#both appeal to elitists and snobs | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

nicklloydnow · 1 year ago

Text

“What is it about King’s writing that appeals to so many people? Clearly, King’s readers — many of whom seem to get hooked on him when they are adolescents — don’t care that the sentences he writes or the scenes he constructs are dull. There must be something in the narrative arc, or in the nature of King’s characters, that these readers can’t resist. My sense is that King appeals to the aggrieved adolescent, or the aggrieved nerdy adolescent, or the aggrieved nerdy adult, who believes that people can be divided into bad and good (the latter would, of course, include the aggrieved adolescent or adult), a reader who would rather not consider the proposition that we are all, each of us, nice good people awash in problems and entirely capable of evil. King coddles his readers, all nice, good, ordinary, likeable people (just like the heroes of his books), though this doesn’t completely explain why these readers are so tolerant of the bloat in these novels, why they will let King go on for a couple hundred pages about some matter that has no vital connection to the subject of the book.

(…)

Why, I wondered again, do some people in the literary business regard this extremely successful writer of genre fiction as a first-rate writer of literary fiction, a “major” contributor to American literary culture? How is it possible that a novel as bloated and mediocre as 11/22/63 is can be deemed by the New York Times Book Review as one of the five best books of fiction of the year? Do we fear being labeled “elitist” or “liberal” if we don’t reward commercial success in other ways (as if an enormous advance and a river of royalties are not reward enough)? Or do we believe that commercial success on the King scale signifies, almost by definition, quality, the way a 20,000 square-foot house supposedly signifies to passersby that the owners must be important?

(…)

By bestowing rewards on writing that is not all that good, has not the literary establishment lowered standards and pushed even further to the margins writing that is actually good and beautiful? If you ask me whether it is worth your while to read Stephen King instead of (or even in addition to) scores of other better contemporary writers you may have never read (and should hurry up and read before you die), I would say no, unless you are maybe fifteen and have made it clear to your teachers and everybody else that you aren’t going to touch that literary “David Copperfield kind of crap” with a ten-foot pole.”

“Director Daphné Baiwir gathers these guys — more than 20, it’s a convocation — and clips from their handiwork to build a monument to King’s importance. Few of these testimonies address King’s literary quality, only his cultural impact (from Cujo and Stand by Me to Needful Things, which spawned the non-King streaming series Stranger Things). Baiwir correctly begins with irony: King’s literary reputation comes from movie adaptations. “It all started with Carrie,” says Mick Garris (the TV adept who directed small-screen versions of Bag of Bones, Desperation, Sleepwalkers, The Stand, and The Shining). “The book was not well known until [Brian] De Palma’s movie came out. The movie blew me away. It was so great.” Frank Darabont concurs: “It was the movie that really brought a lot of attention to Steve’s work.”

(…)

King’s popularity straddles both film and literature and has done so for a long time. (Scott Hicks raves, “He’s like the Charles Dickens of the 20th and 21st century.”) This could be the basis for a good argument in favor of democratic art — folklore made by Maine’s most famous author — although Baiwir’s opening sequence foolishly imitates a film set in “King world,” where backwoods eccentrics drink “American Grain” whiskey, referring, I guess, to William Carlos Williams’s In the American Grain. It’s a stretch, and Baiwir’s strained pretense eventually snaps. No one at the convocation remembers Edgar Allan Poe, Nathaniel Hawthorne, Herman Melville, William Faulkner, or Flannery O’Connor. Instead, the most worshipful filmmakers indulge King’s own real-world politics — especially when paying tribute to The Dead Zone and Children of the Corn.

Encomiums start with “he loved common people, folksy people, he’s got that down pat.” They go on: “He doesn’t condescend to middle America, and I think that’s very important. In many ways he’s a man of the people.” But they fall for King’s junkiness: Ignoring how the warring duo of Misery resembles a feminist-revenge version of Robert Aldrich’s mature, complex What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? It gets worse when The Dead Zone appeals to their current political paranoia: “Nations go insane.” They equate King’s anti-religious fantasies (It, The Stand) to George Romero’s racial zombie allegory in Night of the Living Dead. The fanboys make typical Hollywood-liberal partisan analogies, decrying Donald Trump’s populism, then hysterically anoint King as a political visionary: “Like Bob Dylan, [he] is a dreamer of America. He contains the entirety of it and sort of dreams in the language of the chaos of America.” Garris warns, “When you apply fear — paranoia, aggression happens. The veneer of civilization gets ripped away very quickly.” He praises The Stand as “a counter myth to the Rapture.” Tod Williams crowns King “prophet of the apocalypse.”

It’s silly, yet appalling, that schlockmeister King, always threatening to be taken seriously, should be seriously regarded by unserious, unthinking people. King on Screen platforms naïve fanboys who embellish their own childish superstitions.”

#stephen king #art #national book awards #politics #armond white #mick garris

4 notes · View notes

monsterfucker-lisa-swallows · 4 years ago

Text

not to disappoint even more classic tv fans, but i don’t understand the appeal of cheers. at all. i recently tried watching it for the first time because that’s one of our cultural touchstone comedies - it ran for 11 seasons after all - but absolutely found about 99% of it unfunny and bordering on terrible. i watched all of the first 8 seasons, thinking that perhaps i just had to wait for it to find its footing, but netflix inevitably cut me off before i could get started on season 9. (it says it was just pulling the show at the beginning of july, but i know it was trying to preserve my sanity specifically.)

i watch plenty of shows about terrible people, but the difference is those shows are generally considered to be satire and we’re supposed to know we shouldn’t emulate the actions of people in it. you’re not supposed to want to be gob bluth or ben chang. but sam malone is presented completely without critique. well, i shouldn’t say that. a couple of times, just for giggles, his overt sexuality is used as a gag about his mental state, but this is always brushed over and never used for any considerable development on his part. i wouldn’t even classify those rare moments when he turns down sex because the girl is drunk or emotionally vulnerable as real development, that’s just decency. and not even real decency, because apparently he can’t help but steal rebecca’s bra during it all.

sam resorts constantly to overt manipulation in order to get sex, and it’s constantly condoned. it was egregious enough when it was toward an employee, but it’s almost as if his proximity to a female boss reduces her. rebecca is consistently belittled, undermined, and harassed - and if you pay attention to the laugh track, that’s the joke. she’s presented as a strong woman then reduced to a weeping gold digger who is bad at her job and ultimately gets it taken away from her after she’s conned and is demoted to a waitress. and this is supposed to be funny. there is a whole episode dedicated to gaslighting her about whether she’s being sexually harassed by a married man in which the joke is that we all know she is but are supposed to laugh at how unhinged she gets. nobody ever believes her.

diane wasn’t much better. diane was a prime example of the show’s anti-intellectualism. it’s a very specific microcosm this show seems catered to - people who are both elitist and anti-intellectual. because at one end of the spectrum, we’re supposed to laugh at people like coach and woody and anyone who (like sam) didn’t get a high school diploma, but we’re also supposed to laugh at people like diane or frasier or cliff who dare to know things. it does still perpetuate that tired comedy trope of the bumbling buffoon psychologist who doesn’t know what he’s talking about and has mommy issues.

frasier and norm are both examples of toxic men causing terrible relationships with their wives. they consistently undermine and belittle them for laughs and this is treated as something that men “just do”. even sam falls into this behavior pattern with women.

there’s also carla’s weird relationship with her ex nick. there are multiple episodes that begin with him trying to come back into her life where the mid point of the episode is all the characters trying to convince her to give him another chance despite literally cheating on her and treating her like dirt then ends with her either figuring out that she doesn’t need him or being let down again. the cycle is over and over again as if nobody is capable of remembering.

ultimately none of the characters are particularly likeable or relatable. they come off as shallow caricatures of people. diane is the best example of this. the elitist college educated snob who apparently doesn’t know what she’s talking about. constantly undermined by everyone.

which goes into my next point that i’m not sure if any of them are actually friends. the cultural reference has always been that you want to find your cheers where everyone knows you and you’re among friends. but these people go beyond good-natured ribbing to being outright mean and insulting. i tell you that i wouldn’t want to find my cheers, and that’s not the only reason.

i’m sure there’s meant to be some point in there that these people are all sad, washed up drop outs. but not enough is done to develop that. we don’t get the depth of character that, say, shows like community get. we’re supposed to sympathize and like these characters without expecting them to be better. and that, in my opinion, can cause people to think their actions are acceptable. again i point to the laugh track. if you want to know what actions a comedy writer thinks are acceptable, listen to the laugh track. is the joke about what the character said or is it specifically a way to undermine and belittle another character? the laugh track in cheers specifically seems to be saying ‘yes, this is an acceptable way to talk about women, please continue to encourage rebecca, your boss, to get plastic surgery on her breasts and poke at her insecurity’.

i’ve almost started believing this show takes place in the bad place and the characters are all being punished.

anyway, netflix cut me off. probably for the best.

1 note · View note

duncandriver · 3 years ago

Text

John Lennon, Yoko Ono, Art and Populism

I. ‘Are you advertising peace or John Lennon?’

youtube

On Thursday December 4, 1969, John Lennon and Yoko Ono were officially ‘home to all callers’ in their London office. A BBC camera crew were documenting their comings and goings for a program entitled 24 Hours in the World of John and Yoko, and they captured a heated argument between Lennon and Gloria Emerson, a correspondent for the New York Times who had formerly been posted to Saigon. Emerson had published an article the previous week outlining Lennon’s return of his award of Member of the Order of the British Empire (M.B.E.) ‘as a protest against Britain’s role in the Nigerian civil war and the British political support of the United States in Vietnam’. She drew attention to a ‘flippant note’ attached to the award and the fact that Lennon did not make his protest in person, choosing instead to ‘sen[d] his chauffer in a white Mercedes [to Buckingham palace] to return the medal’. The critical tone of these comments became incendiary as Emerson confronted Lennon in person, attacking his ‘very big advertising campaign for peace’ and accusing him of naiveté, dilettantism and self-importance. She spoke in exasperated and frustrated tones throughout, like an adult coping with an ignorant child. Her last salvo was particularly stinging: ‘I can’t think of anyone who seems more remote from the ugliness that’s happening than you … If you were interested and committed and not too cowardly you might conceivably make a difference’. Ono attempted to persuade Emerson that what may have seemed flippant in Lennon’s actions was in fact a calculated attempt to defuse violence with humour, but the journalist remained censorious, leaving with the parting shot, ‘Mrs. Lennon, we’re boring each other, so I’ll go away’.

The scene above opens this consideration of Lennon and Ono’s art and activisim because it exemplifies the provocative and contradictory qualities of their ‘happenings’ (a popular term within the lexicon of the ‘60s avant-garde) from the early years of their marriage (c. 1969-1971). It also serves to illustrate the ways in which their art from this period both courted and resisted populism, a contentious term which is understood here in two senses: first, as an attempt to engage and unify ‘the people’ against a corrupt and self-serving elite; second, as a force that appeals to popular tastes through accessible art/entertainment that may be set against the demands of more exclusive or elite art forms.

As he argued with Emerson, Lennon asserted his commitment to the peace movement by attacking the alienating elitism of her ‘middle-class gestures for peace and intellectual manifestos’ and arguing for the gimmicks of his and Ono’s ‘advertising campaign’ as a more effective means of galvanising the people into action. His argument is persuasive, particularly when set against Emerson’s condescending tone (Lennon calls her a ‘snob’). If populism courts ‘the people’ with art that is easy to enjoy, then Lennon’s and Ono’s effort to package aspects of performance and political protest as a marketable product – peace – would indeed appear intentionally populist just as Lennon’s returning of his M.B.E. implied a public rejection of the elite (represented here by Buckingham Palace as a metonym for the British ruling class).

The scene that plays out is more complicated than this, however. If, for example, an elitist art is one that defamiliarises, frustrates or alienates its audience, then Emerson’s bemused response to Lennon and Ono’s efforts may be seen to complicate their claim to populism. Her adverse reaction was not untypical of the way audiences responded to the demands of Lennon’s and Ono’s work, moreover, and much to their chagrin. Emerson’s accusation of self-aggrandising inauthenticity may have been warranted: ‘Are you advertising peace or John Lennon?’, she asks, and the question remains unanswered by Lennon, echoing in the large London office and resonating through this investigation’s three parts. The question prompts a compelling case for Lennon and Ono themselves as elitist manipulators of ‘the people’ more than their representatives. It is such complications that will be examined, first by recognising Lennon and Ono’s achievements and stated intentions (Part II) and then by acknowledging some of the effects of their actions (Part III).

0 notes

thesinglesjukebox · 6 years ago

Video

youtube

KACEY MUSGRAVES - HIGH HORSE [7.38] You can take your high... scorse... and ride them straight... onto the sidebar, Kacey.

Lauren Gilbert: I am a connoisseur of song intros. Long before I wrote for TSJ, or any publication, I had lists of my favorite intros, playlists of just the first 30 seconds clipped out of context. (Needless to say, my ringtone game has always been on point.) This is a fucking excellent intro. The pulsing beat, the disco feel, the Shania Twain "oh, I bet you think you're John Wayne" - the intro is a solid [12]. The rest of the song is probably an [8] - despite being only 3:33, it feels like it runs out of ideas by the bridge - but this still averages to a solid [10]. [10]

Jonathan Bradley: "High Horse" is about as disco as Kylie Minogue's "Dancing" was country: that is conscientiously and carefully, without threatening to intrude too far upon unfamiliar cultural spaces. Instead each settles on a kind of naff AM-radio appeal that as easily positions it alongside "Islands in the Stream" as it does "September" or even "Copacabana." But where Minogue's song stirs nostalgia, the faded polyester drift of Musgraves's more Western sound fits her lyric's exhausted contempt. The opening line -- "I bet you think you're John Wayne" -- is sass worthy of Shania, but Kacey's disaffection crystallizes in her more arch dismissal: "You're classic in the wrong way." The hand claps, popping bass, and very canned strings underline the point. [8]

Alfred Soto: The question isn't whether Musgraves should record a Kylie-dusted cut like "High Horse"; it's whether the cut is better than middling at best beside Brandy Clark's unskinny bop fryin' up some girl's bacon in 2016. [6]

Joshua Copperman: I have qualms with "High Horse" that are more personal preference than genuine criticisms (I would love a more dynamic arrangement, for example), but I feel too late. Like "Run Away With Me" or "Praying," the place of "High Horse" in the modern pop canon was secured upon arrival. Musgraves sets up and lands every punchline, no matter how corny ("I bet you think you're first place/someone should give you a ribbon") or vague ("everyone knows someone who knows someone/Who thinks they're cooler than everybody else"). The song could literally consist of "I bet someone's got a bad case of the Mondays" repeated but Musgraves would still make it work. That the delivery is as good as it is separates Musgraves from both her country peers and her should-be pop contemporaries. With its meticulous craftsmanship and unapologetic twang, "High Horse" is great not despite being country, but because of how it stays true to the storytelling of classic country music while forging its own path. [8]

Abdullah Siddiqui: Fun, but vacant. Musgraves sounds unconvinced of her own pandering. And also, why is it considered innovation now, within a genre, to make things pinker and shinier? There was a kind of delicate grit to tracks like "Blowin' Smoke" and "Merry Go 'Round" that was genuinely interesting but she seems to have completely abandoned that. It's a little depressing to think how mainstream concessions are no longer just inevitable in the course of a musical career, but lauded as innovative. [4]

Ryo Miyauchi: Kacey's usual passive handling of conflict makes me wish this went a little harder on the personal with a more explicit hint that this may have actually been a diss at someone real. But the lyrical decorations from the Shania Twain-channeling opening line to that chorus full of silly twists to cowboy cliches forgive the lack at which she sinks her teeth. Oh, and the disco strut works wonders as well. [7]

Ian Mathers: Fun but slightly anemic-feeling pop country/lite disco hybrid seeks slightly more compelling chorus... the current one has a moment where it seems like it's about to lift off, but then it never does. Sometimes songs like this reveal with repeated listens that you've been tricked and in fact the gentler approach is key to the song; with "High Horse," as winning as it otherwise is, that just never happened for me. [6]

Stephen Eisermann: In my childish mind, this song is a big middle finger to everyone's least favorite country music critic/villain: the one who decides what real country music is and is trying so hard to save it (from bold women, it often feels like). This disco-flavored, pop-country track has all the makings of an anthem, but is delivered with such chilliness that rather than chant along, you can't help but let Kacey take the center stage to deliver each biting line with as much pettiness as possible. It's delicious, but also impressive - who thought that one of country's most recent rising stars could foray into pop so easily? [8]

Katherine St Asaph: Whenever country or country-leaning artists are poised to cross over, there's a certain tension, as they try (or don't) to reconcile the genre's Southern-libertarian values with mainstream pop culture. Comparisons to "That Don't Impress Me Much" are inevitable and probably intentional, but "get off your high horse," as an idiom, isn't about ego but moralizing. And buried in the guts of "High Horse" is the trope of the elitist carpetbagger from out of town who looks down upon the regular everyfolks -- a trope with, to put it mildly, baggage. (Also a trope where pointing it out is liable to get you branded one of them.) But it's left unexplored, subtext beneath a lyric of generalities; there's nothing as cartoonish as "I can't believe you kiss your car goodnight," but also nothing as vicious. Same goes for the lite-disco arrangement. [6]

Edward Okulicz: It's kind of a pity this song has to be disco to get the attention, because it's a neat little pop song to begin with, and the way it's been performed doesn't put that cleverness front and centre. It's fine as it is, but it could stand to be more full-blooded in its trip to the nightclub. It's got the whole Shania Twain going on meets the Alanis Morissette of not quite understanding the word that's the linchpin of your chorus, and that is viral paydirt, but you know Shania wouldn't have been so polite. The banjo line at the end reminds me of a song this should also sound more like: Basement Jaxx's "Take Me Back to Your House" which came at the country/dance combo from the other end, and works better on both counts. The icy but dreamy vocal performance of "High Horse" says Musgraves is not slumming it for laughs in the genre, but it's still not too late to commission the appropriate remix to prove it (the Kue remix is close, but not quite). [8]

Josh Love: If you stare at the lyrics too long, the sense of "High Horse" starts to go a little wobbly. Where I'm from, people who are on their high horse are usually thought to be acting holier-than-thou, like moral scolds, and are therefore rarely concerned with seeming like "they're cooler than everybody else." It's doubly fortunate then that this song's real selling point is how sleek and effortless it sounds. Maybe the words don't altogether scan, but as a piece of popcraft "High Horse" is assembled seamlessly. [7]

Jacob Sujin Kuppermann: A pure symbiosis of music and lyrics -- this fully commits to the disco-by-way-of-country aesthetic, which allows Musgraves' portrait of arrogance to turn from just another riff on "You're So Vain" to an instant camp classic. It helps that this is deeply fun, from the "giddy-up"'s of the chorus to the guitar and banjo parts, which skitter across the track with such precise glee that it almost made me think that someone should make more country & disco records. [9]

Alex Clifton: I've tried writing a more coherent review, but I'm struggling because I love this so much. So: it's everything I've ever wanted as a queer person who lives in the south who loves both disco and country! Kacey sounds amazing! I wanna karaoke this and point at random people in the crowd and tell them off for being snobs! I wanna rent a truck and blast this up and down the road! I wanna rent a truck and take this to the White House and blare it there, too! I want every song that comes out this year to make me feel as jazzed about being alive as "High Horse" does, and I won't settle for anything less! [9]

[Read, comment and vote on The Singles Jukebox ]

#kacey musgraves #music #new music #music video #country #country music #music writing #music reviews

2 notes · View notes

emma-what-son · 4 years ago

Note

Emilia has more appeal because she comes off as approachable and warm. Emma might have Hermione fame but she often comes off as a snob and elitist. I have a feeling she's not liked that much in the industry both in the US and the UK. Both are weak actresses but Emilia is slightly better imo. She would be a better choice for Belle.

Emilia definitely would’ve made Belle a bit warmer. Many people thought that Emma’s Belle seemed snobby.

#Anonymous

0 notes

coffeerambler · 7 years ago

Text

Snobbery in Specialty Coffee

Snobbery in Specialty CoffeThere is a perceived snobbery in Specialty Coffee. Many of us have entered a coffee shop and felt either a little out of our depth, the staff are rude or that we’re amongst a bunch of pretentious bum heads. Adverts like the one created by McDonald’s appeal to this sensibility, with the depiction of specialty coffee being elitist, over-priced and the preserve of pretentious bum heads. But this story is unhelpful and although there isn't smoke without fire (dry ice), attempts to ridicule specialty coffee for snobbery could close people out and lead to missed opportunities for those who would enjoy the positive community, environmental and self-learning aspects.

A matter of taste

In any walk of life snobbery exists. There are certainly coffee shops I’ve visited from London to Kunming and experienced exactly the kind of atmosphere that repels potential newcomers. There are also some who don't work in specialty coffee but drink it, never missing an opportunity to tell their friends how bad Starbucks, Costa or Lavazza is. They revel in telling people they should change their coffee habits to match theirs. This too is not only unhelpful, but illogical.

Ultimately, coffee is subjective and what I might think is a deliciously fruity Kenyan, my brother might say it’s a weak vegetable piss. I could say “that’s because your taste buds aren’t developed”, but to what avail? Who am I to make such a claim? What if I have a shop and I turn away anyone who doesn't agree with me? I’ll likely go bust.

And so this happens anyway and there’s a push back. McDonald’s make their advert and lots of potential specialty coffee admirers laugh and now think it’s silly. Specialty coffee people think the advert smells of desperation as the specialty sector grabs greater market share. It may be a light-hearted joke but a distinction is made, and not a very accurate one.

Reverse Snobbery

So snobbery all round. Pointing the finger and laughing at something you’re yet to experience, like specialty coffee, is no less snobbish than the uppity barista who has no time for high street coffee drinkers. A bit of understanding is needed on both sides. The complexity of specialty coffee is certainly a barrier which promotes this kind of reaction and where a barista has grown familiar with this complexity, they become detached from how big the gulf is between commercial and gourmet for newcomers. The ritual involved in brewing and the different flavour profiles make them completely different drinks, particularly if the former is in a massive cup with milk and syrup. Grinding, the brewing equipment and flavour notes can all be quite daunting but patience overcomes these issues.

Familiarity also plays a part. At first I couldn’t understand why anyone would drink a sour espresso and generally thought it was a mistake. My early experience of coffee was completely shaped by instant and commercial coffee, ‘Italian’ blends and Starbucks’ incredible creation which has defined coffee for many of us (but not in Italy, Australia and New Zealand). So naturally, when speaking to someone about coffee origins and processes I was out of my depth. Perhaps this lack of understanding in one results in disregarding the other as a snob.

I remember one introductory tasting event I held in particular. Of the 20 or so people there, one person reacted how I imagined many more would. She tasted a washed Ethiopian Sidamo and blurted out, “If I wanted tea I would order it!” Her favourite coffee was one I put in as a control, a very dark roast which I would not choose for myself. While others were pleasantly surprised and spoke about what they could taste, she appeared to close down and reject the lighter roasts considered to be specialty grade. What this told me, and other tastings, was that in the right environment the majority of people want to broaden their experience of coffee.

And like the majority at these events, my own curiosity drew me in further and I quickly came to appreciate the acidity, brightness and flavours of non-commercial coffee. For some though, the lack of bitterness is a problem and many do not care about coffee as long as they taste the strength they are looking for, mistakenly identifying strength as bitterness. Even within the commercial market now, packaging is shifting away from using strength to refer to bitterness and switching to roast levels instead. Supermarkets are adapting to our increased knowledge of coffee.

A solution to snobbery

There’s probably no solution to snobbery in coffee, just as in life generally. However, I’ve found that most people working in specialty coffee enjoy sharing their experience of the drink. In many shops, like Prufrock in London, staff are attentive and providing they have the time, are willing to talk for as long as you are. Many top players make time for others too. Steve Leighton of Has Bean coffee gives everyone and anyone time at the end of events, no matter their level. My experience is also that most people want to discover more. It comes down to those within the industry having the patience for others and their choices. This will result in converting those who want to expand their appreciation, and hopefully reduce the perception of barriers and snobbery.

#snobbery #snob #specialtycoffee #coffee #prufrock #hasbean #london #china #ethiopia

1 note · View note

curriebelle · 7 years ago

Text

a post going around: i dont want percy to be ioun’s champion b/c he’s an intellectual elitist who used his knowledge to make a bad thing

- the very first thing Percy did upon seeing Ioun’s labyrinth was admit he felt bad for being skeptical of Ioun the day before. it was pretty much the definition of a humbling experience in terms of his rejection of gods. His doubt is finally gone.

-Percy says “this is everything, this is immortality” when he witnesses the labyrinth. Knowing that I doubt he’d accept a blessing from any other god, in the same way Pike wouldn’t want a blessing from anyone but Sarenrae. He understands the world through Ioun’s lens. Scanlan (the Popular Ioun Alternative) has only toyed with the immortality of knowledge through commissioning paintings of himself and writing epic poems about Vox Machina but he doesn’t understand the dark side of the proliferation of knowledge in the way Percy does.

-Also some people are saying Sprigg was designed purely to be Scanlan’s mirror and take him to Ioun or whatever, except Sprigg was Darrin dePaul’s character from like.....years ago, so......no.

-Percy has been constantly, constantly searching for the person who will understand the permanent impact of what he made and who will help him understand his fear over his legacy. This is literally the point his whole character development has been leading up to. It’s not what Scanlan’s has been leading up to, which is less about knowledge and its impact and way, way more about self-worth and communication. That’s why he was so interested in appealing to Sarenrae. He wants redemption, not immortality through knowledge. There is very little Ioun can do for him that another god couldn’t do better.

-nobody, not even Matt, has even thought of or mentioned Erathis once so far, and Percy is so enamored of Ioun’s realm I can’t imagine him choosing Erathis instead even if they do remember she exists.

-Percy is not proud of what he’s made, he’s horrified. The fact that he made something terrible in a moment of weakness means he knows how dangerous knowledge can be. He understands the domain of knowledge in the same way Vax understands death - because he has confronted it directly, inside himself.

-Also he’s purposefully controlling that bad knowledge as best he can b/c it is not realistic to destroy all the guns ever now that Ripley has spread them so he’s training a group who can use them properly and in defense of his home and he had a pretty big moral quandary over that and only did it to defend Whitestone from the dragons in the first place

-(Also I hate to pull this card but in terms of people using guns irresponsibly in Vox Machina Scanlan is way, way deeper in hot water there. He stole a gun and has been using it recklessly for a year without thought as to the repercussions.)

-Also yes Percy is an intellectual elitist in that he likes to be the smartest person in the room but he does not hoard knowledge (unless it is dangerous gun knowledge) which incidentally is what Ioun actually has a problem with. The moment he knows Tary speaks his nerdy language, they start making things together, and he teaches people to build his inventions at his side if necessary (see: the Umbrasyl trap and the trebuchets at Daxio).

-Also he is purposefully using his knowledge for the betterment of society on a broad scale. He spent the entire timeskip year building steam pipes for Whitestone and an early warning system for the Ashari and Emon and and he has constantly and subtly looked for little ways to make things that are good instead of destructive throughout the series (everything from Vax’s brooch to Viktor’s fake hand). I also imagine he’s taught other people to manage and use these systems/items since he couldn’t do those all himself.

-Also he has learned to incorporate magic into designs thanks to Tary and the early warning system so he is learning to appreciate it and get over his fears of its unreliability.

- The combat points actually come down in favour of Percy, not Scanlan, because Percy is going to need magic to fight Vecna, and I imagine Ioun would be able to convince him to rely on her magic in a way no other god could.

- Small thing, but still: Pelor/Ioun Vex/Percy parallels

- Even if I am completely wrong about this and Ioun is secretly gunning for Scanlan and is going to reject any of Percy’s appeals to be her champion, hoping that Percy gets rejected because he’s a snob is terrifying, because it’s literally the worst thing I can imagine happening to him at this point. He has worked so long and so hard to try and mitigate the effects of his invention, and he literally lost faith in gods because he thought they didn’t understand his fears. But Ioun understands his worldview perfectly. Can you imagine what it would do to Percy if Ioun said “sorry, you made one bad thing, and you are snobby about being smart, you can’t be my champion”. That will not make Percy humble. No, it’ll reinforce his thoughts that the gods can’t help him. Because Ioun, the goddess who brought him nearly to tears of joy with her realm and her manifestation, rejected him. His entire character arc is also about forgiveness, and what kind of downward spiral would it send him into if a god he basically loves at first sight can’t forgive him for what he has made?

Even though in my opinion it would completely derail both Scanlan and Percy’s character development to have Ioun choose Scanlan, I guess it could happen and I do see the counterarguments. But if it does go down that way I’m hoping that at the very least Percy can speak with her and gain some insight on his role in history and how to accept what he has created and what he has destroyed. Just flat-out hoping Percy gets rejected for Having an Ego seems like hoping something bad happens to Percy because you don’t like that particular character flaw. ugh.

#currie salt #8)#r e a l l y???#can't have nice things i guess

117 notes · View notes

the-desolated-quill · 7 years ago

Text

Kingsman: The Secret Service - Movie blog

(SPOILER WARNING: The following is an in-depth critical analysis. If you haven’t seen this movie yet, you may want to before reading this review)

I must confess I’m not overly familiar with Matthew Vaughn’s work. The only other film I’ve seen of his is X-Men: First Class, which I didn’t like very much although it had its moments. Also I’ve never been a big fan of the spy genre. Too gimmicky for my taste what with the silly gadgets and ludicrous plots (and the James Bond reboot series’ attempts to modernise it and make it ultra serious a la Christopher Nolan I think just makes it even more stupid than intended. Yes. Batman is more plausible than James Bond. Who’d have thought it?). So when Kingsman: The Secret Service first came out in 2015, I wasn’t expecting much. Very rarely does a movie take me by surprise nowadays, but Kingsman certainly did. I LOVE this movie. I love this movie more than I would, say, a child of my own. And now I’m going to gush about how amazingly good it is.

I think the main appeal of Kingsman for me is its tongue in cheek self awareness. Right from the start it basically tells the audience that it knows how silly and over the top it all is, but invites us to come along for the ride anyway and promises a fun time, and that’s exactly what we end up getting. It’s ridiculous and cartoony, and Vaughn doesn’t shy away from that. He embraces the madness fully and lets his imagination run wild.

Visually the movie is a work of art. It’s bright, colourful, stylistic and simply gorgeous to look at, with loads of fantastic set-pieces. The tailor shop, the mansion, Valentine’s secret base, I could go on. There are also loads of great action scenes such as the skydiving sequence, the epic fight scene in the church and the final sequence where everyone’s heads blow up in a technicolour extravaganza. A few people at the time criticised the amount of violence in the movie, but I felt most of the criticism was unfounded. It’s not as if the movie is so disgusting that you can’t watch it. I mean Quentin Tarantino has done far worse than this. And the violence actually serves the comedy at points, like when Harry Hart beats up all those guys in the pub and then sits down and calmly drinks his pint of Guinness as though nothing had happened.

As well as all that, it also helps that the writing is extremely sharp with a great plot and memorable characters. The standout is of course Colin Firth as Harry Hart. Who’d have thought the guy from Bridget Jones’ Diary could be a credible action star? I really like his surrogate father/son relationship with Eggsy, as well as his matching of wits with Valentine. While we’re never told the full story as to where Harry comes from, we’re given just enough to paint a tantalising picture of him. Like Valentine, Harry has a fondness for the old spy movies, but he always gravitated toward the villains, saying he wished to be a colourful megalomaniac back when he was a kid. This is interesting because it informs us as to how his character operates. The typical goal of a villain/antagonist when you boil it down to its very essence is to disrupt the status quo. While Harry is working for the side of good, this is basically what he’s doing. Recognising that the Kingsman have become a bunch of elitist, upper class snobs, he seeks to recruit from the working class in the hopes of changing Kingsman for the better. He disagrees most strongly with the idea that a gentleman can only come from a certain social status or income bracket, rather it all comes down to a person’s character. This is supported by his two mottos. ‘Oxfords, not brogues’ and ‘manners maketh man.’ ‘Oxfords, not brogues’ refers to the types of shoes a Kingsman should wear, but it could also signify Harry’s views regarding the Kingsman. He dislikes brogues because of the embroidery, and that could be why he dislikes the current Kingsman, seeing their wealth and class as unnecessary embroidery that a gentleman spy does not need. ‘Manners maketh man’ of course refers to Harry’s view of what makes a gentleman. Being a gentleman is not hereditary and it can’t be bought. It comes from how a person thinks, acts and behaves.

I also absolutely adore Taron Egerton as Eggsy. Normally when Hollywood tries to do ‘British chav’, they often fail miserably, but this is the rare exception. I know people exactly like Eggsy and while it’s all slightly over the top for the purposes of comedy, the film captures the essence of British working class life beautifully. Eggsy is basically the underdog/thief with a heart of gold. He’s given the chance to follow in his father’s footsteps and become a Kingsman, and he takes it. But what I love about him is that he never allows Kingsman to change who he is as a person. There’s no dramatic transformation or anything like that. Yes he wears the bespoke suit and glasses, but underneath he’s still the same old Eggsy. Despite the jeers and taunts from those around him, Eggsy never changes who he is. He’s still rough around the edges and he still swears like a sailor. He undergoes a character arc, sure. Initially brash and impulsive, he learns from Harry how to exercise discipline and self control, but he’s still the working class everyman at the end, proving Harry’s point that a gentleman comes from a person’s moral character rather than their social status. He’s also extremely empathetic, never losing sight of what’s at stake. Unlike the other Kingsman, like Arthur and Lancelot (played by Sir Michael Caine and Jack Davenport respectively) who have let their social privilege and power and influence get in the way of the common good, Eggsy ultimately cares very deeply for the people around him and the ones who will be affected by Valentine’s schemes.

Which brings us to the villain, Richmond Valentine, played wonderfully by Samuel L Jackson. The main themes of Kingsman are social elitism and class privilege, as well as the classic proverb that all power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. We see Valentine conspire with celebrities, politicians, businessmen and, as it later transpires, the Kingsmen themselves to cull the population in a desperate attempt to reduce our carbon footprint in order to stop climate change. It illustrates the hypocrisy of the privileged and the elite, albeit in an extreme way. The ones that are meant to represent us, guide us, and protect us are the ones that are prepared to sacrifice us for the so called greater good. Arthur’s betrayal in particular was especially shocking because it just goes to show that the high social status he so arrogantly insists is required to become a Kingsman has caused him to lose his moral compass. The working class Eggsy is an infinitely better gentleman than the privileged Arthur.

Now Valentine, judging by his behaviour, dress sense and penchant for McDonalds Happy Meals, seems to originally come from a similar working class background to Eggsy, becoming rich and successful through his intellect. He mirrors the same journey that a lot of politicians and businessmen originating from working class backgrounds go through. Initially achieving a higher status in order to change things for the better only to then lose touch with their roots and becoming part of the very establishment they were fighting against in the first place. Valentine has become one of the social elite. Organising essentially a mass genocide, he arrogantly declares that the only people worth saving are those on his social level. But at the same time, he’s not one of these one note, muhahahaha villains. The best kinds of villains are those who don’t see themselves as the villains, and Valentine falls into that category. In his scene with Harry, he says he wanted to be a spy as a kid, which speaks to his character and motivations. He sees himself as the hero. The man who is going to save the world. He rationalises what he’s doing by saying he’s not technically killing anybody. His SIM cards merely allow everyone to kill each other. Eggsy, on some level, recognises this. Don’t get me wrong. It’s still horrible what Valentine is doing and Eggsy doesn’t hesitate to kill him, but in their final scene (which mirrors the final scene between Harry and Valentine before Valentine kills him), Eggsy refuses to resort to a spy movie cliche and thus cementing Valentine as the villain, instead echoing Valentine’s line that ‘this isn’t that kind of movie.’ Eggsy recognises that, in his own twisted way, Valentine was trying to do something good and so allows him to die with dignity. That’s a level of complexity and nuance you don’t often see in spy movies.

Something else you don’t often see in spy movies are well developed female characters. Spy movies like James Bond are generally regarded as male power fantasies where women are usually little more than discardable sex objects. While Kingsman doesn’t quite distance itself from that (we’ll come to that in a bit), I’m impressed that Vaughn actually put some effort into creating fully realised female characters that aren’t just there to be eye candy. Sofia Boutella plays Valentine’s henchman Gazelle, who essentially fills the supervillain with a gimmick role. While we don’t learn that much about her, I like that she’s never objectified. An acrobatic woman with blades attached to her legs could have been so easily sexualised, but Vaughn is never tempted to do so. When we see her fight, we never think ‘wow she’s hot.’ We’re thinking ‘holy shit, that’s awesome!’ She’s not there to be eye candy. She plays an important role, attacking and intimidating those who threaten her boss, and Boutella’s silent intensity gives the character a lot of authority.

Roxy too is brilliant, played by Sophie Cookson. I like her relationship with Eggsy, both bonding over the fact that their not seen as typical Kingsman material. Eggsy because of his working class background and Roxy because she’s a woman (and possibly gay). She’s resourceful, intelligent, and has her own character arc, having to overcome her fear of heights in order to destroy Valentine’s satellite. I’m especially pleased that she and Eggsy don’t get together at the end. Usually the male and female leads are forced to suck face at least once in these movies, but there’s no chance of that happening here. They’re just good friends and I think it’s important we see more male/female platonic friendships on screen.

It’s not perfect mind. Like I said, most spy movies are typically used as male power fantasies and Kingsman, while exceptionally good and does its best to subvert a lot of the tropes we see in traditional spy movies, doesn’t quite avoid that. While yes Roxy is better developed than most women we see in these types of films, I’m a bit disappointed that she doesn’t get to join the fight at the end, instead being forced to stand around in the snow like a muppet while Eggsy gets to do all the fun, action-y stuff. Considering how Merlin was emphasising the importance of teamwork earlier in the movie, you’d think Eggsy and Roxy fighting hordes of henchmen together would be on the cards, but sadly that’s not the case. Hopefully she’ll be given more to do in the sequel.

And then there’s the ending. Everyone and their mums have had something to say about it. What’s my take on it?

Well here’s the thing. I admit the Swedish princess’ initial line ‘if you save the world, we can do it in the arsehole’ got a massive laugh from me just because of how unexpected it was. It came totally out of the blue and caught me off guard. From what I can tell, nobody seems to have a problem with that bit. It’s the bit that comes after where everyone starts to get uncomfortable, where Eggsy returns to her cell to claim his reward, as it were. Now... I can see what Vaughn is trying to do. The film contains a lot of self referential humour, and this seems to fall into that at first glance. The James Bond films have female characters that are little more than discardable sex objects. Why not have a woman who’s literally only there to have sex with the protagonist and then we can make fun of that fact? I get it. The problem is it feels like Vaughn is trying to have his cake and eat it too. The anal sex gag basically crosses the line between satirising a sexist trope and using a sexist trope. Maybe it would have worked better if, when she says they can do it in the arsehole, Eggsy reacted in a similar way to the audience. Just be utterly shocked by how random and out of place that line is before awkwardly making his excuses and leaving. I don’t know. Just something other than what we ended up getting because what it does is it actually reinforces the sexism that Vaughn was originally intending to take the piss out of in the first place.

It’s such a shame that the film had to end on a sour note because the rest of it is so damn good. It’s an intricately written, cleverly executed film that satirically deconstructs the spy genre in a way that’s both funny and dramatic. I eagerly await the sequel.

#kingsman: the secret service #kingsman #matthew vaughn #20th century fox #review #spoilers

6 notes · View notes