporter, HuffPost

Suggest a correction

MoviesSteve BuscemiJoaquin PhoenixAndrew HaighCharlie Plummer

Reference source : Don’t Let Blockbusters Keep You From Seeing Indie Movies This Month

0 notes