#but it also gets closer to a critique of structural violence than any other show i can think of in the spy/action genre

[farkenshnoffingottom]

Some thoughts on injustice and compassion in Nikita

I’ve had this post in my drafts for a year at least, but I just got an ask from someone saying they enjoy reading my thoughts on this show, so I decided to finally post this. It’s kinda long, so I’m putting it under the cut

TL;DR: Nikita sees that the system is causing harm to all but a select few who can profit off of it. Saving it, then, is to tear it down, yes, but also to rebuild something kind and just.

“Michael, social services dumped me with Gary. Corrupt cops shook down Carla to steal her money, and they killed my friend. The bureau of prisons helped fake my death. This government has always treated me like I was expendable. And I’m gonna save it anyway.” - Nikita, “Dead Drop,” 2.21

Okay but can we just talk about this moment though???

Like obviously, there are unrealistic aspects to the show, but it’s grounded in enough reality that it really maps onto our current moment and culture. One of the overarching themes of this show is that people in power will set up systems to take advantage of people (be they the main focus of the show, like Division, Oversight, the Shop, etc., or background but still shown to be part of the world building, like police violence, the prison industrial complex, privatized warfare, human trafficking upheld/aided by local officials, the surveillance state, etc.). And it’s so important that the show acknowledges those things, because a lot of other ‘ooooh black ops unit of the government, they go and kill people abroad’ shows or movies tend to valorize or at least justify these units, thereby normalizing all of these systems to us. And so the fact that this show does expose some of that is great. But they also go one step further.

The other big theme of the show can be thought of as either breaking the cycle of violence or surviving and living with horrific pieces of your past. On an individual level, it shows people working to help others. Carla to Nikita to Alex to the many groups of trafficked people Alex helped. It shows the power of providing someone space to heal, a way out, forgiveness for past harm, and forgiveness of themselves. But on a societal level, Nikita is still doing exactly that. She’s fighting Division to interrupt the chain of violence. The whole point is taking people “screwed over,” as Nikita says in this scene, by the system, and then holding a gun to their head and forcing them to kill. It’s the dressed-up-action-show version of prison labor.

Division has a vested interest in maintaining oppression in society, because if we started putting less people in prisons, if we didn’t criminalize so many groups of people, if we didn’t stigmatize prisoners so that they can’t get jobs, housing, etc., out of prison and are funneled back into prison again... then Division would lose its source of recruits. (The real life version of all of this is: cheap/free prison labor that provides profit to those in charge, and prisoners not able to refuse working because they’re charged absurd prices for everything they need to survive...). Amanda calls division agents ‘expendable’ in (s2 ep18). This isn’t even bringing up Percy’s mission-for-hire jobs. The show explains it as operating expenses because Oversight won’t give them enough funds, but like. You can’t convince me he wasn’t at least skimming off the top for himself.

Carla is this weird, contradictory character. On a personal level, she got Nikita clean, she helped her. On a systemic level, she took people from one prison and put them in another (and yes. She’ll say that it was Amanda who perverted her program, but no matter who’s running it, it’s a coercive program). She’s really the most sympathetic representative of that system, because we can see she does actually care on an individual level, at least. And so Birkhoff saying, “You know what really pisses me off? After all this is over, she’s still gonna forgive you. See, that’s the thing about Nikki. No matter how many times the people she loves let her down, she keeps doing the right thing. ‘Cause it’s the only thing she knows how to do” (“Doublecross,” 2.16), shows just how much Nikita can see the humanity in people, and how much she can see the injustices built into the system. Michael and Ryan, as Michael says in the “Dead Drop” scene, came up in the system, but Nikita has never been a part of it. So it’s easier for her to see clearly what’s going on, because she’s never been inside the system, has never benefited from it, in the way they did. Of course, as she points out in this scene, yes, “Ryan got screwed over by the system almost as badly as I did.” But he still grew up trusting it, until his brother’s death was covered up, and he started to see corruption. But he still believed it was fundamentally good with bad actors and organizations, not that the whole thing was designed this way.

Anyway, this is all to say that Nikita sees what Division is doing. She’s doing what she did for Alex, just scaled up to an entire organization. She’s working so hard to keep agents alive and safe, even trying to bring in the dirty thirty alive if she can.

Division is all about “second chances.” But they’re just doing things the same way the second time around. Work for us, or you die. There’s no chance for anything real there. Fancy apartment in the city and cushy cover job or not, they still belong to Division. They can’t make a life for themselves, because their life belongs to Division. And Nikita sees that, and once she gets out, she takes all that pain and anger and turns it on the hand that forged her. But it’s not a destructive rage (I mean. Yes. It is, but not completely.) she’s building something too. Taking down Division doesn’t mean, and never meant, killing every single person there. In fact, she goes out of her way to try to save as many agents as she possibly can, because she knows that even if they’re fighting against her, they don’t have a choice. But she’s there to give them one. She is there to break the cycle of violence. Pull them out of the fire. Everything they do to her, “and I’m gonna save them anyway.”

[terramythos]

TerraMythos' 2020 Reading Challenge - Book 29 of 26

Title: The House in the Cerulean Sea (2020)

Author: TJ Klune

Genre/Tags: Fantasy, Comedy, Romance, Found Family, LGBT Protagonist, Third-Person 

Rating: 10/10

Date Began: 10/13/2020

Date Finished: 10/18/2020

Linus Baker, a forty-year-old caseworker for the Department in Charge of Magical Youth (DICOMY), lives a solitary and mundane life. But when he’s summoned by Extremely Upper Management and given a top-secret case, everything changes. Linus is sent to the classified Marsyas Island and tasked with investigating an orphanage housing six dangerous magical children-- including the Antichrist. He is to live among the residents for one month, record his observations, and report back to the organization. No more, no less. 

The master of the house, Arthur Parnassus, is a mysterious and enigmatic man. But Linus soon learns that Arthur will do anything to protect his wards. As Linus grows closer to Arthur and the children, a secret from the past and prejudice of the present threaten to destroy the orphanage and their way of life. Linus must decide if he can abandon the world he knows in order to help the ones that need it the most. 

"Fire and ash!” Lucy bellowed as he paced back and forth. “Death and destruction! I, the harbinger of calamity will bring pestilence and plague to the people of this world. The blood of the innocents will sustain me, and you will all fall to your knees in benediction as I am your god.” 

He bowed. 

The children and Mr. Parnassus clapped politely. Theodore chirped and spun in a circle. 

Linus gaped. 

“That was a lovely story, Lucy,” Mr. Parnassus said. “I especially liked your use of metaphors. Keep in mind that pestilence and plague are technically the same thing, so it did get a little repetitious at the end, but other than that, quite impressive. Well done.” 

Minor spoilers and content warning(s) under the cut. 

Content warnings for the book: Semi-detailed discussions of child abuse and trauma. Internalized fatphobia (challenged). Structural discrimination, and hatred/prejudice associated with that, some of it internalized. 

I'm going to have a hard time reviewing this book, because it was so goddamn good I don’t think I’ll do it justice in a few short paragraphs. So here’s the fast version: The House in the Cerulean Sea was a fucking delight to read from the first page. It’s full of genuine humor, magic, and charm, while being just this side of heart-wrenching. Though geared toward adults, it’s the first novel I’ve read in a long time that captures that childlike enthusiasm I used to have when reading a good fantasy book. It takes place in a world with magic (obviously), but it’s 98% character-driven. Both the main plot and the (queer!) romantic subplot are woven together so well that neither feel tacked on or lacking. The found family hit me in the emotions again and again and again. I read books out loud, and I spent the last third of this book struggling because I kept fucking crying and having to take regular breaks before continuing. And then I went through the whole book to find a good quote for this review and ended up fucking crying again. So yeah. 

Ok. Got that off my chest. Usually in these reviews I talk about what I liked and then what didn't work for me or confused me. The good news (?) is I have zero complaints or critiques on this one. So you just get to hear me gushing about it for a while.  

Since this is a character-driven book that’s where I’ll start. Linus Baker, the protagonist, is great. Let me just say I love speculative fiction books starring older characters. At forty, Linus isn’t old, but it feels like the majority of spec fic stars people under thirty. Linus is also a conspicuously ordinary guy; prim and proper to a fault, no magic, oblivious in many ways (including to his own loneliness), but with a hidden sense of justice and protectiveness for people that comes out more and more. His development over the course of the novel and how much he grows to love and care for the other characters is just so good. The writing draws attention to this through repeated phrases and jokes one doesn’t expect to make a comeback (more on that later). Seeing him come out of his shell and stand up for what’s right is cathartic as hell. As a side note, it’s also nice to have a fat protagonist who struggles with his self-image but gets warm affirmation and support from his family and love interest. 

Arthur Parnassus, the deuteragonist and said love interest, is more of an enigma. A lot of his motivation and behavior makes sense once you get his Tragic Backstory (TM), and I think this will be a fun book to reread based on that. I picked up on some of it before the reveal, but not everything. But without spoiling it, I do love seeing an older (mid-forties) father figure who would do literally anything to make sure the children on the island have the care and love they need. Seeing his patient love and acceptance of them tugs my heartstrings. Maybe I’m a bit of a sap. Linus and Arthur’s obvious mutual crush on each other is also really cute, okay. There’s something about older queer people finding love that makes me smile. 

And the children are great too, of course. I really liked each of them and thought they were all unique and interesting. My favorites are probably Lucy the six-year-old Antichrist, Sal the were-Pomeranian (his arc just really hit home for me), and Talia the gnome. They all have such distinct and fun personalities, and seeing them interact is great and often hilarious. I’m not very paternal, but I love seeing children with sad/abusive pasts blossom into their best selves with love, guidance, and support. It’s uh, a little personal. I’d be remiss not to mention Zoe, the resident island sprite, who brings a whole lot of personality and rounds off the group. 

When I say the story is character-driven, I mean it. While a fantasy novel, there’s not any significant violence or action in the story (except for maybe one scene if you squint). The House in the Cerulean Sea is carried by its characters, interactions, and worldbuilding. The humor and inherent charm helps too -- and manages to do so without ever feeling trite. I can’t help but admire that. I was never bored; I honestly enjoyed every page because I liked the characters so much. Not to say there isn’t an overarching conflict with the whole DICOMY thing, but most of the focus is Linus struggling and coming to terms with his discoveries-- about the others and himself, and how he can make a difference on a grand scale. To me that kind of stuff is captivating. And boy does seeing someone find the place they belong get me. As I said, found family is a big thing in this book. 

Aside from that, the writing is just super; it literally had me laughing from the first page. I can’t believe the fucking lemur joke came back at the end, too. But on that subject, I love that this book utilizes recurring jokes and phrases to show Linus’ character development. In particular, “see something, say something” and “don’t you wish you were here?” have VERY specific meanings to Linus at the beginning of the story, and over time transform into the polar opposite. I’m  holding myself back because I don’t want to spoil shit, but if you read it you’ll see what I mean. There’s also a lot of meaningful callbacks to certain dialogue earlier in the story and I eat that kind of stuff up. But even small details, like the early quip about Linus forgetting his umbrella, come back to deliver an emotional gutpunch near the end. So thanks for that, Mr. Klune. 

The book really takes a turn in the second half of the story, which is a tad darker. Avoiding the Actual Spoilers, this is where prejudice and hatred of the outside world become a bigger part of the story. We learn what’s really at stake, and that this wonderful found family in the first half is threatened by a world that hates and fears them. Boy does that shit get emotional REAL quick. Yes the allegory is obvious. No, that’s not a bad thing. Ultimately, The House in the Cerulean Sea becomes a story about love, hope, and change; and boy does that shit strike my gay little heart right where it hurts. 

If you’re looking for a (literal) magical pick-me-up (ignore my comment about crying a whole lot) with INTENSE found family vibes and a side helping of queer mlm romance, dear God read The House in the Cerulean Sea. I don’t think I did it justice in this review; just trust me, it’s real good. My only complaint is that it ends; I want more, damn it! 

[recentanimenews]

Sympathy for the Devilman: The Legacy of Go Nagai's Magnum Opus

I've always had a thing for villains. Unlike my brothers, as a kid I'd always choose the "bad guy" action figures. If they went for the ninja turtle Leonardo, then I'd go for the uber-buff Super Shredder. I personally identified with villainy because of how it connected to the idea of "evil." I personally see evil as a generalized concept that expresses antagonism toward violent and dominant societal structures. Due to a coercive religious upbringing, I now see how my younger self unconsciously found ideologically-oppositional comfort in "evil" art. This eventually led me to one of my most cherished pieces of fiction: Devilman.

Devilman has left an indelible mark on manga and anime creators over the last few decades, inspiring major industry heavyweights such as Hideaki Anno, Kentaro Miura, and Kazuki Nakashima. The series was created by Go Nagai, a manga auteur also responsible for Mazinger Z, Cutie Honey, and Violence Jack (which is a Devilman sequel). Although Devilman retains much of the explicitness native to Go Nagai's usual fare, it uses these graphic elements uniquely to deliver a haunting, unforgettable, and compassionate message.

Let's explore the surprisingly relevant political and social significance of Devilman, along with a few of its animated offshoots. Read on but be forewarned, this article contains major spoilers!

  Devilman (original manga, 1972) 

via Seven Seas Entertainment

  The Devilman manga is a dark antiwar narrative in deep contrast to the standard monster-of-the-day, "evil fights evil" set-up of the anime (which ran at the same time as the manga). Ryo Asuka — who turns out to be Satan, the leader of all demons — helps convince the world that anyone dissatisfied with the status quo could turn into a demon and needs to be killed. Every nation starts a war with each other, and Japan creates the "Demon Busters" to murder anyone suspected of being a demon. This plot twist is the most explicitly political angle in Devilman and a clear critique against the genocide of marginalized peoples. One page features a taste of the global hate brewing around the world: a collective white desire to murder Black communities, the renewal of German anti-Semitism, and hatred for any protestor. There are also many moments that display the horrors of historical genocide when Akira and Ryo travel through time.

Devilman builds additional nuance around this theme with Ryo's character. In the manga's final scene, Ryo describes how demons were once oppressed by God, and that they in turn preyed upon humans in the same way that God preyed upon demons. Ryo recognizes that he continued the same cycle of genocidal hate and marginalization he once suffered. This is a striking moment that functions as a cautionary warning against abusing imbalanced power dynamics, and how even once marginalized groups are still capable of enacting horrors against those with less power. 

via Seven Seas Entertainment

  Ryo's character also made a groundbreaking stride in the representation of marginalized gender and sexual identities. His true form as Satan is easy to interpret as trans, possessing emotional, mental, and physical traits that defy the standard gender binary. The manga also makes it clear that Ryo considers Akira more than a friend, and is actually in love with him. Amazingly, Go Nagai does not use Ryo's trans-coded self or his queer love for Akira as fodder for insulting or disrespectful commentary from other characters. Ryo's gender-variant form is certainly mentioned, but it's never negatively framed or conflated with his murderous attitude toward humanity. Additionally, the manga never suggests Ryo is evil because of his romantic feelings for Akira (a simple, yet important distinction). It feels all the more impressive when you remember that this was made in 1972. Devilman's subversive portrayal of non-normative gender and sexual identity could still be considered groundbreaking even by today's standards.

Devilman OVAs

  The first OVA, The Birth, covers Ryo and Akira's discovery of demon existence, with a very brutal early sequence that shows the bloody survival-of-the-fittest origins of life on Earth (which beautifully expands upon and mirrors the same sequence from the manga). It concludes with a gore-soaked finale where we see Akira's fateful transformation into Devilman. The sequence is filled with face stabs, top-notch body horror, and decapitations galore as Devilman rips apart demon after demon in a nightclub setting.

  The second OVA, The Demon Bird, had the same crew that worked on the first OVA and contains a very similar feel. This OVA is more action-oriented than the first since it doesn't spend time on the build-up and exposition leading to Devilman's initial appearance. The animation and art design is probably even better than the first episode, which is most notable during the fight with Sirene. On a side note, the Manga Entertainment dubs for these first two OVAs are absolutely essential if you're seeking a fun evening with fellow anime nerds with a decent sense of humor. Their typically sleazy dubs — where Manga Entertainment excessively hyped up the seedier, more "adult" side of anime in order to market their products as wildly different from cartoons for kids — contain an assortment of unnecessary profanity and generally crude dialogue compared to the Japanese source material, to great comedic effect.

The third OVA, Amon: The Apocalypse of Devilman, is based on Amon: The Darkside of Devilman manga, an alternate-universe offshoot by Yu Kinutani. This OVA contains a reworked version of the end of Devilman and has a much darker edge compared to the first two OVAs. This entry in the series has an ugly, grim quality to it – such as the horrific depiction of Miki and her brother getting slaughtered by an angry mob — that initially felt off-putting to me. I started to enjoy it more on subsequent viewings however, when I remembered that, well, the entire Devilman mythos is pretty damned bleak in general. I think the desolate mood would have been more bearable had Akira felt like the compassionate, tragic hero of the manga.

Actually, overall I'd say that Akira's portrayal is one of my biggest complaints about these OVAs. He displays a cold lack of care for human life — like in the Demon Bird when he unconcernedly tears through an airplane while fighting Sirene and allows its passengers to presumably plummet to their deaths — that for me, offsets one of the biggest strengths of Devilman's core: that although Akira has the body of a demon, he never loses the tender heart of a human. With that in mind, let's explore Devilman Crybaby. 

  Devilman Crybaby

Devilman Crybaby is my favorite animated incarnation of Devilman, period. I might be in the minority with that opinion, but I think there's a lot to love. Masaaki Yuasa is already one of my favorite recent anime directors — Kaiba, Mind Game, and Lu Over the Wall are highlights  — so it's no surprise I'd be head over heels for his take on a classic Go Nagai story.

Yuasa impressively shifts the '70s setting of the original into modern-day Japan: The group of surly highschoolers from the manga are replaced with rappers and smartphones are everywhere. In the hands of a lesser writer, a modern setting would be no more than a cosmetic, surface-level change of scenery to an already-written narrative. In contrast, Yuasa avoids this trap by using the modern setting to make incisive social commentary relevant to our times: social media is the means for both horrendous and beautiful moments in the show. It leads to Miki's murder when she posts on Instagram to defend Akira, but also serves as the online catalyst that unites Devilmen across the globe (in contrast to the original manga, where a set of demon-possessed psychic monks unite the Devilmen). Yuasa explained this in a 2018 Japan Times article:

"Today's situation is a lot closer to 'Devilman' than it was when Nagai wrote it in the '70s," he says. "The popularity of social media means people are a lot more connected, for good and bad – like someone getting shot over a video game. We learn about unarmed black people being killed by police, people being tortured and the rise of nationalism in politics. In Japan, too, where a lot of problems are openly blamed on foreigners.

"But it can also help spread good that we wouldn't otherwise know about. We see people coming out as gay or trans on social media, and there's a greater opening up and acceptance of different opinions and lifestyles."

  Another beautiful aspect of the show is how Yuasa amplifies the queer elements present in the manga. Ryo and Akira's relationship feels even more loaded with romantic undertones, and Yuasa also introduces two queer characters unseen in the original manga. One of the characters is named Miki Kuroda, initially portrayed as a jealous antagonistic foil to the Miki we all know and love. Miki Kuroda changes as the episodes progress and she becomes a Devilman, and we eventually see her sacrifice herself in an attempt to save Miki Makimura, who she confesses her love to before dying. It's refreshing to see a queer woman represented in a story that previously had none, and incorporated in a way that feels organic and thoughtfully integrated within the larger narrative.

  In contrast to the Akira of the OVAs, I absolutely adore this incarnation. Yuasa did a stellar job showing not only Akira's horny goth-jock side but also his compassionate traits. As the name implies, there's a lot of crying in Devilman Crybaby, and Akira is responsible for at least half the tears throughout the brief 10-episode series. Akira evokes such intense compassion and cares for people around him, which is a noticeable deviation from his cold demeanor in the OVAs. The human heart at the core of Devilman is on full display here, taking the emotional elements from the original and turning the volume up to 11. Though the art style and setting might be drastically different from what you'd typically expect of a Devilman remake, Yuasa did a masterful job honoring the source material while injecting it with fresh life and even fresher modern resonance. 

What other aspects of Devilman  — or its many incarnations  — did you find important or interesting? Let me know in the comments below!

Do you love anime? Do you love writing? If you have an idea for a features story, pitch it to Crunchyroll Features!

By: news+feed@crunchyroll.com

[thepaigeproject]

Season 5 of The 100 is actually great

Okay so I just have something I need to get off my chest that I’ve been holding in for a long time. I have seen SO MUCH hate for The 100 season 5 while it was airing and especially since its finished and it’s just come up more recently now that we’re getting closer to season 6. And honestly...I’m over it. Because season 5 was fucking amazing and probably my favorite season of the series. I’m gonna break this up into sections probably just for my own sanity.

Octavia/The Blake’s

So I think it’s fair to say that Octavia easily had the best storyline this season. Her path down darkness, while hard to watch, was gritty, emotional, intracite in every way and made her and even more layered character. Also it should probably be said that my favorite characters on the show are the Blake’s lol so watching Octavus go dark and seeing her and Bellamy turn more and more away from each other KILLED me but I didn’t hate it or think it was bad writing at all because IT ACTUALLY MADE SENSE. They spent six year apart. SIX YEARS. And Octavia went through things that no one else could understand. She forced into a position she didn’t want leading people who only responded/respected to violence. So yes the darkness took over her souls. But she didn’t want to be like that, she was dying on the inside but didn’t know how to escape. And Bellamy didn’t know how to help or how to even get this new person to trust him again. Because the Octavia he left on the ground surely isn’t the one he returned to. I do think they still have a chance to come back together and Octavia’s sacrifice for her brother, and Bellamy hesitating to let her go proved that. It was hard to watch them be against each other all season but it made sense for the characters and created some awesome storytelling.

Clarke/Space Kru/Madi

So a lot of the criticism I’ve seen is over how the season ended up becoming Space Kru vs Clarke. And I totally get that because Clarke saves their asses and they come off super ungrateful. HOWEVER space Kru and Clarke both have different priorities now than each other. Clarke’s number one is Madi and Space Krus is each other, which again MAKES SENSE. Against its been SIX YEARS. Space Kru only had each other just Clarke and Madi only had each other. Madi is Clarke’s child and what she cares about most so in typical Clarke fashion, she will do whatever it takes to protect who she’s loves. So if it came down to space Kru or Maddie, she’s picking Maddie and Space kru would pick each other. AND THATS FINE. Think about it, 6 years is longer than these characters actually spent together on the ground. They would be closer bonded to those and the critique saying that using the time jump to just say that without actually showing us is ridiculous. And besides they have showed us how close they are and they showed us every week by showing them picking each other over everyone else like what more do you need???

Echo

Okay fully prepared for everyone to hate me now. But I don’t get Echo. I’m not saying I love her or even like her really because I feel like we don’t know enough about her? I didn’t like before season 5 though because she was an antagonist against the main group and tried to kill my baby Octavia. But in the last episode of 5 when she went to space, we all knew she was gonna be with Bellamy coming back down and I was like dammit this show is gonna try and make me like her. While I’m not fully onboard, I’m fine with the show taking that route. She’s an interesting character and honestly if Psace key trusts her then that’s enough for me to give her a shot. I mean space kru is fully of people we as an audience love and they have gotten to know here for 6 years, *ahem SIX YEARS *ahem, so she’s probably changed A LOT.

Bellarke

Oh here I go. So I’ll just start by saying I ship Bellarke. Love them, adore them, fully tirelessly invested, whole shebang. I know there are many other like me however I see the main people hating on season 5 are Bellarke shippers and that really confuses me. I’ve seen so much criticism saying that they felt Bellamy and Clarke were sidelined during the season and that they didn’t seem like the main characters anymore and I’m just like WHAT SHOW WERE YOU WATCHING. Because even if they aren’t the main focus of an episode they’re still very much the central figures of the show. I would say Octavia moved into being the third central figure and I thought it was about time for that. But this is a commonality I see with Arrow too. When there isn’t much Olicity in an episode people lose their minds. With any tv show you have to build on the original structure you created which means bringing in new characters. I think the 100 has down a great job at doing that while also keeping their original ones relevant. But back to Bellarke. People are upset that it seemed like their relationship was downplayed this season which I disagree with. Everything that happened between them this season just made it clear how much they really mean to each other. Everything pointed to that they do love each other and this is the closest we’ve ever had to any sort of confirmation of feelings. They’re dynamic all season was perfect to me. When they first reunited Inwas over filled with joy and then when they were at odds I was broken. Which is what the show wa suppose to convey so good job. Them being on opposite sides again made sense because of their new alliances. And they both understood that and forgave each other in the end.

Anyway just wanted to say I feel like the show is maturing more and more every season and I love it. It’s honestly so cringe when I go back and watch season 1 because the show is so different now and the characters are so different and honestly better. Season 5 made me actually like Clarke and understand her and root for her in a way I never had before. So for anyone else that actually enjoys season 5 you’re not alone lol

[the-movieblog-fan-blog]

The Dark Knight

     Ranking number one on Rotten Tomatoes, WatchMojo, Cinema Blend, and IMDb, “The Dark Knight” is without a doubt the greatest superhero film of all time.  Following Bruce Wayne and his endeavor to end the corruption and violence undertaken by the mobs, which have undoubtedly infested Gotham as a whole, the film interestingly enough serves as more than just an action-packed crime drama.  Instead, Christopher Nolan took somewhat of an unorthodox turn and subjected the film to explore modern politics, philosophy and psychology. Ultimately resulting from the multitude of different themes, the film’s overall structure and plot was genuinely enhanced, thus giving the film a unique edge and general superiority over all other superhero films.

    After cracking down on the mid to low level street criminals and establishing himself within the city as an outlaw vigilante, Batman is brought to the attention of the mob bosses during one of their conferences. Shortly after having one of their banks raided by the police, news is brought to them at the conference that the police are planning to raid and cease the five banks holding the mob’s fortunes. Fortunately for them, “Lau”, the CEO of “Lau Security Investments Holdings”, had managed to extract their money from the banks and move all of their funds to one secure location in Hong Kong. Soon after explaining their money is out of Gotham’s jurisdiction and China’s inability to extradite him, Lau and the conference are interrupted by the dry laughter of Heath Ledger’s notorious, “Joker”. Following his claims of Batman’s non-existing jurisdiction and their money’s endangerment, Joker proposes to kill Batman for 50% (of their total $136M), which therefore commences the violent and corrupt feud carrying out into the film.

    Before the movie even starts, the introduction of the entertainment companies and their logos’ (Warner Bros Inc., Legendary Motions, etc.) are tinted in a dark blue and black and are accompanied with the same colored back-drop. A gloomy, somewhat mysterious soundtrack plays over the logos. Given the genre of the film, this introduction did an incredible job in instilling the dark, fearful and dangerous mood that the film portrays, without even having the first scene shown. As the introduction fades, the first scene is revealed to be a long-shot of what appears to be a modern corporate building located somewhere in downtown Gotham. As the camera zooms in, the now medium-shot shows a gunshot shattering one of the windows from the building, and two of Joker’s accomplices zip lining to the rooftop of a bank. Right off the bat the audience is exposed to the preparation of a bank heist, but more importantly the professionalism these thugs carry with themselves. They clearly appear to be well-funded, with all the right tools and gadgets necessary in order to carry out a rather large heist, seen as through their ability to disable the silent alarm, breach the vault, etc. I found this to be incredibly significant in understanding the sheer power Joker has over law enforcement and the mobs themselves, and effectively introduces him as the frightening, dominant antagonist he is. Furthermore, I found there to be even greater significance in their mannerism, seen as how some of the thugs are instructed by Joker to murder their partner after they’ve done their part in order to reduce the amount they have to share. Much to their surprise they all end up dead, leaving all the money to Joker. This first segment allows the audience to get a feel of the magnitude behind the criminal-behavior and cognitive deception Joker portrays. Joker is a master at manipulation, and the segment effectively introduces the creative potential behind Joker’s upcoming plans. Nolan did absolutely an incredible job in introducing the antagonist, which to me is very important, especially at the beginning of the film. In this case, introducing the audience to the antagonist at the very beginning effectively set the tone and mood for the rest of the film. Furthermore, being an avid action movie fan, I personally prefer to have the film start off with an action sequence. To me, any movie starting off with a good action sequence (like a bank robbery) automatically wins my heart over a film without one. Combine the introduction of an outstanding antagonist (Heath Ledger) with a bank robbery (action sequence) and I’ve got myself a five star movie (at least for the beginning).

    Heath Ledger’s roll in playing Joker had an incredibly strong impact on the success of the film, and played a huge part in making it the masterpiece it is today. I firmly believe that without Heath Ledger, the film wouldn’t carry the same punch it did. Heath’s acting was absolutely world-class, and the amount of creativity and detail he put behind his character really brought out the crime-induced atmosphere the film portrayed. Heath’s acting was somewhat unorthodox for a villain in a blockbuster superhero movie. The stereotypical bad guy in any superhero movie is generally someone who is very aggressive and angry, and carries a rather fiery disposition. However, Heath Ledger instead took a fairly unconventional approach to his character, which ultimately resulted in not only his stardom as an actor, but also in the stardom and success of the film. Joker’s character is portrayed to be very whimsical, which is incredibly unusual for a villain. He has a sense of humor (hence his name) and enjoys a good laugh even when amidst an environment that might hinder his laughter, like falling off of a high-rise building. Furthermore, he’s oddly polite and expresses chivalry and mannerism towards women (his chivalry towards Rachel at the fundraiser). He never uses profanity, and is generally well spoken and intelligent. Interlace his unusually well rounded characteristics with pure evil and anarchy and you now have what is called “Joker”. Heath Ledger’s acting effectively induced the theme of psychology (the mental characteristics or attitude of a person) in the film. I found Heath’s implementation of an irregular personality in Joker to be beyond brilliant. For me, it set the bar for any antagonist, in any film, 10 steps higher. I found it to be the perfect kind of madman. A madman a lot scarier than just the average testosterone fueled maniac. His unusual, gentlemen-like character made him ten times more feared (at least in my opinion). No matter how hard I try, I can’t find anything at all to negatively critique about Heath’s acting and Joker’s character.

    In my opinion, the most beautiful thing about Ledger’s acting was Joker’s character development and the profound values behind him. Most people who’ve seen the movie claim that Joker is a delusional psychopath, and to be fair, they’re not wrong for thinking that. To the naked eye, most people only see him for a crazy bad guy and nothing else. However, the closer I critiqued and examined his character development, the clearer it became to me that Joker wasn’t a psychopath at all. For someone to qualify as a psychopath they need to be able to feel no emotion whatsoever, according to the checklist criteria. In this case, Heath Ledger’s Joker feels emotion as seen through his anger and weird sense of humor, accompanied by his infrequent sadness when one of his diabolical plans is sabotaged. The general labeling of psychopaths aside from being emotionless are people that are cognitively underdeveloped and irrational thinkers. This is not the case with Joker. Accompanied by his intelligence, Joker abides by an incredibly interesting and rational philosophy originally adopted by Thomas Hobbes in the 1600’s. Hobbes’s philosophy generally revolved around the principle of existentialism and anarchy. The idea that governments (or in Joker’s words: the schemers) had been established in order to keep civilians in line by fear of legal punishment, and that without enforced rules humanity would return to being barbaric animals that would blow up ferries full of innocent people in order to stay alive. Joker upholds this philosophy and implements it in the film, with one of his signature quotes, “When the chips are down, these civilized people…they’ll eat each other.” I found the philosophy to be rational and incredibly compelling, which ultimately contributed to the profound theme of philosophy in the film. I was in such awe that a superhero movie could incorporate such a profound and sophisticated theme within the film. Most action movies usually incorporate the theme of something simple like vengeance. Nolan however, as per usual, decided to take things above and beyond, and incorporate something unorthodox to the genre like philosophy as the theme. Not only is it just philosophy, it is (to me) an amazingly compelling philosophy dating back to over 400 years ago, and one that implicated in the societal system and used in present day.  

    I found modern corruption to be one of the largest and greatest themes in the film. It is something that is usually implemented in some mild way, shape or form in most action movies. There’s usually a bad guy in the good guy bunch, sabotaging the good guy’s endeavors. In this particular film, modern corruption is portrayed by effectively emulating seemingly identical events that have taken place in real life, and implementing them into a superhero movie. The outcome is the horrific madness that takes place throughout the film, and therefore evidently proves to the audience that modern corruption comes with serious consequences in the film. A perfect example would be the CIA’s Extraordinary Rendition program of extraditing citizens from foreign countries and placing them in Guantanamo Bay with little to no legal representation (in order to protect the country from terrorism). This example is then emulated when Batman travels to Hong Kong to forcefully extradite Lau and bring him back to Gotham in order to have him interrogated and prosecuted. I felt this was an incredible application of real world material, and gave the movie the touch of realism it provided to the atmosphere and tone. In my personal opinion, I really appreciated the portrayal of Batman’s forceful extradition and the positive light it shed on the Extraordinary Rendition program. Many have accused the program to be unlawful and wrong, thus resulting in its categorization of being “corrupt” (even though I personally don’t believe it to be). In Batman’s own “Rendition program” Nolan portrays his actions and therefore the actions of the CIA to be in good faith and nobility, which I appreciated. The aforementioned consequences of modern corruption in the film are evident when Joker blows up the MCU and escapes with Lau. Overall, I found that the implication of this theme was essential in not only providing to the crime ridden undertone the film had, but also in providing the audience with a touch of real world material and the realistic aspect the film had (especially for a fiction film).

    The elements of a narrative were outstandingly implemented throughout the film. After all, what’s a superhero movie without special effects? Christopher Nolan did an outstanding job implementing plenty of narrative elements, including camera movement, film music, sound effects, special effects, movement, physical relations, and real colors. Each of these techniques played a specific role in bringing out Nolan’s masterpiece that is “The Dark Knight”. Film music creatively and effectively used in the film brought out the feared, violent, and crime ridden environment that Gotham is. An example I preferred the most is the soundtrack played right at the beginning of the ferry scene. As the camera pans out from the passengers boarding the ferry, a very haunting soundtrack plays, allowing the audience to assume the beginning of another attack. I thought the soundtrack effectively set a very scary atmosphere during the scene, accompanied by the light flickering and sound effect of the engine stopping as the new camera shot filmed the overcrowded ferry. Sound effects and special effects are a given in any superhero movie. Without them, the movie is pretty much destined to be terrible. An amazing example of Nolan’s creative use of special effects is when he uses special effects to create an illusion in which Lau and the $68M are being burned, in order to convey the theme of Joker’s anarchical philosophy. After capturing Lau, Joker sets him on top of his incredibly large sum money. After torching the money and Lau, and killing off Chechen mob boss, Joker goes on to state, “It’s not about money…it’s about sending a message.” I believe that camera movement was also essential in inducing the action in the film. Having a stationary camera in the action sequences wouldn’t have provided the audience with the excitement and adrenaline that camera movement provides. Camera movement was superbly implemented during the car chase scene, where Harvey Dent is being transported in the armed convoy. During the attack, camera movement effectively captures the high-speed pursuit. Lastly, I felt that camera movement was fantastically implemented throughout some of the scenes in the film to really bring out the emotion of the character during the given times. An example I personally enjoyed was the landscape shot of Bruce Wayne in his penthouse. He was seated at his lounge, overlooking the city, as Alfred was serving him breakfast. The scene was a gloomy blue and grey. This perfectly set the tone for sadness in the scene, due to the death of Rachel. The colors effectively portrayed Bruce’s emotions of sadness and remorse.

    Overall, “The Dark Knight” is still and will always be my favorite superhero movie. The only thing I can critique about the film in a negative manner is Nolan’s decision to leave Joker’s scars a mystery. After ambushing Gambol (the mob boss who put the $1M bounty on Joker’s head) Joker sticks the knife in Gambol’s mouth and begins to tell him the story about his scars. He claims his alcoholic father went off one night and stuck the knife in his mouth, and asked him the infamous, “Why so serious?” Later in the film, when he held the blade in Rachel’s mouth, he tells a completely different story.  He said he got the scars from himself in order to provide comfort and sympathy to his wife.  She got her face carved by loan sharks as a result of Joker’s gambling addiction. Finally, at the very end of the film he begins to mention to Batman how he got the scars, but the story is never revealed. I personally found this mystery to be really annoying. It bugs me so much to know how he really got the scars. What bugs me even more is why Nolan left the story of his scars a mystery in the first place.

Rating: 6/5

This film is the gold standard of superhero movies. It is ranked the number one superhero movie of all time according to almost any credible movie review source or critic you can find. The movie served as an action movie, a crime drama and a superhero movie all in one. On top of that, Nolan casted outstanding actors including Bale, Ledger, Caine and Oldman. The film carried profound themes that explored psychology, modern corruption and philosophy. In conjunction with effective narrative elements and film techniques, the film sealed the deal in being the greatest superhero movie of all time. Given the aforementioned qualities of the film, I give the film a rating of 6/5 and furthermore highly recommend this film to everyone. 

[transhumanitynet]

Episode 85 - Charles Eisenstein on Living in the Space Between Stories

Hello my friends and other fellow naked apes!  Another uncut interview plus fully produced, HIGHLY edited show for the inner circle…this time with one of my favorite provocateur-lover-authors, Charles Eisenstein. Do you like having the video of the full interview?  I ask because:

It usually takes me 5 – 10 hours per episode just to do the audio editing, because without the video there the normal long pauses and weird placeholders we insert into conversations just don’t seem right.  

Plus, sometimes we have to interrupt the recording to move – like in this video, from 9:00 – 11:45, which I encourage skipping over unless you like watching me stare blankly into space… 

Giving you this raw secret thing is kind of like taking off all of my makeup now that we’re actually in bed.  It’s vulnerable, raw, and real…but I’m not sure how much that matters to you.  So send me a note if you feel strongly, one way or another!  Or, you know, about whatever.  I’m listening.  🙂

love Michael

This week’s guest is Charles Eisenstein, author of five books that challenge our inherited stories of civilization and progress – but move beyond critique and into an articulation of the new paradigm emerging simultaneously through all fields of human inquiry and practice: new modes of inter-being in a living and intelligent world; humility and celebration of the mysteries that bridges science, art, and spirit; and new perspectives on how we determine value and how we can thrive amidst an age of transformation.

Charles offers us a literate and savvy look at how we got to where we are and what we will require to move past the suicidal, ecocidal myths that got us here. He’s also warm and kind and makes it easy to unfold into this awesome conversation, in which he calls BS on the rhetoric of endless economic growth and scientific conquest, and invites us to co-dream the future that so many of us have become too cynical to hope for. Enjoy this bracing dose of cool, clear wisdom and bright insight:

Our New, Better Life?

https://charleseisenstein.net/essays/7061-2/

Why I Am Afraid of Global Cooling

https://charleseisenstein.net/essays/why-i-am-afraid-of-global-cooling/

Discussed:

What inspired Charles’ thorough history and critique of civilization, The Ascent of Humanity, and how it differs from “anti-civilization” texts.

The independent convergent evolutions of civilization in Mesopotamia, China, India, and several other places, pointing to the inevitability and directionality of what we call “progress.”

What new stories emerge at the intersection of the timeless attractors toward a whole and healthy, thriving biodiverse world of human inter-beings, and a fragmented post-ecocidal VR fully artificial landscape?

When is it useful to think of humans as part of nature and when is it useful to think of humans as distinct from nature?

“Participation begins with listening. And that listening is motivated by accepting that there’s something to listen TO. That there’s something that wants to happen. What wants to happen and how can we participate in that? How can we exercise our gifts in service to this larger thing?”

What cultural appropriation gets wrong in its attempts to retrieve and revive indigenous rites (“It’s not the content of the rituals; it’s the spirit of the rituals.”)

Money as a ritual: “One of the reasons money comes so easily to us is that it’s a kind of ritual. The human mind…ritual is its territory.”

“Law, Medicine, Money, and Technology: those are the most powerful realms of ritual that we have.”

Operating on a story that believes the world to be dead leads to a world that is, in fact, dead – whether or not it actually was dead in the first place. Treating nature as a resource rather than as a community of minded cohabitants and potential collaborators is a self-fulfilling prophecy and an act of self-sabotage.

Charles’ critique of the New Age technologies of manifestation as oblivious of where the intention or vision comes from in the first place, how we’re enfolded into our environments…

…and how paradoxically similar that critique is to the disenchanting philosophies described by people like Yuval Harari and Timothy Morton, who make the case that it’s equally the case that the world is alive, or that humans are basically just machines. Or Erik Davis’ “re-animism,” in which we return to a pre-modern sense of a sentient environment through our encounter with AI-suffused devices.

How the scientific quest for control over a purely mechanical cosmos pushed us all the way around into some truly weird revelations about the indeterminate, irreproducible, and contingent workings of our mysterious universe.

Why machines don’t provide a sufficient metaphor for understanding consciousness, and certainly not for reproducing it.

Is trying to fit the complexity of the world into a linear narrative structure the problem at the root of all this? Is it a form of violence to talk about time and evolution having a direction?

“I’m not a story fundamentalist. If I say the world is built from story, I also recognize that that itself is also a story. I look at the story of inter-being, for example, as really just the ideological layer of an organism that is far deeper than story.”

“There are many ways to know. And we’re conditioned by a story that says only the measurable is real. So we’re conditioned to give priority to ways of knowing that have to do with putting things in categories.”

“Progress as currently formulated is not real progress at all. We’re not getting ANY closer to the fulfillment of human potential. Well, aybe we are getting closer on one very narrow axis of development. But there is so much more to a fully expressed human being…and we’re moving away from it in a lot of ways.”

What metaphor for mind/life/nature is set to replace “the computer,” just as “the computer” replaced “the steam engine,” which replaced “the geared watch?”

How black box AI solutions restore the mystery and magic to the technosphere, replacing reason with blind faith.

Kevin Kelly, Stephen Pinker, William Irwin Thompson, Douglas Rushkoff, Arthur Brock…

“The more empathic our participation, the better off we’ll be.”

Can we be TOO empathic?

“I think on some level, we all DO feel what all beings are feeling.”

The boundaries we draw between our selves and the world, between one organism and another, also evolve.

The healing power of grief.

Purge-aholics Anonymous.

The evolution of service as a continuously shifting, molting thing that changes, that requires careful listening. No moment is the same.

The sacred disquiet that attends our new perspective as we learn to see a bigger (ever-bigger) picture.

“We have to be cognizant of the inevitable reduction that happens when we assign values to things…one way to translate the humble awareness of the limitations of quantified value is to design currencies that do not need to grow in order to survive.”

Did money invent science?

“Property is an agreement. It’s not an absolute objective thing…as much as libertarians would like it to be.”

Why cryptocurrency (wants to, but) can’t replace human agreement with code.

Subscribe on Apple Podcasts:

https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/future-fossils/id1152767505?mt=2

Subscribe on Google Podcasts:

http://bit.ly/future-fossils-google

Subscribe on Stitcher:

https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/michael-garfield/future-fossils

Subscribe on Spotify:

https://open.spotify.com/show/2eCYA4ISHLUWbEFOXJ8C5v

Subscribe on YouTube:

http://youtube.com/michaelgarfield

Subscribe on iHeart Radio:

https://www.iheart.com/podcast/269-FUTURE-FOSSILS-28991847/

Join our Facebook Discussion Group for daily news and conversations:

http://facebook.com/groups/futurefossils

Support the show (and an avalanche of other mind-expanding media):

http://patreon.com/michaelgarfield

0085 – Charles Eisenstein on Living in the Space Between Stories.mp3

Charles Eisenstein,

Future Fossils,

economics,

philosophy,

science

Episode 85 – Charles Eisenstein on Living in the Space Between Stories was originally published on transhumanity.net