#but i'm not about to read the names of every single film director in existence

[para-psychopathology]

[the-cat-and-the-birdie]

What makes you know hobie is 18 or above? And not the in the same age range as miles and gwen

Honestly, great question. And the answer is:

I Don't Know Jack Shit. So jot that down.

Additionally, anyone telling you they DO know Jack Shit is a liar. Jot that down too.

[I may go a little Miguel Mode at the end of you know what I mean]

I personally operate under the headcanon that Hobie is over 18.

Why? He says he goes to pubs. You need to be over 18 to do that. The End.

You can headcanon that he has a fake id or simply finds himself in pubs while underage - and that's completely valid. Go ahead. You can headcanon he has a mfing tail. I can't stop you and we haven't seen his ass so maybe he do, who knows.

But my headcanon is just that. And to me - until Hobie's age is clearly displayed and mentioned on screen, then it'll always be a headcanon.

No matter what age you headcanon him as - if you think you KNOW his age, you're probably wrong. And I mean that.

The ATSV describes him as a 'slightly older boy'. Case closed, right? He's a minor then.

Nah, three lines later they say he's MUCH older than Miles....literally contradicting themselves within the same paragraph.

[And the funny thing is - I've seen the artbook used as evidence in the argument multiple times. Even though it literally contradicts itself. And every single time I'm like 'bruh did you even read the full page come on now'.]

Case in point, if you think you KNOW Hobie's age when 1) it's not stated on screen and 2) even the official external material gives conflicting information - you're just wrong. You can't know a theoretical number. And you can't be wrong about a theoretical number.

It's Schrodinger's age.

Example: A character is shown to be in High School. They live in New Jersey where the driving age is 16. If a fanfic writer has the character say "I can't do that, I can't drive yet.", is the fanfic writer canonically wrong? No. Because the character could reasonably be above OR below the driving age, either 14-18. Even if the director mentions the character having a sweet-16 that is never mentioned in the show, it's not screen-canon and the average viewer will not know the character is definitely over 16. Therefore they can reasonable be 15.

"But the director said-"

Don't care. Not weighted canon unless stated on-screen.

Maybe this is a controversial opinion. But if it's not on screen, I can't say it's canon.

Sure, the director may have said in an outside interview that Hobie's conceptually 19-20 -

But a normal person who goes to see the movie, and comes home to write fanfiction isn't going to know what.

They shouldn't have to dig through all conceptual and external content of a specific character in order to be deemed 'acceptable' and knowledgeable enough to write about them.

A person who watches the movie and writes solely based off of what the movie says about Hobie shouldn't be harassed or told they're wrong because they didn't listen to a podcast of a director who's name they don't even know.

There's no pass that says 'Okay you've done enough research about Hobie to write about him, congrats-'

If it's not in the movie, show, book, etc - a fan should not be required to seek out that information to be caught up to speed. External information is supplemental, not a part of the hole.

Also-

If it's not in the movie - It DOESN'T MATTER.

ATSV is a very well written movie. Every line is used for the purpose of telling the story. Especially Hobie's.

They didn't tell us Hobie's age because it didn't matter to the story. And it shouldn't matter to you.

If the writers didn't care enough to take time out to clarify his age, then it makes no sense to spend take arguing about it.

They obviously don't find it important. Because it isn't. It doesn't matter to the story at all.

Hobie's age doesn't matter to the 'love triangle'. Although the film is narrated by Gwen, we largely see it from Miles' point of view. And the 'love triangle' only exists when Mile has no concept of who Hobie is.

Miles doesn't know Hobie. So him questioning a love triangle happens regardless of whether Hobie is an adult or not. Miles doesn't know, neither do we.

The 'Hobie' in the 'love triangle' is an empty-shell of the mystery of who Hobie COULD be. The moment Hobie takes off the mask and we're revealed to the real him - the illusion of who he could've been is shattered for both us and Miles.

Because his age isn't stated, it has no bearing on Miles' perception of him. Miles don't know shit. Neither do we.

Also you people should be fucking grateful GODDAMN WTF

If you deadass beef about this you one ungrateful mfer i swear. Take offense. All offense.

We have a black, attractive, educated, useful, respected character in an animated movie that's available for ANY SHIP with ANY character and what do you people do??? - you argue.

Why? Explain to me why.

You should be happy it's up to interpretation and not definitely stated that you were wrong. At any time the creators could just put it in the next movie and make you look stupid.

You could be out there enjoying any ship of your choosing; with any character you enjoy him with - regardless of age. But no, instead of enjoying the ship that's available to you, you antagonize others.

Sit there and eat your mfing salad you INGRATE

Be grateful we have a character with such free range of shipping. A character that's un-aged and doesn't have a specific gender preference. BE THANKFUL.

You like Gwen x Hobie. Great. You argue with people and harass people who think Hobie's an adult??? - What if Hobie deadass looked in the camera next movie and said "I'm 19 also I'm gay." You'd look dumb as hell.

But they didn't do that. They left it unstated for you to go and enjoy your Hobie x Gwen or Hobie x Miguel or Hobie x whoever the hell.

I'm thankful everyday they didn't say his age because I don't make OCs that go to high school because I'm 24 and hate high school. And guess what, I can do that.

Him and Diane can just hang out on the houseboat all day cause they're grown ass adults with no place to be. Isn't that swell?

Stop playing with me and enjoy the goddamn shipping buffet. Christ almighty

All in all - I don't know shit. You don't know shit. And it's okay to not know shit.

NO UM-AKSCHULLY

Get comfortable with saying "I'm not the authority on this." or better yet "I don't know shit about nothing."

I love him to death, but I am not the authority on Hobie Brown.

For me - I know he said he goes to pubs and I know I wanted to ship him with Diane. Personality wise, Diane is 19. So Hobie is 19.

But I don't know anything about his age. No one does.

I'm just cute and like to share headcanons. Hobie Brown as of right now doesn't have an age. And that's fine. Cause he ain't real.

If you made it this far ummmmmm Here he is. I'm giving you this photo under the condition that you'll act right and enjoy him in a ship of your choosing if you'd like to do that.

Now lets sit here, and eat this ship salad.

[me making sure ur enjoying ur shipping salad]

Bye.

[vroomlesbianvroom]

Your Harry Potter posts are a bit strange. I re-read the books recently as well, and yeah, they're not as perfect as I thought they were when I was 10, go figure.

But I think it's very easy to see what made them appealing still. For all the gaps and flaws in the logistics of her worldbuilding, the atmosphere she creates is just so strong. The books are easy and fun to read, never get boring, and always have cool mysteries woven in. Nothing super unique, but still, how can you just not see those things at all anymore?

Also "it doesn't make any sense, they have one teacher per subject but not enough teachers for a whole week of classes" or whatever - I'm sorry, nobody reads books like this. Especially children's books about wizarding school. This does not matter!

I know we're all angry and maybe even heartbroken by Rowling deciding to use her remaining time, money and influence to fight against trans liberation. And I know it would be easier to reconcile our feelings about what she does these days with our memories of the books if they just turned out to magically have been terrible all along, and every human on earth was just very stupid in the late 90s and 00s I guess.

But it's just not true. And that desperate grasping at straws to paint this book series as abysmal just looks strange from the outside.

I understand that people will have completely differing views on many book series, Harry Potter being a main one.

I, personally, believe that a good children's book should be able to stand the test of time. You should be able to read them at 10 and again at 30 and still think they're just as good. To put the lack of world-building, the plot holes, and general errors down to it being a kid's book is insane. The recommended youngest age to read The Deathly Hallows is between 9-12 (depending on child development), the recommended youngest age to read The Return of the King or the Hobbit is 11. Those two books cannot be compared in terms of world building and development.

Obviously, the teachers is not a major problem and most people wouldn't notice. But, I do read books like that and it's one of those things that just irritates me. Mainly, because it had such an easy fix. She just had to offhandedly mention other teachers. Most of the plot-holes had easy fixes.

The entire plot stems on Harry Potter surviving the killing curse. The entire book series only exists because this happened. J.K. Rowling's description of how and why this happened doesn't make sense.

Her world-building isn't good. There's three (or four) magical locations (that we know of) in Great Britain. Hogwarts (and Hogsmede, I don't know if they'd count as separate places), The Ministry, and Diagon Alley. That isn't a community, it doesn't account for the amount of magical people in Great Britain.

Her character development isn't great outside of the main three and a few side characters. Her descriptions and building of the past is almost non-existent. Her character naming is shoddy at best.

There are a lot of plot-holes or magical logic that just doesn't make sense. And I can say that without it having a single thing to do with J.K Rowling's personal or political opinions. You also can't separate the art from the artist in cases like this when she still makes money from it. I have a film degree (theory and productions) and some of my favourite directors we learnt about were atrocious human beings, but, I can still talk about their work putting what they did aside.

There are good parts of her books, the story is good. It is easy to follow and fun to read. But that doesn't make up for all the issues in the books.

[shenyaanigans]

10 films i love

ty for the tag, @aerogadyne !!!!

Promare. so not to be cringe and make this my number one, but i just. absolutely adore everything about promare: it's funny, the art style is really fun, JYB and Billie Kametz (rest in peace) are there. i think the way it makes very clear, and remains quite adamant, that it is a visual story first and foremost is really fun. I LOVE the opening section, i actually think from a storytelling perspective it's so fascinatingly well done. you can see how it was inspired by the F&F series, how sure, there's a ton of pyrotechnics and shit that's there just to look cool, but there is a genuine heart underneath it that's really sweet and propels the story every single time i watch it. galo and lio are also just. such great protagonists. i adore them both so so much, great watch, 10/10

Everything, Everywhere, All At Once. One of my favorite live action films, this movie really speaks to me. I adore multiverse travel and I've toyed around with the idea of being able to exist in many universes all at once for a story, but I honestly wasn't sure it could be done. Seeing it done on screen so beautifully, so masterfully, and so coherently was just. Mwah. the symbolism was beautiful, the characters were so funny, and the tale of intergenerational wounds (what we inflict on our children is often a different version of what was inflicted on us) is poignant and thoughtfully portrayed and just. yeah. from what i understand, michelle yeoh really took this film over the top with her performance and notes to the directors, and i love how collaborative the space was. here's hoping it gets the recognition it deserves.

Looper. This movie fucks. this movie is everything i want in a sci-fi thriller, because it has so much soul. the way the movie really puts to task the idea of the masculine hero. there's a scene in this movie that just lives with me forever, because it's a scene that feels like it would belong in a gritty realistic action film, and yet it is so so sad. there's no cool music, there isn't a good reason for what happens other than it's procedure, and it physically hurts to watch. on top of that emily blunt is there and i am in love with her.

Knives Out/Glass Onion: A Knives Out Mystery. i'm putting them together not because they're the same film but because they scratch an itch of fun storytelling within a tried and true genre. i am so compelled by stories that have such eye for detail, and i've always been particularly interested in mystery stories. i also am obsessed with the camera technique they used for Knives Out. it's beautiful and i love it so so much.

The Truman Show. also a really really cool movie, i'm obsessed with the way this semi-predicted the sensationalization of people's lives, and the parasocial relationships we now have with people we feel like we "know". moreover, i rly rly like the commentary on art and the idea of caricaturing the self and how that ultimately makes the world around you a caricature, too.

The Adjustment Bureau. one of the first movies i ever really really loved, because i was super obsessed with the idea of trying to go against forces larger than you to be with the person you love (for some strange reason. who knows what that could be. 🌈) i got so interested in how this movie worked, i watched it over and over for years, until i could quote it by rote, and then i read the screenplay because i was desperate to know how it worked. i wouldn't say this is the best movie in the world; far from it. it has this beautiful, interesting premise, but it doesn't take any risks: david and elise are a straight cis white couple with no real barriers other than unforeseen hands saying that they can't. i think there's so much potential here, though, and it's the thing that i was so interested in for so so so long.

Your Name (Kimi no Namae Wa). not to be basic but this movie made me cry a lot. i'm such a sucker for body swap shenanigans in general, on top of time travel, but i rly rly rly liked the idea of two people connecting in spite of space and time and everything to do their damndest to save each other and everyone they loved. just because they cared. i always found that to be so powerful and meaningful.

The Invitation. this is a movie i have mixed feelings about because it was an interesting film and had a lot of really lovely motifs regarding grief, but it was also a film i watched with someone who is no longer in my life. but the music in it is really melancholic and beautiful, and i rly do think it's such a massively good take on how grief is powerful to eat up not just you, but everyone around you, too.

Gone Girl. brooooo this movie was so so so good, i loved it so much, although the first time i saw it i was not a fan because i was sixteen and i had to watch the cunnilingus scene with my dad right next to me. but the second time i watched it i was alone and also 22 and so it was rly good. i just love the bait and switch. i love the evil woman. i love everything about it. fantastic.

probably does not count but the Sense8 movie was bananas and cool and beautiful and i am so sad that show did not get the five seasons it deserved, it was a really, REALLY good idea. it fucked some stuff up, but this show was so queer and unapologetic about it, and i enjoyed just how much of the show was driven by love. i rly rly did.

anyways sorry this is long and full of my rambles, but even doing this list has put into perspective just how much of the same stuff i like LOL. anywho!!! i figure i'll tag... @caffernnn, @suhmayzooka, @relationshipcrimes, @futuresoon, @kavehandtea, @honeydots, @cawfka, @floodedlungs and anyone else who might be interested!! have fun, i want to see your favorite movies if you're up for sharing <3

[ifindus]

Tag Game To Better Know You! Send this to people you’d like to know better!

Thank you for the tag @astrophilic-soul 🥰🥰✨

What book are you currently reading?

Christmas is Murder by Val McDermid 😊 I wanted to start on my mountain of unread books, bought this one in Edinburgh this autumn and it felt fitting for the season. Not too impressed with it though - the writing is quite simple and maybe not as descriptive was I would have prefered? It's a collection of crime/murder related short-stories connected to Christmas.

What’s your favorite movie you saw in theatres this year?

One Piece Film: Red ✨ It was amazing

What do you usually wear?

Knitted sweaters 🥰 I need more though, they're the most comfortable thing ever. Also a leather jacket on top when it's not too cold

How tall are you?

168 cm (like 5'6?)

What’s your Star Sign? Do you share a birthday with a celebrity or a historical event?

Aries ✨Jo Nesbø (Norwegian author) has the same birthdate as me

Do you go by your name or a nick-name?

Name usually, but some friends calls me by my last name, and I have one friend that made up a nickname only she uses for me 🥰

Did you grow up to become what you wanted to be when you were a child?

Trying to! Other than archaeologist I was interested in being a director for movies, but pretty happy with my current choice ✨

Are you in a relationship? If not, who is your crush if you have one?

Nope! Recently single after 6 years, so just happily existing atm 🥰

What’s something you’re good at vs. something you’re bad at?

I think I'm good at talking to people, finding anything in common, but I'm extremely bad at keeping in touch with friends that I don't see every day

Dogs or cats?

Dogs 🐕

What’s something you would like to create content for?

Idk, some obscure Norwegian thing maybe? And One Piece ofc 🥰

What’s something you’re currently obsessed with?

... Hetalia? And One Piece?

What’s something you were excited about that turned out to be disappointing this year?

Can't really think of anything? I don't really expect much of anything - always keeping an open mind

What’s a hidden talent of yours?

Hmmm think I'm pretty good at card games and board games

Are you religious?    

Nope

What’s something you wish to have at this moment?

Motivation and energy to write my master thesis (and some secret santa fic too 😅

Tags: @pvffinsdaisies , @95jezzica , @darcymariaphoster , @ireneultramarine 🥰✨ no pressure!

[sanstropfremir]

pls disclose more about ur hate towards the auteur theory! i always love reading your thoughts and whenever you go on a long post. i first heard about it when i took a film elective - the most frequent mentioned auteur is wes anderson. i don't really understand the depth of the theory but watching his films definitely gave me understanding of what makes a film wes anderson's.

oh baby this is a big ol' can of worms, i've never tried to write this out before so we'll see where this goes.

so i don't actually have a problem with all parts of auteur theory. i think it's an important element of criticism (the form) to acknowledge that film directors can have stylistically and thematically homogenized bodies of work. all artists have specific styles and it is important to acknowledge the flags of that style. i do also believe that there are artists who are better suited to conceptual and thematic control (which does include myself to some degree). these are all good things. what i do have a problem with is how auteur theory has totally destroyed the understanding of how the conjunction between art and storytelling has been, and will always be, collaborative. there's some finer points of the theory that apply specifically to film obviously, but a fundamental, and i mean fundamental flaw with it is that it specifically seeks to identify a singular 'authorship' in a form that by nature and history has never had such a thing. there is no singular person responsible for the whole of a film, or a play. yes, there is someone who wrote the script, of which yes, the thing would not exist without. but a script is not a final form. who do you know that reads scripts like they read novels? no one, because that's not what they're for. scripts are prescriptive for the larger, holistic experience of that story. and yes a director should be the steady hand steering the ship, that is their job, but the real strength that comes with being a director is realizing and acknowledging that two or twelve brains are better than one. it is not feasible for a director to know the intricacies of every field; i've never personally met or worked with a director that actually understood costume on the level necessary to have a meaningful contribution to the design.

the whole preoccupation with 'genius' and 'someone has to be the mastermind behind all the ideas' is so so so individualistic and denies agency and credit and credibility to the tens and hundreds of people that are involved in these productions. and despite being a theory that is only about 70 years old, it has infected every form of art (especially theatre) to the form's own detriment because idiot film bros for the last forty years have been inflicting this idea that a bunch of white guys are the pinnacle of cinema because they're 'the director'. designers get so little credit for their work and obviously i'm mad about that because i've experienced it personally, but the greater ramifications of this individualistic mindset is that it even further perpetuates the idea that collaboration is inherently weaker, that admitting that you don't have all the answers or ideas is somehow a flaw, that you are a lacking artist for not being fluent in every possible avenue. and it diminishes the value of all creative work that is not concept or 'ideas' based. is the reason for wes anderson's films looking like that actually him? or is it because of his longtime director of photography robert yeoman who's worked on every single one of his live action films? or is it because of his oft recurring cast of creative collaborators? do you know the name of the set designer for the grand budapest hotel? he won an oscar for it.

tldr it's a facile theory that has overtaken the cultural mindset because it gives one person all the power and credit and it exists only to stoke men's egos because they think they're hot shit even though literally everyone else is holding them up.

[moon-riverandme]

And in the Beginning There was... Light, Film Rolls, and Controversy.

Watching old movies has always been one of my favorite pastimes. I love the cracks in the film, the oddly tinted placements of color, the quick, scattered movements of the actors, and the slice of an intertitle. It all just makes sense when I think of those first filmmakers who were trying to make sense of their new medium. In my journey through film, I will start at the beginning. Well, sort of the beginning. Our main topic of discussion takes place in 1903. So we’ve skipped over a few years… 15 to be exact. I’ll sum them up now because if I miss a beat I’ll ruin the scene.

Let's start in October of 1888 when Louis Le Prince has just recorded the very first film. It’s short yet scenic; his family gathers in a garden and for the first time ever - they move. A man walks across the screen, the rigid bustles and day dress of two women sway as they turn away from the camera - ergo we have a moving image years before Edison would invent the kinetoscope. Of course, most don’t know of Le Prince and in school I never heard his name mentioned. In fact, I only heard of him through a Buzzfeed Unsolved video. So what happened? Why did history remember the names Edison and Lumière but not Le Prince?

There were many entries in the race to create the first film. And of course, there are arguments as to what cinema is in comparison to a bunch of still photographs played one after another. Strange, I think is this argument. For film is a series of stills or frames played one right after the other. Nevertheless, in 1878, we have the famous images of a galloping horse caught by twelve cameras set up by Muybridge to capture motion and to study animal locomotion. Motion but not a movie. What we needed was a camera that had a single lens capable of capturing a point of view. That’s what Le Prince did. Unfortunately, as history would see it, he mysteriously disappeared on a train to Paris in September 1890 right before his first public screening in New York carrying luggage that contained all of his work. Neither Le Prince or the luggage has ever been found. Quite the coincidence.

There are a few theories: Le Prince committing suicide, Le Prince’s own brother killing him, Le Prince fleeing due to his sexuality being outed but none have stuck... except one. Le Prince’s widow, Lizzie, believed Edison, his biggest competitor in the race, had him assassinated. The evidence? The discovery of Edison’s journal containing the following entry, which has been proven authentic. It read:

“Eric called me today from Dijon. It has been done. Prince is no more. This is good news but I flinched when he told me. Murder is not my thing. I'm an inventor and my inventions for moving images can now move forward.”

Take of that what you will.

Today, we are taught that Edison’s kinetoscope launched the novel medium of moving pictures into our familiar. When it was invented in 1891 by Edison and Dickson, the kinetoscope was a peepshow-like device with a "sight opening" on top that one viewer at a time could look into and watch a moving picture. Think about it like looking into a microscope - very different from how we view films now both in method and price, it was 50 cents for access to all films at a given venue.

In 1897, an improvement on Edison's device arose. Invented by the Lumière brothers, the cinematograph contained both a camera, projector, and hand crank. Now, audiences could sit and screen films. I'll circle back to Edison as he connects to our 1903 topic. But first, let's take a stop with the Lumière brothers.

Auguste and Louis Lumière are credited as the first filmmakers. Their documentary-esque films Workers Leaving The Lumière Factory and Arrival of a Train at La Ciotat are milestones in cinema. Known as travelogues or actualités, they showed the casual and working life of people in the mid to late 1890's. These shorts were even screened to audiences who jumped out of their seats at a train onscreen because they thought it would actually hit them. The Lumière Brothers took their screening all over the world, from Paris, to India, and China.

Watching these films, it's hard not to put yourself in the shoes of a passerby, a random person whose name we don't know, who exists in a few frames before disappearing to time. Like a fossil, it's interesting to examine what life was like back then. I love seeing the clothing. Everyone is so formal, at least compared to the laid back air of today. Even so, in the 1890’s people were moving away from the Victorian Era and into the “New Woman” Era. High necklines and longer sleeves were replaced by the open neck and short sleeves as morning turned to dusk. High chiffons under feathered hats were popular as was the shirtwaist style for work. All of these visible in the Lumière films.

Where we jump from reportage to fiction is where we jump from Lumière to Porter. And back to Edison, who had Porter working for him. Projectionist and electrician turned director, Edwin S. Porter was the brains behind many of the mechanics and techniques that have become so highly engrained in the making of films that the idea of them being novel seems almost impossible. In 1899, Porter became head of moving picture production at the Edison Manufacturing Company and throughout his career, which spanned about 15 years, he made more than 70 short films. So lets look at a few of them in detail.

Jack and the Beanstalk (1902)

You'll see that a lot of the narrative ideas for these early films spun directly out of fairytales. For an audience, fairytales were a familiarity. Thus, they were able to stitch together what they already knew about the characters and stories and better understand these new moving pictures. And Porter knew this from his work as a projectionist. He knew what engaged the audience most. And that wasn't just story, it was technique. Porter's films were revolutionary for what would become known as editing, at that time just cutting film. Simplistic and impactful, he knew how to compact time and create magic. Objects and people appear and disappear in a single cut. The camera remains still, a wide shot, and on a tripod but what's in front of it changes slightly, making for magical realism. For example, once Jack makes it back down to earth after descending the beanstalk, he grabs an ax and starts chopping it down. He's got to do this or the giant chasing him will make it down too. So he swings the ax a few times with all his might. From a large beanstalk, ripe with leaves, reaching up to the sky, we immediately cut to a destroyed one. The fact that we end one cut with Jack in the same position as we start the next, keeps from disrupting the audience even though everything else onscreen has changed. We've condensed time, Jack has saved the day, and the Giant has fallen to his death. Porter would expand on this editing style, perfecting it, discovering cross-cutting.

Life of an American Fireman (1903)

Cross-cutting or parallel action is so integral to editing that it happens in just about every film. Simply, two separate events are occurring - say, a woman trying to escape a fire inside of her house and firefighters rushing in a horse carriage to save her. These two events, perceived to be happening at the same time, are stitched together through editing so that the audience experiences both. Cut to the woman in her house as the fire inches closer to her. Cut to the firefighters rushing up the stairs. Will they get there? Will they save her? Cross-cutting serves to create tension and set the rhythm of a scene. Eventually, the two spatial points of view merge and the conflict should be resolved. This originates in Porter's films and Life of An American Fireman is the first one that shows it off.

Let's cut back to the first shot of this film, it's a trick shot. A sleepy fireman dreams of a mother putting her daughter to bed. Abruptly, the fire alarm is set off and he wakes up. Instead of cutting from the fireman dozing off in his chair to a separate shot of the mother, which would create confusion on whether the fireman was dreaming, Porter uses double exposure to frame the dream above the fireman shoulder. Double exposure had been employed by photographers since the 1860's to produce dreamy situations in otherwise ordinary places but in film, it first appears in Georges Méliès Four Heads are Better Than One. When we see the house aflame for the first time in Life of an American Fireman, the same mother and daughter from the dream pair reappear. The fireman's premonition connects back to the main drama of the story.

The Great Train Robbery (1903)

In this film we take the leap from a theatrical approach to cinematography, where the camera simply watches the action at a long-shot or observing eye, to being involved in the action. One way that Porter does this is by integrating the pan.

Panning is a technique that moves a camera side to side in a fixed location. We haven't taken the camera off of a tripod or stepped forward in anyway, we are simply turning left or right on the horizontal axis. If we took a step forward and followed a character or action we'd have a tracking shot. But we aren't there yet so plant your feet in the ground for now. Porter uses pans to reveal. The first pan is executed about six minutes into the film. The robbers jump off the caboose with their stolen goods and make a run for it. But where are they going? Queue the pan and we find out it's down some steep hills and into a forest. The subsequent shot is them in the thicket of a forest. Running passed the camera until all but one have exited camera left. But how will they get out? Queue the second pan to reveal horses - their getaway plan. This pan is masterfully done. I love the way Porter keeps his camera static and just observes the tumbling, running robbers until only one is left onscreen. Then and only then does he pan left to reveal the horses. By leaving only one person onscreen, not only does the audience have less to track but so does the camera. Simplifying the frame down to only the necessities of the action, one robber running away in a forest, amplifies the pan and makes the reveal feel complete - we reunite with the group of robbers and horses.

Depending on which version of the film you watch, you might be surprised by waves of color among a sea of black and white. Tinting whole films blue, amber, or sepia has been around since the origins of moving pictures, but in The Great Train Robbery, Porter selects specific actions or objects to tint. This was all done by hand.

Color is one big manipulator. Think of light blue and you'll likely picture endless summer skies; an air of calm. How about Green? I picture the tangled tree webs of a jungle - adventure, growth, the smell of dew on fresh leaves, nature. Now red. Explosions, fire, burst of emotion. Yellow? A bright, morning sun, a blooming sunflower, happiness, positivity, a new start. Early filmmakers used color to bring attention to specific objects, people, and actions. They used it to draw out an emotion from the viewer. They used it to connect themes of violence, love, and happiness. And they used it to spice up their frame.

Porter hand paints the explosion of a train lockbox bright orange and a deep red. The smokey pops from gunshots are also a fiery red. The dress of a dancing woman is bright yellow. The coat of another girl is a rich purple. The addition of color cultivates realism but also gives the film a flair of the imaginary.

So, we have the creative process of tinting to enhance the visual characteristics of a story and we have panning to push forward the important aspects of a narrative. Let's add a few more ingredients to our recipe.

Because the story cuts back and forth between the robbers, the operator, and the posse of men who will eventually hunt down the robbers, it has parallel action. Three separate storylines, integrated through the edit, that coverage at the end. Now that we have the way in which the story is cut and delivered, how about some specific effects?

In shots where the action occurs inside the prop train, which is not moving but the audience is meant to believe it is, Porter uses double exposure to ground his location in reality. He filmed exterior, moving shots and layered them onto the static train shots. In the '30s this would become known as "rear projection".

Additionally, Porter creatively placed his camera in new ways to produce frames that diverged from the typical wide shot; bringing the viewer closer into the action. For example, at about 2 minutes and 50 seconds in, the camera is propped on top of the engine car roof while a sneaking robber crawls passed and kills a fireman.

At last we arrive at the final shot. Diverging from the narrative, Porter set this up to look like a wanted poster. It is filmed in a medium close-up, which serves to focus all attention on the subject by filming them waist-up, having them fill up most of the frame, and blocking out the surrounding environment. The robber points his revolver right at the camera and shoots six times. If you've ever seen Goodfellas, Martin Scorsese recreates this at the end with Joe Pesci. Seemingly, the purpose was to shoot the audience. To tell them even though all of these robbers were killed in the end, their spirit doesn't die. It says "I'm warning you- it's still dangerous out there." Funny enough, this wasn't even the original intention. The shot was promotional and where it ended up in the film was entirely up to the projectionist. It could've just as well been placed at the beginning if they wanted. Even so, the break in the fourth wall and punch of dramatics that ended the film still prevail through cinema history today. Completing the recipe for one the first Westerns, ripe with shootouts, chase sequences, bandits, and suspense.

The Kleptomaniac (1905)

When moving pictures are void of sound and spoken dialogue it's a bit difficult to understand what characters are doing onscreen. Heightened emotional and physicalized acting made up for this. Through facial expressions and over the top, exaggerated body movements, audiences could connect the dots to figure out what was going on in a scene. But in 1903, Porter directed Uncle Tom's Cabin and introduced intertitles, words that would appear printed onscreen. Early iterations of intertitles read like book chapters. They described the main action that was about to take place in the scene. In Uncle Tom's Cabin some examples include: "The Escape of Eliza", "Rescue of Eva", and "Tom and Eva in the Garden. In The Kleptomaniac, intertitles state location and give context to where we are, which is helpful because without them, I don't think I could follow what was going on - at all.

Location is such a main element in this film that intertitles are practically non negotiable. "Leaving Home", "Arriving at the Store", "Home of Thief", and "Court Room Scene", prepare us with the information that is necessary to fully understand the purpose of each scene. The department store shot isn't clear-cut. It could've been a mail room or an office. If we miss that it's a department store that our main character is visiting (and stealing from), we miss the connection to the thief stealing food later on in the film and thus miss the whole theme of class disparities. The intertitles supplement for lack of onscreen information and sound. They would be used regularly in the silent era, branching into dialogue intertitles and expositionary intertitles before dying out with the advent of sound.

[allofthefeelings]

Hi. I forgot that sad endings exist, and now, I'm scared stupid after your last BW movie post. She's dead already! I want something close to happy! (Oh god, I hope the fanfics come through 😭😭😭)

(Before I begin, I would also like you to know that, while this is over 4000 words long, I did cut a several-paragraphs-long digression comparing the BW movie to Beauty and the Beast: The Enchanted Christmas. You’re welcome.)

I know I’m once again outing myself as an optimist here, and I’m sure I’ll also end up getting smug asks in four months when much of my speculation is wrong, but what the hell. If I was on this tumblr to be right I would have made a LOT of different decisions.

So.

I really, truly don’t think we’re going to get a sad ending.

But the question is, how does it achieve a not-sad ending? Or, to completely re-frame and re-structure: for a character like Natasha, what exactly is a happy ending?

Buckle in, because this gets long.

I think we can all agree that, by definition, we’re starting the movie from a point of melancholy at best, just because we know that in 2023 Natasha will be dead. She doesn’t get to ride into the sunset in any way, shape, or form. Every other solo movie- even the ones with tragic endings, like Thor Ragnarok’s destruction of Asgard and a large portion of its people- have given characters a path forward and the odds that even if this won’t give them a happy ending, it gives them a way towards one. It ends with hope. There isn’t room for that here, for obvious reasons. But what there is room for- and this is, ironically, achievable because of one of the major flaws of IW- is the idea that she did achieve growth, and then had six years to live the life she wanted.

Or, not the life she WANTED, which probably would not have been one part on the run/five parts half of society obliterated by Thanos. Let’s say she had the chance to live a terrible life self-actualized.

IW’s complete and utter lack of meaningful characterization for 90% of the cast means that we don’t really have a sense of where Natasha was in that movie. That gives a lot of room to play with, to put Natasha at the end of the BW movie in a place that she wants to be in. In other words, they can retroactively argue that the reason Natasha isn’t given room to grow in IW is that she had achieved her growth in between CW and IW.

Which, look. Doylistically this is beyond bullshit. Doylistically this is actually offensive, and if they’re looking to retroactively placate us about how Natasha’s arc went, it really doesn’t work. I’m not talking about what was intended, or what was achieved; I don’t think this is either of those. I’m talking about what we can choose to read into it.

And, frankly, as a Natasha fan, that’s pretty much all we do anyway. I can argue (and clearly have argued) her arc for ages, but that’s all the work I’ve done, and you (collective, Natasha fans) have done- not the work the text has done.

None of this is remotely answering the question. But I think it’s necessary groundwork to begin to answer the question.

Because what the BW movie can give us is that growth arc that takes place in the negative spaces of canon.

Well, first of all, the BW movie gives us the fact that things happen at all in the negative spaces of canon. I know I’ve discussed this already, but it’s worth mentioning again: the way audiences are supposed to read texts is that everything pertinent happens on screen. Even supplemental texts that are considered canonical (cut scenes, novelizations, official tie-in comics, movie scripts) are deemed inherently less valuable because they aren’t on the screen. This movie affirms that important events are happening off-screen, to everyone- or at least everyone who isn’t front and center.

This is, again, infuriating, and I feel like when I say this I’m inadveretently contributing to justification. That is not my intention. Natasha’s growth should have been on screen and should have been seen as important. I hate that it’s reduced to a single movie after ten years and the character’s death. I don’t think this justifies it. AT THE SAME TIME, I think this opens space for us to look at lots of characters who haven’t gotten the screen time they deserved.

(Like, they may never give Rhodey the movie he deserves, but at least no one can tell us that if he did something worth seeing it would have been on screen. This movie’s existence is a rebuttal of that. This is a digression but one I’m gonna keep making until everyone starts casually referring to awesome shit Rhodey did off-screen because WHY THE FUCK NOT, YOU CAN’T PROVE IT DIDN’T HAPPEN, “IT DIDN’T HAPPEN ON SCREEN” IS NO LONGER PROOF OF ANYTHING EXCEPT THEY HAVEN’T DONE THE SET-IN-THE-PAST MOVIE YET. Y E T.)

But we also get the possibility of growth, and to analyze what growth means for Natasha’s character.

So here is an issue: I can tell you, with a frankly absurd amount of confidence, what I read Natasha’s arc as. I can lay it out from film to film, I can point to key growth moments, I can read a lot into every scrap that made it into the final cut and I can tell you exactly why, and I feel like if you dig into my history you’re going to find a lot of me citing specific scenes to make my point so I’m not going to go too in-depth on an already-long post that is getting exponentially longer. I think that Natasha’s key arc is in figuring out who she is and what she needs, and how to be a person rather than a reflection of what is asked of her. I think that the mirror imagery in the trailer and in the SDCC/D23 BW footage lends credence to this being a key theme of the movie.

But I have absolutely no idea if I’m right, because the MCU has never considered Natasha to be important enough to be the focus, and as a result I read her arc mostly through the ways she mirrors other characters’ stories, usually to show their strengths by comparison. I do my best to make arguments that are textually supported, but at the same time, it’s like describing the sun entirely from the way that its light reflects off the moon.

So I can say that for the BW movie to be satisfying, it needs to offer completion to her arc, which is then capped in IW/Endgame but would have reached its climax in the BW movie. But since I cannot confidently tell you what her arc has been so far, I can’t figure out exactly how that arc could be satisfactorily completed. Which means, after SEEING the movie, I will have to retroactively figure out how they saw her arc, and then figure out if this was a satisfactory way to end it.

But an argument done in hindsight is colored by what I’ve already seen, and that’s a cheat. So let’s start over.

Here is what we know:

Natasha was taken from her family very young (Endgame: didn’t know her father’s name). As a child, she was abused and manipulated by the Red Room (Agent Carter; Age of Ultron). She was trained to be a Black Widow, did terrible shit for them for a while, defected, became a mercenary, did terrible shit for the highest bidder (Avengers). Clint was sent to kill her but made a different call and brought her in to SHIELD (Avengers). Natasha quickly rose in the ranks and became one half of a STRIKE team watched over by Fury’s right-hand man, Coulson (Avengers). Natasha also became very close with Nick Fury, the head of SHIELD (IM2, Cap2). At some point in there she was shot by the Winter Soldier (Cap2). She was one of the people behind putting together the Avengers Initiative, identifying Tony Stark as not qualified (IM2), and recruited into the team herself (Avengers). She did not leave the Avengers teams for the next 11 years; she was on the first iteration (lasting through Age of Ultron), the second (Age of Ultron through Civil War), and then the Secret Avengers (which we can now assume starts post-BW through Infinity War) and Avengers 3.0 (five-year gap team), as well as the Quantum Realm Team-Up Team right up til she got yeeted off Vormir.

We’ll set Secret Avengers and Team 3.0 aside for the moment, as they’re things that will exist post-BW movie canon.

Natasha’s narrative role has often been to be so amazing that when she’s bested, we know the other person is really good. The best way for me to pull this together into a coherent throughline is that Natasha tends to be bested by people with passion and emotional stakes. When Natasha is just doing her job, but Pepper cares about Tony or the Dora Milaje care about T’Challa, she is outmatched. In Cap2, when Natasha cares deeply about SHIELD and who she’s loyal to, she is able to outmatch everyone she faces, but since she’s a secondary character and her act isn’t as highly visible on screen, her heroism isn’t as spotlighted.

(That said, make no mistake, WE WILL BE COMING BACK TO HER HEROIC MOVE IN THIS MOVIE.)

Her role has also been, as I mentioned earlier, to be a mirror to the white male heroes. She mirrors Tony in IM2, Clint in Avengers, Steve in Cap2, and Bruce in Ultron. I can make a strong argument, that I feel is supported by each text, that each of these mirrors is about moderation, and both the white man of choice and Natasha finding that the ideal is somewhere between both points: the space between how and why Tony and Natasha handle secrecy; between how Clint and Natasha handle guilt; between how Steve and Natasha handle trust; between how Bruce and Natasha handle self-hatred. That the writers and directors often disagree with my read of this does not, in any way, dissuade me from believing it, but it does mean that this may not be the arc we’re looking at in the movie.

By the arcs that I’ve traced, though, they have a fair amount of leeway to give a satisfying conclusion no matter what the plot is. By having other characters mirroring Natasha, she is centered in a way she never had been, and simply being the protagonist of her own story is part of Natasha’s journey we haven’t seen. We know that this is going to in some way revisit the Red Room, and that means that we’ll get to see a story where Natasha is passionate about and personally connected to what she’s fighting. We also know that whatever the story is, it will not be Natasha mediating someone else’s approach to the world, but Natasha’s approach to the world with someone else (I’m guessing Yelena?) mediating her worldview, in a way that gives Natasha growth but does not undercut her as someone who had so much to learn from the REAL hero.

All plot to the side, simply because Natasha is the protagonist, there is an element of satisfaction inherent, both textually and metatextually, because Natasha’s role of being sidelined is both within the text and within the media landscape a struggle she’s finally able to overcome. There is also a metatextual satisfaction just in cleaning up the bits and pieces of canon that we’ve gotten that were left hanging. For example, in her heroic climax in Winter Soldier, Natasha- who was so focused on being able to transform into whatever was necessary- released a fuck-ton of national security information on the internet, including her own history, that made her both immutable and knowable. (Do you ever think about how this means that people living within the MCU know more about Natasha’s background than we, the audience, does? Because I do, c o n s t a n t l y.) Natasha went from working undercover and in the shadows to being an Avenger and releasing not just her own and not just SHIELD’s but also the Red Room’s dirty laundry in public, and that has never had narrative consequences; this is a great opportunity to use that, closing a loop that most people probably forgot even existed.

Speaking of closure.

I think this movie HAD to be designed with that specifically in mind. I don’t think they necessarily expected the backlash they got from Natasha’s death (I’m going to be honest here; I didn’t expect it from anyone but Natasha fans), but at least they had to know that people who had been promised Natasha would get her due in canon would be frustrated and want some sign that the complexity of the character that had been talked up for a decade was actually part of the story they put on film. Marvel wants to placate fans, yes, but they wouldn’t waste millions upon millions of dollars on a movie to get us to shut up; their job is to bring in money, and it’s not like they haven’t gotten ten years’ worth from us. They’re also savvy enough to know that for a character who’s no longer alive in canon, they need to do things that make their story relevant even without them having future appearances- and I think we’ll see that in Yelena and Taskmaster- but also to make this story have stakes.

Yeah, we never spend a Marvel movie saying “Oh geez, what if the hero dies?” (well, aside from Civil War, because comics oontext), but right now we’re going in knowing (or, bare minimum, thinking we know) exactly what happens to Natasha. Where she’ll end up just under two years from when the story starts is set in stone (NO PUN INTENDED). So we need another way to give the story stakes. Natasha’s life and her future aren’t up in the air. Her past is, I guess, but they’ve been clear this movie isn’t about her past. And where that leaves us is the emotional journey. I outlined above what I think that is, but it doesn’t have to be that to be satisfying- it just has to be some way to leave Natasha changed in a way that surprises us as audience.

And, sure, that could be loss- that could be betrayal from everyone in this movie, leaving her alone and with no one to turn to but the Avengers- but I don’t think that is. I think that’s looking at Natasha’s story like she’s still a secondary character, rather than the protagonist. The basic structure of a superhero movie (and specifically a Marvel movie) is that the protagonist suffers defeat but ultimately triumphs, internally if not externally, having learned something that takes them farther on their emotional journey. Since (as far as we )know this is the only movie Nat’s getting- she’s not getting a trilogy or a Dis+ show- this needs to take her farther than most single-protagonist movies have.

In terms of another kind of closure: If the movie doesn’t offer at least a hint of a way Nat could come back (and I’m still hoping for that no matter how unlikely it is, and if it doesn’t happen I’m hoping for it in the Dr Strange sequel, and after that I’m sure I’ll find another path), I think there’s an excellent chance the post-credits scene will be a funeral for her. Given that they have SebStan and Mackie and Emily Van Camp shooting together right now, it would be very easy to at the VERY least get us a scene of them mourning her. It’s not the same as Tony’s giant lakehouse memorial, but it’s about half the characters who were close to her when she was alive (the others being Clint, Maria, and Fury, and I’m pretty sure they could have put an hour of time on the FFH set to the latter two having five seconds of looking solemn). I think that, given the backlash to Endgame, they need something like this: we need to see, on screen, conclusive proof that Natasha’s life mattered, not just for the audience, but for the world she lived in.

My dream would be for the entire movie to use a frame story OF her funeral- people talking about her, different memories and different understandings, that combine in different ways to collectively show a whole. Fucking Rashomon that shit. But we all know they’re not going to do that.

I recognize I am still talking satisfying and not happy.

But what exactly is happy? What exactly is the happy ending Natasha might want?

She’s not a character who wants to retire or settle down somewhere. As much as we in the audience talk about wanting her to get a break, we’ve never seen that from her, and we also don’t see a world that could really offer that to her; especially post-Cap2, Natasha does not have the luxury of escaping her past even if she did want to.

We don’t know her goals. We don’t know what she wanted outside of making amends for her past. We’ve gotten that from almost every other character- say what you want about Steve’s Endgame ending (god knows I have), or about Bruce being a public figure that kids love, but at least there was groundwork laid for it.

i think the best argument we have for what makes Natasha happy is in Civil War, when it’s taken away. Natasha is willing to give up things that are important to her (her autonomy) in favor of not losing her team; being together is the priority for her. By the end of Civil War, she’s lost even that; she’s seen to have betrayed her entire team and has no one. By IW we know that she re-finds her group, that she and Steve and Sam and Wanda are a tightly-knit unit, but we have to piece it together ourselves, and we have no way to know that it’s by choice rather than necessity. (The BW trailer is really the first time we get evidence that Natasha has more resources than just the Avengers or SHIELD; even fic has tended to just posit she has empty safehouses, not living people she can go to.) The BW movie could give her that team, and retroactively make her appearance in IW a reward for her- having found the team she wanted- rather than just the natural place for her to end up.

But I can’t see how that would even work without at least some of Chris Evans, Anthony Mackie, and Elizabeth Olsen appearing in this movie and showing on screen that Natasha has her people. We haven’t seen evidence they aren’t, but at least I haven’t heard any rumors they are, the way we’ve heard rumors about RDJ.

And there’s something awful, to me, in Natasha constantly being supporting in other people’s movies, which exist to seem self-contained even if they’re not, but then in her movie her emotional fulfillment relying on things that happen elsewhere- the implication that her emotional arc can’t even support a single movie.

In terms of what we’ve seen achieved, Natasha seems happiest when she’s solving a problem, when she’s fighting and winning and being the hero she doesn’t quite believe she is. But that’s not something that can be an end to an arc, of a decade or even of two hours. No matter how great that is, it’s a momentary thing, and it’s fleeting. That’s happiness but not narratively satisfying

This remains not an answer to the original questions.

I think part of the issue is, it’s not necessarily that we need Natasha to be happy, for her to have a happy ending. It’s that we, the audience, wants to be happy- and frankly, I don’t think that’s unreasonable; we’re not going to blockbusters to have our hearts torn out (and I think that after Endgame especially, Natasha fans are not ready or willing to do that again). And so we’re looking less at how Natasha can be happy, but how we can be happy. Selfishly, I’d even add: how we can be happy without doing the work. How we can be happy without conspiracy-theorizing our way to a satisfying narrative, but rather, a narrative that’s already on the screen, that we can just roll around in and enjoy.

I realize how bizarre this is to say after 3000+ words, but: I want the opportunity to be a lazy viewer. I want the chance to take things in without having to take responsibility for making them into something I want to see. I don’t want to have to reverse-engineer her story; I want to dig into the minutiae that is maybe actually intended.

On some level, that’s going to be the happy ending for me. Just having a whole text to dive into is a gift. (I am probably monkey-pawing myself just by saying this, which is the same kind of bullshit I argued for Age of Ultron- but then, I still can rewatch Ultron and find a lot that I like.) And Natasha getting a narrative win- which, as protagonist, she kind of has to- will be a happy ending for me.

But I’m a Natasha fan. This is expected.

What I think is the real question under all of this- what I’ve been struggling to tease out from my own feelings, and maybe now I’m finally getting to it- is a different question entirely: how can Marvel craft a story that sticks with their formula of giving a protagonist a win and something like a happy ending, while telling a story about a character who has been sidelined for ten years until they killed her off? Setting aside those of us who are overly invested in Natasha’s arc, what is the path to telling a story that the majority of the audience- most of whom haven’t traced her history, many of whom are casual fans, some of whom probably didn’t even see Endgame- finds fulfilling and happy?

The hero has to win, obviously. The hero has to triumph. Natasha has to come away having saved the world (stopping a villain from destruction), her world (protecting those close to her), and her internal world (some kind of emotional progress/catharsis). There will be moments intended for the audience to cheer. That’s a formula that you can find in nearly every superhero movie, and with good reason; I can’t think of why it wouldn’t apply here.

So looping back around, the question about the sad ending really is just for those of us who are deeply engaged. It’s not “will Natasha triumph?” because yes, she will- of course she will. We are going to get a movie where the world will be saved by Natasha (which has happened before) and the text will acknowledge that (which it really has not). The real question at hand is “will Natasha’s triumph be enough to mitigate the substantial losses she’s had in the other movies, or will it be bittersweet, her success here just underscoring the way that her biggest narrative win was to kill herself for no recognition?”

Which, of course, on some level, will vary from audience member to audience member. But I think that, with the awareness of how Endgame worked, and the knowledge of exactly when this movie is coming out, they have to at least try to give her- and us- this.

It’s now 5:15 AM and this is over 4000 words long and if you’ve read all this you deserve a medal. I’m happy to clarify or expand on anything in a few hours when I get up; I know that I circled a few points rather than clearly making them, but I’m no longer even completely sure what is common knowledge and what is me projecting. Hopefully this can at least start a conversation?

ETA: And anon, I am sure no matter what happens, fanfic will have our backs.