#because like a. more characterization for breen

[heteromerous-rhyming]

more thoughts on poseidon, and this is going to be quite critical so avert your eyes!! if you're not into that sort of thing!!

i think that part of the reason that i really really disliked this episode (that is ep 7)'s portrayal of poseidon was that, in episode three (which is so far, fun side note, the only episode with significant contributions from woman writers, monica owusu-breen and daphne olive, according to wikipedia*****), poseidon is the villain of medusa's story. like yes, athena is the bigger antagonist, the one who actually curses medusa, but she's screwed over because of poseidon, and he never returns, just abandoning her to her fate.

percy says that his mom tells him medusa's story. and her story is not one that paints poseidon in a favorable light. so to me it felt almost like a betrayal that the writers are trying so hard to characterize poseidon as inherently a good person, a good parent, a good partner. he is, after all a god, and if they were going to tell medusa's story in a way that made her the victim of that story and not the monster, then you cannot escape the fact that she was caught between two gods having a pissing contest (you cannot tell me that poseidon didn't know that using athena's temple would anger her). poseidon, in the end, is a greek god, and gods are often callous to humans.

mentioned this in another post but episode 7 felt disconnected from the series in a weird way, and it's clear to me that it was not in conversation with the repercussions of episode 3

*****monica owusu-breen was a main writer on the episode (and only on that episode according to wikipedia and imdb) and daphne olive was the staff writer on the episodes, but according to the seaweed brain podcast, it seems like her role wasn't necessarily to write the episodes/scriptwriting but to look at the bigger picture (story consultant) - she does seen to have contributed significantly to episode 3 in a way that she didn't necessarily to the other episodes. if anyone has more information on either of them though, i'd love to know!

[felixravinstills]

Hi in the books Felix is the cousin right? But in the movie, he is the son of President. What do you think about it?

Yes, so in the book he is the President’s great-nephew, so Felix’s grandfather would be President Ravinstill’s brother.

The TLDR of my thoughts are it’s an understandable change to streamline the story for a movie’s runtime. I believe that streamlining the story is also why Felix dies instead of Gaius Breen.

The Long Version Where I Tack on a Discussion of More Book Stuff:

I think the choice to make him the President’s son is just to streamline the story and make the thought process behind releasing the snakes easier to understand. Otherwise, people might ask “sure, he’s family, but great-nephew? Does the President really care?” Also it would just raise more questions about that whole relationship that don’t even get answers in the book!

Without the context of Snow’s internal monologue and having to read (which would help certain ideas and details stick better), non-book readers would be pretty confused why they should care about some guy named Gaius Breen dying (he’s who dies as a result of the bombing in the book). “Why does the Capitol care enough to release snakes?” Is what people might think. Having a character who is already established as the President’s son die makes it easier to follow, I imagine. (Unfortunately, the average viewer is not me who is eating up every crumb of the Academy students)

Now, arguably the point is that the Capitol doesn’t really care that Gaius Breen specifically dies. It only cares that there has been an affront on the Capitol by proxy because Gaius has died. The question doesn’t ask me about it, but I have to touch on the lack of funerals for Arachne Crane and the Ring Twins in order to get to what I think the changes to Felix kind of tough upon.

To me, the funerals are great parts of the book because it shows the how the Capitol is using them as propaganda to look down on the Districts and uplift itself.

BUT to me at least, it also shows how the Capitol as an entity makes the Capitol children’s deaths into a spectacle just as much as it makes the Tributes’ deaths a spectacle. It’s all about saving face and showing how great the Capitol is and not really about the people or the families themselves (this is very prominent in Arachne’s funeral). It’s always reinforcing the boundary between Capitol and District (dead Capitol students are shown dignity and the Tributes are not, except when Reaper and Sejanus give them burial rites). But the televising of the funerals is still a spectacle especially when Arachne's family clearly doesn't want Brandy suspended in the sky at her funeral, but the Capitol has to send a message! (This is different from the televising of the bombed District 12 in the main series obviously. The Capitol can afford to mourn its dead in private, but it still chooses to parade them around to send a message.)

I would have liked to see at least Arachne's funeral, but in the absence of those funerals, I do like the decision to show Felix’s body. What a terrible thing to do! Especially if Felix is the President’s son in this version! It’s definitely interesting to think about whether the President authorized the usage of his son’s body to send a message or whether it was Dr. Gaul’s decision to do that.

Regardless, it does play into a theme that I read into the book that I feel isn’t really, if at all, present in the movie: The Capitol doesn’t care about whether or not you are one of its elite (The President's Son even!) or not. At the end of the day, nobody escapes the consequences of the Dystopian government. In its eyes, everyone is a tool to be used. It’s not going to be sentimental about using and/or disposing of you. (This is something Coriolanus starts to realize after Clemensia’s snake bite too actually. Unfortunately for Panem, he just doubles down and adopts the Capitol’s views as his own).

Book! Felix’s possible characterization is pretty subjective, so it’s hard to have an opinion on how the great-nephew-to-son change would affect him at all as a character, or whether it changes anything major there.

I have thoughts about how I choose to characterize Felix based on both the books and movie, but I won’t really go into it here. I’ve rambled long enough. If someone asks, maybe I’ll write something out, but honestly, I’m not confident anyone’s going to read all of this post so…

[eventine-elessedill]

Shannara show au where the writers weren't cowards and Allanon's ill advised past love affair was with Eventine's actual canon sibling Breen Elessedil instead

[far-dareis-me]

Wheel of (Speaking) Time: 1x01-03

Inspired by @rationalnerd62's excellent wot screentime posts, I spent my weekend tracking speaking times across the Wheel of Time episodes released so far (because numbers are fun, and I too am a nerd). I'm working on compiling data into pretty charts, but today I'll start with the first 3 episodes, since they were released together.

First, a couple notes on how this data was taken:

Short pauses (less than 3s) are included in speaking time only if the focus remains on the speaker during the pause. Otherwise the timer is paused. This is just to give me a standard for when to stop recording time.

Verbalizations (grunts, screams, etc) are included only if they are explicitly called out in the subtitles, and there is a clear focus on a single speaker. So [screaming] while focused on Nynaeve shouting down a trolloc is counted, but [grunting] while a group of characters fight is not. Time starts when the subtitle appears and stops when it disappears. Note: typically these don't add up to more than ~5sec of screen time per episode, but when they do it's usually because the character is not speaking and their verbal reactions are important (ie, Shaiel's fight in the Blood Snow).

Only named characters with >5s speaking time (total) are included, for the sake of my sanity and readability of the graphs. There are several two rivers characters with only a line or two who don't make this cut.

Obviously this misses a lot of non-verbal characterization, especially for characters like Perrin or Lan, who say a lot without having to say a word. But taken in conjunction with screentime, I think it paints a pretty interesting picture. Pretty charts below the cut!

WoT Screentime: e1 | e2 | e3 | e1-3 | e4 | e5 | e6 | e7 | e8 WoT Speaking Time: e1-3 | e4 | e5 | e6 | e7 | e8

(note: x-axis time is listed in minutes:seconds)

Episode 1: Leavetaking

Episode 1 introduced us to quite a few Emond's Fielders, and aside from Moiraine's voiceover, the primary speaker is Rand. The rest of the Emond's Field 5 trail behind, and a selection of Two Rivers folk round out the cast. Some interesting tidbits:

Lan is by far the quietest of the main cast, challenged only by Perrin. Both have only slightly less screentime than Moiraine and Mat, so they really just don't talk much.

Though Egwene had more screentime, Rand has nearly 30% more speaking time.

Over a third of Moiraine's speaking time is a voice-over, either during the episode's intro or outro.

Episode 2: Shadow's Waiting

Episode 2 narrowed the focus to the main cast, with only a few side characters introduced. The cast largely stays together this episode, with only a couple asides, but Egwene and Mat do the most talking.

Despite the mains (minus Nynaeve) all having very similar screentime, Moiraine dominates this episode's speaking time. This is due largely to her explaining so much to the rest of the group (especially Egwene) and talking to the Whitecloacks.

Perrin, again, is very quiet this episode. Lan is too, until Moiraine passes out, at which point he takes on her exposition duties.

Rewatching this episode with an eye for speaking time really drove home how aware Mat is of everyone around him. Most of his speaking time he is talking not for his own benefit, but because people just really need someone to say something. It broke my heart a little, especially knowing how quiet he gets later this season.

Episode 3: A Place of Safety

Episode 3 gave us several new characters, but the focus was undeniably on the events in Breen's Spring.

Dana took top billing, giving us an introduction to Darkfriends and the Forsaken. Thom nabbed second, despite his significantly lower screentime

Mat and Rand's development was definitley the focus of this episode- in addition to their speaking time being substantially higher than the other groups, they also had the most screentime.

Nynaeve does an impresive job trying to make up for her absence from the previous episode (by flirting with I mean taunting Lan)

Episode 1-3 Overview

Overall, the top 10 speakers in these first few eps make a lot of sense- 7 mains, and the 3 biggest support characters. There is only one difference in this list compared to screentime; Thom instead of Marin.

The undisputed biggest jabbermouth is of course Moiraine. This does make sense as she is the lead, and the source of most of our verbal exposition. But being passed out for nearly the full runtime of episode 3 didn't even make a dent in the lead she gained in the previous two.

Mat, Rand and Egwene all came out of the first bloc with very similar speaking times, all within 1.5min or so of each other. These three are all pretty close in screentime as well. Lagging just behind are the rest of our main cast. Nynaeve, was absent for almost all of episode 2, setting her back a bit. Lan and Perrin though are both pretty quiet characters, and it definitely shows in their speaking time. Rounding out the top 10 are Dana, Thom, and Tam, 3 key characters who gave us a lot of info in their limited time.

I think once the season is over, it'll be interesting to take a look at what percent of their screentime each character spends actually speaking. Based on just this preliminary data, I'm guessing it will align pretty closely with how quiet a character is described to be in the books.

Gender Balance

Finally, I took a look at the gender split on speaking time. And despite Moiriane's prominent role, it's really quite remarkably even. Over the 3 episodes, 49% of speaking time is from women vs 51% from men.

Honestly this close of a balance in speaking time is astounding for any show, but especially in fantasy. And given that the screentime for these episodes sits around 40% women to 60% men, I think it's safe to say we can officially debunk the claims that WoT favors women or doesn't give enough time to its men (I'm shocked. Utterly shocked).

Anyway, I hope some folks will find this interesting, and thanks again to rationalnerd62 for the inspiration and compiling screentime data!

My data is posted here, and I will be adding times for the remaining episodes as I compile them over the course of the week.

[cannoli-reader]

Racial Casting issues

I saw yet another sanctimonious post on Tumblr snottily asserting that everyone who had issues with the casting is only doing so out of racism. 

My major issue was the old blood of Manetheren but they excised that, so it’s not problematic (note that they cast people of color in inverse degree to the Old Blood demonstrated by their characters). The major issue I now have is how they have gutted Nynaeve and Perrin or authority, dignity or accomplishments and given quite a bit of their stuff to the white Moiraine and capable-of-passing,  Egwene, respectively. Or cast black actors to play total irredeemable scumbags like Fain & Valda.

Another potential problem I was concerned for, was that Rand had to be able to pass for a Two Rivers half-breed so that the discovery of his adoption lands with the same kind of impact, but A. the casting for Tam was enough that no one would doubt his paternity and B. the show basically decided not to bother with that aspect of his characterization. 

And regarding the Two Rivers... it really kind of undercut the impact of Rand and Mat seeing a city for the first time, or Nynaeve meeting the Aes Sedai, when the Two Rivers is so diverse, and Breen’s Spring is so diverse and the Tinkers are so diverse.  It’s basically meaningless to see such a variety of people in Tar Valon or such variety among the Aes Sedai party.  There’s no reason they couldn’t be POC in the Two Rivers, as long as it was the same color.

Regarding the critique of people who don’t like the diversity of the cast - they were white in the books and it was explicit in the books that the Two Rivers has not interbred with outsiders, regardless of how blithering idiots like Daniel Greene, whose YouTube summaries of the books are riddled with errors and inaccuracies, might try to come up with theories to demonstrate that they might have intermarried with outsiders.  The film industry has made too many bad adaptations of fantasy properties in recent years, and there is a strong correlation between the success of adaptations and close adherence to the text.  Fans have plenty of reason to be concerned about any deviation from the books.  

It’s just really contemptible when people who are just as racially bigoted, but in a  more socially acceptable manner, say things like “i find that there’s a really insidious pattern to much of the criticism” and “there’s a lot of nastiness hidden under statements”.  There’s nothing wrong with liking the casting because it has a person of your race or a race you prefer. But it’s a garbage human who attributes deplorable motives to critics of a work that has left plenty of room for criticism, especially if you, like the quoted person, rejects any differing opinions out of hand.

[lizabethstucker]

The Misadventures of Nero Wolfe edited by Josh Pachter

Subtitled: Parodies and Pastiches Featuring the Great Detective of West 35th Street

I loved this collection of stories, with only a few exceptions. Overall, I would give it 4.5 out of 5.

Introductions: Trouble in Triplicate

“At Wolfe’s Door” by Otto Penzler ~ about the characters.

“A Family Affair” by Rebecca Stout Bradbury ~ Rex Stout’s daughter provides a peek at the author.

“Plot It Yourself” by Josh Pachter ~ how the collection came to be.

Pastiches (Respectful imitations of the original works)

“The Red Orchid” by Thomas Narcejac

Translated from French, the story was written in 1947. The first English publication wasn’t until 1961. A young woman comes to hire Wolfe to discover who is trying to kill her uncle, a man who claims to have developed a red orchid. More creepy than respectful, especially how Archie hits on the female client. Too offensive for me. DNF

“Chapter 8 from ‘Murder in Pastiche’” by Marion Mainwaining

Published in 1955, this novel can also be found under the title of “Nine Detectives All at Sea”. A notorious gossip columnist is murdered during a sea cruise across the Atlantic. There are nine famous detectives on the ship as passengers. Trajan Beare, aka Nero Wolfe, is the focus of this particular chapter. It is hard to judge the whole book based on just one chapter. However, the characterization should be noted as being extremely close to the original source material. A nice read. No rating as it is just an excerpt.

“The Archie Hunters” by Jon L. Breen

Written in 1968, but never published until now. A cross of Nero Wolfe and Mike Hammer. Mock Himmler beats the crap out of anyone he encounters, particularly if they disagree with him or do something he doesn’t like. After beating up a news seller for carrying a “commie” magazine, Mock discovers an ad in the back requesting a private investigator for a missing person case. The ad, placed by Nero Wolfe, leads Mock to presume the missing person is Archie Goodwin. I’ve never been a fan of Mike Hammer nor his creator, Mickey Spillane, finding both of them to be disgusting in their love of violence, misogyny, and attitudes in general. I did enjoy this story nonetheless. 4 out of 5

“The Frightened Man” by O. X. Rusett

Gave up early on this anagram-stuffed story, even to the author’s name. More annoying than clever or cute. DNF

“Chapter 1 from ‘Murder in E Minor’” by Robert Goldsborough

I read the whole book when it was first published and, frankly, wasn’t too impressed. I do know that Goldsborough was selected by the Stout Estate to be the official author of the novels and I have read a few of his more recent books. I may try and reread it sometime down the road to see if my opinion has changed. No rating as it is only one chapter.

“The Purloined Platypus” by Marvin Kaye

While Goldsborough has the exclusive novel rights, Kaye asked to write short stories and was given the Estate’s permission as long as no novels were ever written. Benjamin Moultrie, president and board chairman of the Museum of the Strange, Odd and Peculiar, wants to hire Wolfe to investigate a robbery at the museum. As I wasn’t reading the magazines such as Ellery Queen and Alfred Hitchcock, I missed reading any of these stories. Which is quite a tragedy. Excellent portrayals of not only the characters, but the case itself. 4 out of 5.

Parodies (Exaggerated imitations intended to poke fun at the source material)

“The House on 35th Street” by Frank Littler

Originally appeared in The Saturday Review in 1966. Little is known about the author, despite Pachter’s research attempts. A crowd is assembled in the Brownstone in a murder case, wanting to see some of the detective’s famous actions and quirks. There is an undercurrent of a very personal nature, especially at the end. 3.5 out of 5

“The Sidekick Case” by Patrick Butler

Another entry from The Saturday Review, this time in 1968, and another case of little information on the author. Wolfe objects to Archie being called a “sidekick” in a listing of the latest book. Cute. 3.5 out of 5

“The Case of the Disposable Jalopy” by Mack Reynolds

America has turned into an illiterate welfare state, Wolfe and Archie are old and sometimes forgetful, and things are beyond tight financially. Reynolds uses the last names of some of the biggest authors in Science Fiction in the story. These men want to hire Wolfe for a case of sabotage and the disappearance of a key developer. What a weird world Reynolds has built. As to the updates on the normal cast of characters in the series? Well, I never liked Orrie anyway. 4 out of 5

“As Dark as Christmas Gets” by Lawrence Block

An unpublished manuscript written by Cornell Woolrich is stolen during a Christmas party. The owner hires Wolfe wannabe Leo Haig and his Goodwin substitute, Chip Harrison, to recover it. I’ve come across stories in this series before and loved them, both for the obvious affection for the source material as well as the excellent characterization. 4.5 out of 5

“Who’s Afraid of Nero Wolfe?” by Loren D. Estleman

Arnie Woodbine, currently on parole, was fired from his last job for gambling on company time. He needs a job and finds an ad looking for an assistant sharp of wit. He finds himself hired by Claudius Lyon, a corpulent man with delusions of being Nero Wolfe. Arnie is hired as his Archie. Now all they need is a case. Since Lyon doesn’t have a private detective license and Arnie’s felony record prevents him from ever getting one, they would not be able to charge for their services. No problem as Lyon is actually quite wealthy. Their first case is regarding a poetry award that carries with it a $10,000 prize. One winner doesn’t appear to actually exist. Seriously one of the best sendups that I’ve ever read! This was a delight to read and deserved more stories. 4.5 out of 5.

“Julius Katz and the Case of Exploding Wine” by Dave Zeltserman

A friend of Julius’ that has a champion bulldog and heads a dog food company comes to see Julius with the dog in tow, asking for help to find someone to prevent Brutus from being kidnapped. He also asks that Julius find his murderer if he’s killed. Sure enough, the man is killed. Julius had agreed to investigate, but only after he gave the police a week to solve it themselves. Just as the week is up, an adversary calls to warn Julius that there is a bomb in his house, contained in a box of wine. Julius allows almost everyone to believe he is dead after the townhouse is completely destroyed from top to bottom. I absolutely loved this sorta tribute to Rex Stout. I’m particularly intrigued by Archie, an AI who is installed in Julius’ tie pin. That alone has me eyeing the book collections, but to be honest, this is a damn fine mystery. Julius is definitely not Nero Wolfe, at least in size, athleticism (martial arts), and loving women (a former womanizer who now has a regular girlfriend). He definitely is in the aspects of intelligence, laziness, and cutting Archie out of the loop. His collecting focus is wine rather than orchids, but both can be very expensive hobbies. 4.5 out of 5.

“The Possibly Last Case of Tiberius Dingo” by Michael Bracken

Age and diet are catching up to Tiberius Dingo’s body, but his mind and deductive reasoning is still as sharp as ever. His long-time assistant, Jughead Badloss, brings a client he dances with at the Senior Center, a woman who is certain she is being stalked. Family ties and age-old secrets are ripped out into the open before the case is done, for their client and for Jughead himself. The names are a little lame, but the story made up for it. 3.5 out of 5.

Potpourri

“The Woman Who Read Rex Stout” by William Brittain

Gertrude Jellison was the fat lady at a carnival sideshow, an intelligent woman whose extreme weight, over 500 pounds, kept her from her dream job of teaching psychology. Her partner, Robert Kirby, is the thin man, barely weighing seventy-five pounds. As a stunt, the carnival boss gave her Rex Stout’s Nero Wolfe books to read during the shows. Surprisingly enough, Gert loved them and continued reading. She never expected to use what she learned to solve a murder, but sadly a newer member of the troup, a beautiful woman named Lili who was like a daughter to Gert, is murdered and the older woman knows she can solve the crime. This is a character that I could seriously have loved to read more about. A good little mystery as well, even if I quickly realized who the murderer would turn out to be. 3.5 out of 5.

“Sam Buried Caesar” by Josh Pachter

Police inspector Griffen had eleven children, each of whom was named after a famous fictional detective. Nero, just eleven years old, had set up his own detective agency, aided by his best friend and neighbor Artie Goodman. Their latest client, Sam, came to them after his dog, Caesar, was hit and killed by an out-of-state driver. Not wanting the poor animal to be left coldly abandoned on the street, he buried the dog in an empty lot. Coming back a short time later to get Caesar’s collar, the body is missing. He hires Nero and Artie to find the killer and recover the body. Sad and cute and inventive, but how Artie puts up with Nero will always be a mystery. 3.5 out of 5.

“Chapter 24 from Rasputin’s Revenge” by John Lescroart

The basic premise is that Nero Wolfe is the son of Sherlock Holmes and Irene Adler. I’ve not read this particular book, but it appears to be the last chapter in which Archie and Wolfe, going under his original name, are in Russia, appeared to have come up against Gregori Rasputin (although the author has it as Gregory), and was helped by Holmes and Dr. Watson after they were wanted for murder. I’m not going to rate it as I don’t consider it fair to rate a novel based on just one chapter.

“A scene from Might as Well Be Dead” by Joseph Goodrich

Adaptation of the story into a play. Once again, not rated.

“The Damned Doorbell Rang” by Robert Lopresti

When their fourteen granddaughter came to visit in a snit because her parents won’t allow her to go with friends to a concert in New York City, Eve and Jack decide to tell her about why they left the City. When they were younger, they had a brownstone in the City. Their neighbors were definitely different, all men living there. Jack didn’t much like any of them and keeps disparaging Eve’s stories about what they saw while living there. But Eve tells a tale of how she saved the men’s lives. Too many close calls are the reason that they moved to New Jersey. How could I not love this outsider’s look at Nero Wolfe? 3.5 out of 5.

[dweemeister]

The Steel Helmet (1951)

Looking through American World War II films made during the war itself, one notices that many have overt strains of bellicose patriotism and propaganda. That war, the final world-consuming crisis for several decades, impacted even civilians living oceans away from the violence. The Korean War cannot be described as such. When North Korea’s Kim Il-sung ordered the invasion of South Korea on June 25, 1950, the U.S. military that countered the invasion was a shadow of what it was five years earlier. What was originally described as a “police action” and nominally pitted United Nations forces (of which the U.S. provided ninety percent of troops) against Communist troops failed to garner much attention from the American public even as it was being fought.

Released a half-year after North Korea’s invasion, The Steel Helmet is one of the first films set during the Korean War. Directed, produced, and written by Samuel Fuller for the independent studio Lippert Pictures, the film was made on the cheap ($104,000; just over $1 million in 2020’s USD) and shot in ten days. The Steel Helmet bears little resemblance to its older cinematic cousins, the WWII films released during that war. Convulsing with bitterness, racism, and post-traumatic fury, this is an attempt to portray life as an American infantry soldier with emotional honesty. The details of battle scenes might not be as accurate as they could be – and certainly not how Korea itself and the film’s Asian characters are portrayed – but The Steel Helmet succeeds in its primary goal.

Surviving a North Korean massacre, Sergeant Zack (Gene Evans) is found by a South Korean boy he will nickname “Short Round” (William Chun; this nickname, also used in 1984’s Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom for Jonathan Ke Quan’s character, refers to a flaw in a gun’s ammunition). Short Round knows English and begins following Zack – much to the latter’s annoyance. The boy won’t listen to, “beat it, kid”; nor does he appreciate being called a, “gook”. Zack and Short Round soon encounter Corporal Thompson (James Edwards), a black medic who is the last surviving member of his unit. The accidental trio shortly stumble onto a small, battered patrol commanded by Lieutenant Driscoll (Steve Brodie), who immediately suspects Thompson – because of his race – to be a deserter. Just as the trio argue with Driscoll and his unit, the soldiers are ambushed by snipers and take cover in an abandoned Buddhist temple (to the film’s discredit, it resembles nothing like an actual Buddhist temple and the centerpiece statue looks nothing like the Buddha). There is a North Korean soldier hiding in the shadows of the temple. And unbeknownst to the American soldiers, an enormous wave of North Korean soldiers is advancing on their position.

The events and characters of The Steel Helmet are fictional, but they have been adapted from Fuller’s war diaries and adjusted for the difference in setting. The Steel Helmet’s limited budget ensures that the violence is contained to the premises of a soundstage; the hordes of North Korean soldiers appearing in the film’s finale either the product of stock footage or Asian college students from UCLA hired as extras. There are no soldiers in The Steel Helmet who show complete deference to authority or accept the reasons why the United States military is in Korea at all. The encompassing political reasons for the Korean War are of little concern to them – survival becomes their only motivation. As a portrait of an infantry soldier’s mentality in desperate circumstances, The Steel Helmet benefits from Fuller’s military service during World War II. The soldiers’ actions and mindsets always seem realistic.

With his scruffy beard and punctured helmet, Zack is a grunt soldier that has become disillusioned with a war that has not even lasted a year. The anger he feels about the adversity he and his comrades have faced is boiling over. Zack is constantly searching for something or someone to take his emotions out on. His somewhat contemptuous attitude towards Short Round suggests racial resentment (more on the film’s depiction of racism later in this review) and that he has no patience for those who cannot defend themselves when the enemy is near; his initial behavior towards Driscoll’s squad is colored by grief manifesting as antagonism.

Fuller’s attempts to articulate the deranged psychology of battle-hardened infantry soldiers are taken to extremes rarely seen in American films in the 1950s. The most chilling example occurs as the film’s closing act begins. A prisoner of war (POW) is unexpectedly murdered by Zack as North Korean soldiers draw near. Zack carries out this murder with concealed, stone-faced passion. Even without the gruesome images that are allowed in modern cinema, the murder is shocking and, considering the characterizations of those involved, conceivable. It is lawless battlefield “justice” where the executioner is also the judge and jury. For moviegoers accustomed to the mostly propagandistic – intentional or otherwise – World War II films released in the prior decade, the notion that a member of the United States military could commit a war crime must have been unconscionable. Then and now, other American viewers not nearly as critical of the military’s conduct might have seen what is an obvious violation of the Geneva Convention as justified.

Joseph Breen’s office at the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) was tasked with enforcing the Hays Code (censorship guidelines that applied to American films until 1968, when replaced by the present-day ratings system). As one might expect, the Breen Office voiced vehement objections to this scene – especially since Zack is never punished on-screen for his actions. Nevertheless, Fuller campaigned to keep the scene and it remains in the film. The Breen Office’s reasons for backing down on this appear to stem from the fact that Driscoll threatens a court martial immediately after Zack fires his gun – a peculiarly minor concession, it seems. The Breen Office’s ultimate approval of the film’s debate on racial relations are unclear, and I have been unable to find any explicit reason in freely available literature describing that aspect.

The film’s prisoner of war (played by Harold Fong, whose character is credited as “The Red”) is an English-proficient North Korean soldier. Observing the unit that has captured him, the audience will notice that this is a motley bunch. Granted, the notion of a diverse military squad is a war film cliché. But after President Harry Truman desegregated the armed forces in 1948, note that this is one of the first depictions of an integrated U.S. military in film. A decade earlier, Cpl. Thompson would have been bandaging the wounds of black soldiers and might not be allowed near a wounded white comrade. One of Driscoll’s subordinates is Sergeant Tanaka (Richard Loo; a Chinese-American actor who nevertheless made a living playing numerous Japanese antagonists during the 1940s), who served in the 442nd Infantry Regiment – which was composed almost entirely of second-generation Japanese-American (Nisei) soldiers – during WWII.

Under watch by the Americans, the North Korean soldier will attempt to stoke racial divisions among his captors. Speaking to Thompson, he notes the hypocrisy of a black man fighting for a nation that has failed to recognize non-white people as equal under the law. The prisoner notes that, if Thompson ever returns home, there will still be “whites only” services and that he will have to sit in the back of public buses. Thompson keeps his cool, acknowledging the reality of the prisoner’s words. Nevertheless, Thompson reasons, he is assisting the nation he cares for, showing that he can perform as ably as anyone regardless of race. As Thompson implies, perhaps one day the United States will achieve the ideal it is purported to be – in his individual way, he shall serve the best he can.

Then there is the nighttime conversation between the North Korean and Tanaka. The POW begins by remarking that Americans despise Asian eyes, and then – in what is possibly the earliest, non-documentary mention of this in American cinema – evokes the Japanese-American concentration camps that Tanaka and his family almost certainly were forced into. An exhausted Tanaka, with a fatigued but barely annoyed glance, tells the North Korean major that his charade is too transparent:

THE RED: …They call you “dirty Jap rats” and yet you fight for them. Why? TANAKA: I’ve got some hot infantry news for you. I’m not a dirty Jap rat. I’m an American, and if we get pushed around back home… well, that’s our business… knock off before I forget the Articles of War and slap those rabbit teeth of yours out one at a time.

If The Steel Helmet had been made a few years, perhaps a few months, earlier, these disapproving mentions about the United States’ terrible record on racial equality might never have appeared in the film. The legitimate concern that black Americans would not support the United States military resulted in films like The Negro Soldier (1944). In World War II, the then-segregated military was viewed unfavorably by a substantial minority of African-Americans, so the government (and a cooperating American film industry) reasoned that directly addressing the nation’s painful racial history might be counterproductive. And so soon after World War II’s end, the “yellow peril” that was the Japanese was substituted for another anxiety: communists. Still, the prevailing attitude among American narrative media in the early 1950s was to celebrate the “patriotic” Japanese-Americans and those who served in the 442nd – erasing almost entirely the unconstitutional and inexcusable internment of Japanese-Americans.

As Fuller realizes as he dons his Cold War glasses, the likes of North Korea, the Soviet Union, and the People’s Republic of China could easily use the United States’ racism to undermine its message. Those nations did exactly that and continue to do so (the Soviet Union succeeded by the Russian Federation). America’s idealized self-perception as democracy’s champion collapses quickly even at a cursory glance of its racial relations. The Steel Helmet should be applauded for including this dialogue in the film, but these scenes are brief and never fully adopt Thompson or Tanaka’s point of view. Both are portrayed as intelligent, composed soldiers. But beyond their soldiering, we learn little else – The Steel Helmet is Zack’s movie, with everyone else not nearly as developed as Gene Evans’ central character.

Fuller avoids glamorizing military service and war. Despite Korea as his setting, Fuller makes little constructive use of it and his Korean characters. Fuller might have found his own wartime mentality analogous to Zack’s, but the film becomes one-dimensional as it cannot branch out to detail the other American soldiers’ personal responses to the war they are fighting. The Steel Helmet is homiletic, so be warned if you are not seeking a war film that is unafraid to moralize – sometimes without artistry. But given the restricted budget and the film’s abbreviated 85-minute runtime, I found myself forgiving the film for most of these flaws.

Communist and far-left commentators accused The Steel Helmet of being pro-American propaganda; the far-right, Breen Office, and the Pentagon were horrified by the film and blasted it as anti-American. J. Edgar Hoover, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), even launched an investigation into Fuller for suspected Communist sympathies. Such reception must have allowed Fuller a strange satisfaction, if one accounts his future reputation for addressing controversial themes with heavy-handed metaphors and allegories.

Moderately popular when first released, The Steel Helmet languished in obscurity in the decades after. That is unsurprising – the film was made and distributed by an independent studio. Thanks to the Criterion Collection and their special relationship with Turner Classic Movies (TCM), The Steel Helmet has found renewed attention thanks to its home media availability and the occasional TCM broadcast (it is regularly scheduled around Memorial Day and/or Veterans Day, in addition to the odd showing outside May and November). It is a fascinating addition to the lengthy list of American war films, supplying an era known for its propaganda-heavy elements with a forceful rebuke.

My rating: 7.5/10

^ Based on my personal imdb rating. Half-points are always rounded down. My interpretation of that ratings system can be found in the “Ratings system” page on my blog (as of July 1, 2020, tumblr is not permitting certain posts with links to appear on tag pages, so I cannot provide the URL).

For more of my reviews tagged “My Movie Odyssey”, check out the tag of the same name on my blog.

[cozmic-ash]

Hello! I was curious as to what your thoughts are on Marc Laidlaw's "Epistle 3"? I know it's been a couple years since it came out, but I've just recently been thinking a lot more about it, and I've been fishing for other folks' honest talks on the topic.

I’ve been thinking about HL a lot lately cause I just watched the ‘Half Life Retrospective’ video by liam triforce on youtube, and also because of HL:Alyx lol

I'm honestly always really surprised that so many people liked Epistle 3 LMAO I disliked most of what it did with the characters and lore gjhghj especially Alyx? I didn’t like that she basically was just reduced to like... a pawn of the G-man and that there was no real resolution between Gordon and Alyx despite you spending the majority of HL2 and its episodes with Alyx as your companion

I also didn’t like what they did with Judith, or the time-jumping capabilities of the Borealis (tho it DOES open some interesting threads to explore plot-wise, like attempting to use it to defeat the combine before they even get to Earth? could be interesting, but otherwise it felt like there was no real reason for it to be there except as an Additionally Mysterious Characteristic of the Macguffin)

I was........ okay with what they did to Breen, not my FAVORITE thing because it feels like.... along the same line of complaint I had with TROS, just bringing random characters back for no reason lol, but like. I know that making Breen an adviser/worm/whatever has kinda always been A Thing they wanted to explore and it actually has some amount of justification for it so I don’t HATE it?? but I also don’t Love it

I also don’t like the fact that Gordon basically just gets yeeted into nowhere and is like ‘welp guess I’ve done all I can do’ like I’m sorry but u expect me to believe that........... u expect me to believe The One Free Man and the person you’ve characterized as The Determinator for like four games is just going to shrug his shoulders and lay back while the world burns??? I’m sorry but I don’t believe you, and I think that’s Bad Characterization and reeks of “well we’ve met our Gordon quota but don’t actually know how to wrap up his story so uhhhh /pulls him off stage ungracefully with a big hook”

(It’s been a Hot Minute since I’ve read Epistle 3 and I have no desire to read it again lol, so if I’ve missed something forgive me gjhgjh)

overall I did not like Epistle 3....... I was thoroughly disappointed with it and I hope that if HL3/Ep3 ever gets made they go with something totally different LMAO

[opedguy]

Rep. Ilhan Omar Rips Facebook

LOS ANGELES (OnlineColumnist.com), May 21, 2021.--Demanding that Facebook remove an ad from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee [AIPAC], 38-year-old Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) doesn’t like being exposed for her blatant anti-Semitic rhetoric since entering Congress Jan. 3, 2010. Omar joined the squad, led by 32-year-old Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), 44-year-old Rep. Rashida Tlaib and 47-year-old Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.), all have something in common, their contempt fors Israel.  When the latest skirmish between Hamas and Israel broke out May 10, the squad immediately blamed Israel, despite the fact that Hamas started firing rockets indiscriminately into Israel.  Hamas blamed its latest attack on a real estate dispute in East Jerusalem where an Israeli court ordered the evictions of Palestinian tenants. Hamas claimed that they didn’t want Israeli police entering Al Aqsa mosque compound.

Whatever Hamas’s latest excuse for shooting rockets at Israel, Omar, Tlaib, Ocasio-Cortez and Pressley immediately blamed Israel, essentially repeating Hamas talking points that Israel has no right to exist because when they were founded in 1948 they illegally seized Palestinian land.  Hamas was founded in 1987 by blind, paraplegic Sheikh Ahmed Nassin to destroy Israel.  Omar and the squad know that Hamas has never changed its charter of pushing Israel into the sea.  Yet Omar claims that an AIPAC ad that says she supports Hamas endangers her life.  “When Israel targets Hamas, Rep. Omar calls it an act of terrorism,” picturing Omar next to Hamas rockets. Omar objects because she says he objects to the Israeli bombing of Gaza because it kills innocent civilians.  Omar blames AIPAC’s Facebook ads for causing death threats against her, not her public remarks.

Omar wants to blame AIPAC and Facebook but she knows that her hate speech against Israel stands on its own.  When you consider Israel has been a stalwart U.S. ally since 1948, providing the U.S. seamless access to military installations, it’s beyond irresponsible for any member of Congress to side with a known terror organization.  Since electing 78-year-old Joe Biden, the Democrat Party’s radical fringe of Marxists like the squad have been pushing a leftist agenda. With a ceasefire in hand, the squad will soon pivot to other equally erratic causes, like pushing Black Lives Matter’s agenda for $15 trillion in reparations for African Americans.  Denouncing Israel and backing Hamas’s radical agenda shows for all to see the anti-American agenda of the Democrat far left.   Omar complains about an innocuous ad from the AIPAC on Facebook saying she backs Hamas.

Omar’s office wants the Facebook ad fact-checked, claiming Facebook doesn’t do enough to protect women of color.  But the AIPAC or Facebook don’t tell Omar and other members of the squad what to say in public.  Whatever AIPAC ads says, it’s far more understated than the rhetoric spewed by Omar and members of the squad.  “We are deeply concerned that Feacebook would continue to profit off this hate,” Omar’s office said in an email exchange.  Nothing in the ad comes close to Omar’s anti-Semitic and anti-Israel statements, far more aligned with the racist comments of demagogues like 88-year-old National of Islam chief Rev. Louis Farrakhan who frequently makes incendiary comments about Jews.  Democrat lawmakers have a real problem with Omar and the squad that routinely make hateful statements about Israel and other Jewish groups.

Omar’s spokeswoman Deputy Communication Director Isi Bsehr-Breen called AIPAC’s Facebook ad “anti-Muslim speech,” turning the actual situation on its head. It’s Omar’s anti-Semitic and anti-Israel rhetoric that she won’t own, now dealing with fallout from her own hateful rhetoric.  Omar can’t reconcile that she deeply offends  her Democrat colleagues, like73-year-old House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), 60-year-old  House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and 70-year-old Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), all of whom are deeply offended by Omar’s abrasive rhetoric toward Jews.  Omar doesn’t live in Somalia where anti-Semitic rhetoric is ingrained in all its citizens.  Mainstream Democrats haven’t figured out how to deal with the Partys radical fringe spewing anti-Semitic hate speech.

AIPAC pushed backed at Omar’s nonsense that the Facebook ad distorted her views toward Israel and Jews.  “The ad concerning Representative Omar is completely fair and accurate,” said AIPAC spokesman Marshall Sittmann.  “It is not a personal attack but highlights her outrageous characterization of Israel’s efforts at self-defense ‘s ‘terrorism.’  Israel targets Hamas terrorists, not civilians.”  Omar’s anti-Semitic and anti-Israel hate speech came back to bite her, not realizing that she’s not an assimilated American.  At one point, Omar took and loyalty oath at a citizenship or swearing in ceremony.  Omar lets her Muslim faith interfere with her citizenship or swearing in oath. She clearly holds sympathies for struggling Islamic citizens overseas, whether in Somalia or the Palestinian territories.  Omar, and other members of the squad, have dual loyalties.

About the Author

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news. He’s editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma

[vortaesthetic]

The Female Changeling is an absolute piece of shit. Weyoun deserved better.

TRIGGER WARNING UP FRONT FOR ABUSE, HIDDEN UNDER THE CUT. Spoilers??? ahead that are not really spoilers, considering the age of this show.

It’s a little longish. Ye been warned. 

SO...

I snagged this little book up from the Nook Store for a quick afternoon read. At 145 pages, it is not very long. It is a novelization of the events that happen in the last episode of DS9. On the whole, Carey’s writing is a little blah, so I wasn’t expecting anything that would set my world on fire.

BOY WAS I FUCKING WRONG

Holy shit. Poor Weyoun. Poor, poor Weyoun. I’m not saying this just because I love Weyoun to bits, I’m saying this because he is so badly mistreated in this book. The Female Changeling is absolutely heartless. No shred of decency in this creature AT ALL.

At this point, the Cardassian Rebellion has started and Weyoun and the Female Changeling are on the defensive, hidden inside Central Command and pretty much waiting for the end. FC issues the genocide orders, events largely proceed in line with the story in the show.

Where this book takes a turn is how it characterizes the formerly stoic Founder. In the show, she places little importance on the value of life--but in this book she takes this to the next level. She took several levels in jerkass and became a stone-cold monster.

Loyal, blind Weyoun is trying desperately to serve her, to make himself useful to her, because that is what he is made to do. This is intrinsic; it is built into him. He MUST serve her, he has no choice. But she is not a being worth his devotion. She insults him at every turn, calls him a coward, accuses him of being inept, stupid, and childlike, and blames all failures on him. She casually ponders about the ideal time to scapegoat him. She’s even reconsidering the collective usefulness of the Jem’Hadar as a species simply because they have not been able to win the war. Considering their massive tactical disadvantage at this point, I would say that’s a pretty unfair charge, since they have no supply lines and no reinforcements at this point. Realism is not a consideration to her. There are only results and failure is tantamount to death.

But she truly takes the cake when she WRAPS HER HAND AROUND HIS THROAT AND FUCKING CHOKES HIM WHEN HE RUSHES TO KEEP HER FROM COLLAPSING. Don’t believe me? He’s trying to help her, trying to comfort her and support her, and she thanks him by wrapping her hand around his throat and choking the life out of him. He’s terrified. He cannot breathe. He’s squeaking out his promises of loyalty and devotion, that he would give his own life to save hers, all the while she’s squeezing the life out of him, just because she can. Eventually, she remembers to release him, and he doesn’t say a word about it, he just rubs at his throat. 

To top off that shit sundae, she has a little internal dialogue at the end of that scene on pg 83, just after relinquishing her death-grip:

Was he honored? She thought he should be.

She thought he’d better be.

WHAT

THE

FUCK

Throughout this scene she cavalierly refers to divine judgement a couple of times. She sees herself in a position of judgement over the Vorta-- the Founders gave life to the Vorta and may take it away at will. She chose to--and i quote--“give him back his existence” so that he can continue to serve her. I ALMOST MURDERED YOU FOR NO REASON, BUT YOU HAD BETTER BE GRATEFUL THAT I CHANGED MY MIND.

WHAT THE FUCK

Later on, when Kira and Garak storm Central Command, another thing comes up. Kira demands that the call off the Jem’Hadar and Breen forces. The Founder directly countermands that, telling Weyoun obliquely that he will not comply with that order. What choice does Weyoun have at this point? He cannot disobey her. It’s actually a really clever attempt for The Founder to try to pin the responsibility of the war and associated atrocities on Weyoun, as if she had minimal input into the choices that were made.

The Founder is the true coward here. She’s profoundly despicable.

The rest is history. Garak shoots him dead and everything continues to proceed as normal.

But what upsets me is how unaware of the balance of power everyone else is. Damar should know better, even if he doesn’t know the extent of how bad things actually are-- you know he has seen things at Domi HQ. To everyone else, Weyoun’s the Jackal, the Face of the Dominion, the Butcher. All the immorality and the brutality of the Dominion War falls on his shoulders, but the reality is that he was merely the puppet of the Founders, marching to their tune, doing as he was told because compliance is the purpose of his existence. This man was a slave. He had no agency. Consider that he was locked into place more firmly than anyone else in that conflict because whenever he died, he came right back only to be tossed right back into hell again. Am I insisting that he’s entirely innocent? No, not at all-- but he’s also in a position where there’s very few options. The Founder was really the one with the most blood on her hands but nobody really ever acknowledges how truly heinous her behavior actually was. She gets a slap on the wrist with solitary imprisonment at Ananke Alpha and Weyoun gets gunned down.

I just... I am so angry. I am so upset after reading this book. Weyoun’s life was terrible and everyone treats his life like garbage, in both life and death.

I am not easily affected by reading abuse. Shit, I both write and read the whumpiest whump to ever whump and I am fine with it. But this book was a profoundly unpleasant experience for me. 

I cannot even

[dweemeister]

Imitation of Life (1934)

Black stories in American films could mostly be found in independently-financed “race films” that could not inspire wider distributions. Every now and then, blacks might figure prominently in a film from a major Hollywood studio, including John M. Stahl’s Imitation of Life. These major studio films including black main characters most often framed those characters through the perspectives of white protagonists (as Mammy, Hattie McDaniel is probably the only one in 1939′s Gone with the Wind smart enough to see through everyone’s pretensions); when the opposite occurred, blacks were still heavily stereotyped (see: 1936′s The Green Pastures). Both approaches are deemed unacceptable from absolutists, but I contend that these framing methods, especially the latter, carried financial and sociopolitical risks for those involved in these movies.

Imitation of Life - based on the Fannie Hurst (a white Jewish author) novel of the same name and better known for Douglas Sirk’s 1959 Technicolor remake; both films released by Universal – pivots towards its white protagonists. Yet the questions this adaptation pushes of racial identity remain relevant, now less controversial than upon the film’s release. This Imitation of Life could not have addressed racial segregation directly lest the film be subjected to bigoted outrage in the United States, so the film makes its stance clear in scenes devoid of overtly political language, yet championing racial equality, black pridefulness. With an imperfect message and imperfect characterization, this 1934 Imitation of Life is a milestone of depicting black women on-screen.

The opening scene sees widower Bea Pullman (Claudette Colbert) playing with daughter Jessie (Juanita Quigley as 3-year old Jessie; Marilyn Knowlden at age 8; Rochelle Hudson at age 18) in the bathtub. Just outside, Delilah Johnson (Louise Beavers) and mixed-race daughter Peola (unseen in these introductory minutes; Sebie Hendricks as 9-year old Peola; Fredi Washington at age 19) have run into car trouble. Bea, seeing how well Jessie gets along with Delilah, asks Delilah if she would like to be employed as her housekeeper– room and board included. Delilah accepts, and these two women and their daughters grow alongside each other. Several years later, Bea creates a company making use of Delilah’s pancake recipe (Delilah has consented to the company’s creation and the use of her likeness a la Aunt Jemima). Meanwhile, as their girls grow, so do their problems. Jessie is a slacker, using her flirtatiousness or innocence to get her way. For Peola, the dilemma is existential: she passes for white, repudiates her blackness (early in the film, Jessie is the first person to call Peola “black” out of cruelty), and refusing to consider her mother’s words to cherish that blackness.

Imitation of Life wants to be seen as Bea’s movie, with Claudette Colbert (who performs well) the top-of-the-bill star. Jessie’s lack of work ethic is certainly a problem. But their situations – then and now – are overshadowed by the tragic melodrama of Delilah and Peola, a mother-and-daughter relationship shredded by the expectations of those outside the household. This breakdown happens not because Delilah is a suffocating mother or that Peola is an overall terrible person. Delilah has little, but has much to live for. Success in making pancakes means little if her only child is suffering. Delilah enjoys the business she has with Bea, but she has poured all the fibers of her being into loving Peola. It is love that accepts Peola for what she always will be: mixed-race, which includes her blackness.

Peola, from an early age, overhears and sees how blacks are treated in the community, how white is the default. She is also aghast at her mother’s acceptance of her smiling subservience to Bea (Stahl’s Imitation of Life never makes Delilah and Bea social and, in an unconventional way, familial equals). In one of the most heartbreaking scenes, in a pre-Brown v. Board America, Delilah comes to Peola’s school as Peola had forgotten her raincoat. There must be a mistake, says the teacher, there are no colored children in this classroom. Delilah sees Peola hiding her face behind a book and asks the teacher: “Has she been passing?” Were those words, written by screenwriter William J. Hurlbut (1935′s Bride of Frankenstein), meant to be taken at face value? Regardless of what you think, that scene might have introduced many white moviegoers to how painful racial passing is. It is a denial of belonging, a rejection of self that disallows comfort in one’s holistic identity, and reinforced by racial supremacist practices that can be presented as beneficial for all. One only has to witness Peola’s plight to understand the injustice behind those lies.

Certainly, these are bold topics to be covering in a 1930s film. Where it falls short of Sirk’s remake is that this Imitation of Life – probably due to political circumstances in the country – covers less ground, concentrates more on its white characters, never even suggests the violent realities of being black and female in the U.S., and never quite adopts Peola’s point of view. Her struggles with identity are seen through her mother’s eyes, never the other way around. The Sirk Imitation of Life includes one of the earliest instances of black code-switching (alternating between different dialects or languages depending on the setting and those one is having a conversation with) in a major Hollywood studio movie. By showing this, Sirk’s remake enlightens the viewers to what extent Sarah Jane – the Peola character – hides an essential part of who she is.

Melodrama is more susceptible than most film genres or subgenres to mediocre acting. Colbert and Beavers form an interracial partnership that stoked controversy especially in the South (for these critics, the idea of a white woman entering into business with her black maid was unconscionable). Their friendliness, even outside the bounds of business and Beavers’ domestic subservience, always feels natural. Their intimacy is established early, providing for each other emotionally and spiritually. For Beavers, she despised cooking and the kitchen-centric roles that she played throughout her Hollywood career (liberal commentators in 1934 were already decrying her character as a jolly mammy-like stereotype). Yet for this one time, Beavers is allowed to give this obsolete racialized figure the dimensions they were not afforded by any previous movie. It is the performance of Beavers’ lifetime, and American cinema impoverished because of the refusal to give black actors like Beavers roles beyond a white producer, screenwriter, or casting director’s imagination.

Cast as the older Peola is not a white actor playing a white-passing mixed-race child, but Fredi Washington – who had African-American and European ancestors, and, when asked if she ever wanted to pass as white, she responded: “I have never tried to pass for white and never had any desire, I am proud of my race. In ‘Imitation of Life’, I was showing how a girl might feel under the circumstances but I am not showing how I felt.” For Washington (and Sebie Hendricks), her bottled, understandable rage in real life explodes on-camera. Even today, biracial or mixed-race dialectics not just in American films, but films across the world, are almost unheard of. So unsettling was Washington’s performance and these themes that her character embodies that the Hays Office – which, under Joseph Breen, began to more stringently enforce the Motion Picture Production Code – marked Hurlbut’s first screenplay draft for miscegenation. Cut from that first draft and never appearing in the film are racial epithets and a scene where a black boy is almost lynched after being accused of wooing a white woman. Breen only backed down from his constant opposition to the revised screenplay after learning the film was already too far into production to be changed.

Both the Stahl and Sirk adaptations of Imitation of Life might be dismissed for peddling in racial stereotypes in a narrative that earnestly presses questions about racial passing, identity, and female friendship. Yet, in this 1934 original version – without the infrastructure and language of civil rights activism that would emerge later in the twentieth century – it carries bonds and burdens that reflected the lives of those without much cultural or political power. Imitation of Life retains its emotional impact today, never purporting to answer its most difficult discourses. The white protagonists within know not how to address those discourses, as they are not armed with the vocabulary to soothe the wounds in Delilah and Peola’s hearts. In that sense, little has changed since the 1930s. To make an honest attempt for healing is never in vain, as long as those efforts involve understanding societal and one’s personal contributions to the anguish that exists.

My rating: 8/10

^ Based on my personal imdb rating. My interpretation of that ratings system can be found here.