#but killing grace feels gratuitous in my opinion

[lulu2992]

While I’m at it, in 2015, I also made a video compiling the different endings of BioShock 2, and I’ve decided to finally upload it!

So there are 8 endings in total. I call them:

1.1 – A

2.1 – A

1.2 – B.1

1.2 – B.2

2.2 – B.1

2.2 – B.2

1.2 – C

2.2 – C

I also made two visual representations, a table and a diagram, of how to get them:

The text version of this and what Eleanor says in each ending is under the cut :)

Part 1

1.1: Eleanor forgives and saves Sofia Lamb.

Condition: Delta rescues all the Little Sisters; Delta spares at least one person among Grace Holloway, Stanley Poole, and Gilbert Alexander.

"And then, Father, the Rapture dream was over. You taught me that evil is just a word. Under the skin, it’s simple pain. For you, mercy was victory. You sacrificed, you endured, and when given the chance, you forgave. Always. Mother believed this world was irredeemable, but she was wrong, Father. We are Utopia, you and I, and in forgiving, we left the door open for her."

1.2: Eleanor hates but saves Sofia Lamb.

Condition: Delta harvests at least one Little Sister; Delta spares Grace Holloway, Stanley Poole, and Gilbert Alexander.

"And then, Father, the Rapture dream was over. You taught me that right and wrong are tidal forces, ever-shifting. To survive in Rapture, Father, you took what you needed from the innocent. But, when the guilty posed no further threat, you simply walked away. I wanted Mother dead. But, broken as she was, how could she hurt me? Now, she will grow old and die, knowing that I rejected her."

2.1: Eleanor loves but drowns Sofia Lamb.

Condition: Delta rescues all the Little Sisters; Delta kills Grace Holloway, Stanley Poole, and Gilbert Alexander.

"You taught me that justice is a contract: once broken, it can never be mended. You sacrificed so much to preserve the innocent. But, to the guilty, you offered no mercy. I loved my mother, and I never wanted to hurt her. But with what she did to us, she gave up the right to exist. My hands were shaking when I did it… But you were there to steady them."

2.2: Eleanor hates and drowns Sofia Lamb.

Condition: Delta harvests at least one Little Sister; Delta kills at least one person among Grace Holloway, Stanley Poole, and Gilbert Alexander.

"And then, Father, the Rapture dream was over. You taught me that innocence is chrysalis, a phase designed to end. Only when we are free from it do we know ourselves. You showed me that my survival, my joy, are all that matter. I indulge, nothing else exists."

Part 2

A: Eleanor is at peace and hopeful. Delta dies but willingly lives on in Eleanor.

Condition: Delta rescues all the Little Sisters.

"The Rapture dream is over. But in waking, I am reborn. This world isn’t ready for me, yet here I am. It would be so easy to misjudge them. You are my conscience, Father, and I need you to guide me. You will always be with me now, Father: your memories, your drives… And when I need you, you’ll be there on my shoulder, whispering. If Utopia is not a place, but a people, then we must choose carefully, for the world is about to change. And in our story, Rapture was just the beginning."

B: Eleanor is in doubt...

Condition: Delta rescues at least one and harvests at least one Little Sister.

"You made a monster of me, Father, but I wondered why you saved the others. You left me in doubt. Didn’t you want me to be like you? I knew I could save you, but if you felt regret, if you wanted me to choose for myself, I would have to let you go. To let you die."

Delta chooses to sacrifice himself and not live on in Eleanor. Eleanor is alone and unsure about her future. "The Rapture dream is over. And in waking, I am alone. Mother, I left behind, and you chose to die rather than to have me follow you. But you gave me the greatest gift of all, something I have never had: my freedom. There is no name for what I am, but the world is about to change. I thought we would seize it together. Yet, as I sat there with you, I wondered if even I could be redeemed. Your sacrifice gave me hope. But, Father, wherever you are… I miss you."

Delta chooses to save himself and live on in Eleanor. Eleanor is evil. "You may not have wanted me, Father, but you defined me. You chose to survive, no matter the cost, and I will not let your instincts go to waste. The Rapture dream is over. And in waking, I am reborn. You’ll always be with me, Father: your memories, your drives... When I need you, you’ll be there, whispering from my shoulder. There is no name for what I am, but the world is about to change, and with your help, they’ll never see me coming."

C: Eleanor is a monster. Delta dies but unwillingly lives on in Eleanor.

Condition: Delta harvests all the Little Sisters.

"The Rapture dream is over, and in waking, I am reborn. You may not have wanted me, Father, but you defined me. You chose to survive, no matter the cost, and I will not let your instincts go to waste. You’ll always be with me, Father: your memories, your drives... When I need you, you’ll be there, whispering from my shoulder. There is no name for what I am, but the world is about to change, and with your help, they’ll never see me coming."

[pastillafraize]

Let’s Write Cody’s Redemption Arc

It’s been, what, two months since Season 7 of the Clone Wars came out? It showed more of the details of Order 66 from the clones’ perspective, showed Rex and some other clones getting their chips removed, how Ahsoka and the defected clones reacted to the Order now that no one was being mind-controlled. However, other Clones that were more than just red-shirt clones, Cody most prominently, were still subject to Order 66. Thus, “Cody stans” (of which I thought I was the only one but I suppose not) were heartbroken all over again when Cody didn’t hesitate to give the order to blast his general off a cliff after having fought alongside him for years prior. So I’ve been thinking about how exactly Cody would react if he were faced with the reality that he was being used by Palpatine both during the Republic as well as the Empire. I decided to explore exactly how that would work if not only for myself, then for the .002% of the Star Wars fandom whomst happen to care about Cody and his relationships. I’ve outlined a point-by-point timeline, detailing exactly how I feel this might play out, starting from the point of defection.

The reason that Cody couldn’t canonly separate from the Empire is in part because it would be pretty gratuitous to have yet another well known clone have his inhibitor chip removed so that he is no longer affected by Order 66. On the other hand, that would give a lot of freedom to write an actual redemption arc from the perspective of a clone that has to actively question his place as a trooper under the Empire and even the Republic to an extent. This way he can exercise agency rather than just having the chip (or lack thereof) do it for him.

I believe that it would be too easy for Cody to ultimately become a rebel--he’d have to be prematurely killed off before it even got to that point. This would continue with the pattern of Cody and Rex being foils to each other. Where Rex defects immediately and we don’t really get to see the process of his questioning his role during the Clone Wars, Cody’s journey can be shown in greater detail without it having a satisfying or even definitive conclusion. (I’m saying his ending shouldn’t be open-ended, he should just straight up die.) If it were left ambiguous whether or not he developed a rebel’s ideology, he never joined the rebels anyway so it ruins the illusion.

For the actual meat of the story and the aforementioned process of defection, Cody would need to go from a top rung (relatively) under the Empire to the bottom. It could mirror the fall of the jedi, specifically Obi-Wan’s fall from grace as a well-respected jedi master to an old hermit living in hiding in the middle of a sandy desert. Likewise, Cody was the first and only clone Commander for years of his life and respected by most clones and jedi alike. Then Order 66 comes and he tries to murder one of his closest companions. He then continues to show his unquestioning loyalty to the blatantly evil Empire and is of the highest rank in the new stormtrooper army.

However, he was not well respected by those under his command the same way that he was during the Republic. He grew to be a bit of a racist once the Empire started enlisting (or kidnapping and grooming) humanoids that were not clones to serve in the stormtrooper army, believing that they were inferior and abusing and overworking them when they didn’t meet his unrealistic expectations. He also lost a lot of his aforementioned friends and didn’t make any new ones due to his abusive behavior. He presumably lived the rest of his life, bitterly serving the Empire, so that’s one way that his quality of life declined. However, he was still pretty high up on the Empire’s social ladder so a real fall from grace would be what actually kicks off his redemption arc.

Somehow he’d have to first cut ties with the Empire, and the only way that would make any sense would be to be forcibly cut from his high-ranking position so that he is suddenly a nobody out on the streets. But as someone who served as a commanding officer longer than anyone else, that would require Darth Vader to somehow no longer have a use for him or maybe even look upon him with malice and see him as detrimental to his power. It’s possible since those under Cody eventually garnered an extremely negative opinion on him, they might band together to sabotage his position by convincing Vader that he is secretly planning a rebellion of his own. If that were the case, Vader would obviously have him executed, forcing him to escape with nothing but his life, cutting him off from the Empire and his title forever. This would diminish his status and place him on the lowest rung of society under the Empire. It would force him into hiding from any of his former cohorts, superiors, and subordinates. It would turn him into a street rat, resigned to one of the farthest corners of the galaxy where the Empire would never find out of his mortality status.

Only at this point when Cody has nothing left to lose and is probably rummaging through dumpsters to get by would he finally have the chance to stop and contemplate the Empire’s oppression and conquest alongside his own role in all of it. After being forced into hiding from the Empire, he’s an open target. He was already a war hero under the Republic and only grew more brutal and discriminatory under the Empire, causing his name to be more feared among the common folk should he ever be recognized by one of them, let alone the way that clones as a whole must be feared during the Empire’s reign. If he is exposed and vulnerable, he could have been targeted on the street once people realize he is a clone. His health would definitely be on the decline after being detached from the Empire.

(x) (x)

At this point it would be good to for once introduce a completely original character in this story arc that is based in nothing other than pure fanservice. They could be another human being, but they don’t have to be. If I had my pick, I’d steal from Alan Dean Foster’s Episode IX pitch and use (what I believe are called) Alesians whomst may or may not have tentacles for limbs. At this time, the focus would have to be taken away from Cody and put into focusing on the world building and characterization of this new character whomst I will dub as “Ynox” because that’s a valid space-sounding name, I’m sure. Could Ynox parallel Cody in some way? Maybe she’s a Zuko type where she comes from a rich family who held some less-than-flattering ideals (they were Separatists) and now she has some defecting of her own on her hero’s journey. For some reason along with the tentacles, I would imagine the Alesians to also possess limbs and abs buff enough to rival those of a wookie, the only difference being the sheer visibility of the contours on each tentacle from their rippling muscles due to their sleek skin and lack of furry overcoats.

Anyways, Ynox is going to be Cody’s lancer and they’ll traverse the galaxy together for a little while until Cody is inevitably fridged for her benefit. Probably she’ll find him in some alleyway getting beat for being a clone. Seeing this helpless stranger, she fights off these non-force-sensitive goons, using her sheer muscle to disarm them of any weapons. She chases them off and gets Cody to safety and somewhere where he can get medical attention and not receive any further mistreatment. Ynox could be a character with a certain set of morals. She and her family were Separatists in part because they hate the Jedi Order and what they stand for. From their perspective, jedi intervene in societies and situations that are not their business and wield lethal weapons as well as eagerness to use them that are thinly veiled beneath the flowery language of being diplomatic monks. Because of that, Ynox may be wary of any clones by association, although she does not know about Cody’s own legacy. Although she may dislike clones as a knee-jerk reaction, Cody hasn’t given her any reasons not to help him.

The shared character motivational part is where I draw a blank. I want these two characters to start travelling together, all the while realizing that the things that they used to believe are relics of an old, flawed system. But they need immediate needs to get from Point A to Point B if the overarching plot is to be accomplished. Otherwise it’s just characters going through the motions with no personal investment. There is a want vs. need dichotomy that still needs figuring out because of this. One of the wants they need to want is to find anyone that Cody knew that fought for the Republic. Obviously the first person he will always have on his mind will be Rex, but since Rex has wiped himself off the map as well, they probably both assume each other dead. The only one that still has political power would be Senator Organa. They’d look for him first since he’s the only one that’s not in hiding.

Something that I’ve neglected to note but happens earlier on in the narrative is that not only does Cody get ungraciously excommunicated from the Empire, but he also gets a concussion in the process. This is what knocks out of him the hatred of all non-clones as troopers as well as his immediate and unexplained desire to murder all jedi. And as Cody continues on his travels to find people connected to his past, a lot of his past memories will come to light as well. Maybe he remembers Kenobi and how close they grew when they fought alongside each other with the 212th Battalion. Does he regret killing him? It doesn’t matter either way because just like all his other old friends, he believes he is now dead... until someone tips him and Ynox off that Kenobi may still be alive! This could spur him on to try and find where he is. On the way they have wacky adventures and Cody’s relationships from the Clone Wars as well as the entirety of Ynox’s backstory (turns out Organa is attuned to the fact that her family were notorious Separatists) are fleshed out. Some of the adventures will matter to the overarching plot with recurring both original and preexisting characters while some will be pure filler. I’m thinking it could have a sort of Orange is the New Black or Handmaid’s Tale setup where a present conflict is being shown with an interwoven flashback subplot, and they are thematically linked somehow.

They’ll try to hide Cody if they believe that him being recognized as a clone will put them in any sort of danger. They meetup with Organa eventually and try to negotiate with him. Ynox is already on tense terms with him, having been on the other side of the political spectrum. They try to hide Cody from him since he would definitely recognize him for who he is. Maybe Cody gets found out and they are forced to make a daring escape and move on to the next planet for more leads on anyone else’s whereabouts. Their tracking of Kenobi could finally pay off when it leads them to Tatooine. However little do they know they’ve been tracked the entire time by a bounty hunter sent by Vader. They’d been attacked by them multiple times but never realized they were the same person who’d had it out for them to begin with. But none of that matters once they get to Tatooine and let their guard down.

It may have been easy to find the planet on which Obi-Wan now lives, but it’s much harder to find his exact location when the planet is covered in nothing but sand for miles and all the houses that are spread a ranch’s worth apart from one another look exactly the same. At this point, Cody must make peace with the fact that he may never find the closure or meaning that he’s been looking for and that he can’t be chasing his own tail, trying to find Obi-Wan or anyone else when that endeavor could be entirely fruitless. He decides he’ll stop and make a life for himself separate from both the Republic and the Empire. And just as he decides that the assassin strikes. Cody is killed before he can find Obi-Wan, before Obi-Wan strolls into town just a few hours later and meets Ynox. Neither of them recognize each other and neither of them know each other’s relationship to Cody.

What a long stream of consciousness! It was far more specific than I initially intended it to be but because some things were more specific, it raised more questions with rather vague or nonexistent answers. Maybe this is less of a redemption arc and more or a complete mess. However I hope it might get anyone who stuck around to read it thinking about what types of character arcs defected clones might go through. Season 7 of the Clone Wars gave us a little more insight to Rex’s character development, but I wanted to see more of a de-radicalization process. Perhaps this whole thing should have been about Rex instead. But people seemed so upset over Cody’s betrayal (even though at this point it’s the only direction that makes sense), so I thought that it couldn’t hurt to fantasize.

[seyaryminamoto]

I know this isn't your primary fandom, but I'm curious. What would you say are the problems with Thor: Ragnarok? For me, personally, it was the worst Thor movie. Completely unfaithful to the source material, bleeding of convenience writing and full of shoehorned bathos that killed any 'serious' moment.

Ha.. ha.. ha… ha…

I kind of was grateful no one had asked me this on Tumblr, but you just had to go for it, huh, Anon? Yeah, yeah you did, and now I have to do this. Now I have to rant. And risk getting a ton of people yelling at me for my controversial opinions.

But you know what? Quoting my good old buddy Oghren, “sod it”. This movie deserves it.

I think Ragnarok has no saving graces. It’s really that simple. I will of course elaborate on why throughout this post, but I’m really glad you believe it’s the worst Thor movie because so do I. In fact, I think it’s the worst of all the MCU, I can’t think of any I disliked more. Even the very controversial Ultron has more to its favor than Ragnarok, and that’s saying a lot.

So, where should we begin?

You’re quite right about it not being faithful to the source material, convenience writing oozes out of the screen all the time, it’s guilty of terrible humor worthy of a 14-year-old in the throes of puberty, and it’s incapable of keeping true to the previous established films in the same cycle. But there are explanations for all of this, of course.

First things first: when Thor: Ragnarok was announced, everyone was horrified and for good reason. No one who cared about Thor’s story and characters wanted to watch a horrible, nitty-gritty movie that would kill all the characters they’d grown to love over time. That’s what Ragnarok promised, initially. Remember the original design for the logo, when the movie was first announced?

Yes, it looked dark. Extremely dark. It sounded like it was going to be an angst fest. And nobody likes an angst fest (not true, a lot of people do, but not enough to make up for the tickets that wouldn’t have been sold if the movie had been dark instead of humorous).

So, after promises of making this movie the be-all, end-all for the Thor franchise, suddenly the executive team behind it was changed. That’s when the very acclaimed Waititi came into the picture. Not only did he scrap everything that had been prepared for the movie, but he did so by outright removing reported elements that could have genuinely made the movie better than its predecesors.

By this I mean, there was a lot Ragnarok could have, and should have done, to improve on what the previous movies did wrong. The first of such things was creating a better bond for the audience with Asgard, with the asgardians, with the people whose world we were about to see destroyed. This bond was not entirely absent for a large portion of Thor’s fanbase: there were people who liked Thor’s friends, the Warriors Three and Lady Sif. People complained about Frigga’s fridging, not only because it was unfair that she was relegated to that kind of writing in The Dark World, but because they liked her character too.

Were Thor and Thor: The Dark World less than stellar at the box office? Okay, sure, let’s say they were. Let’s not deny that. But…

The only MCU-related franchise with more content on FF.net than Thor is the Avengers. Thor has more fics on FF.net than Frozen. And if you think these fics are all from Ragnarok’s era, you’d be sorely mistaken: Thor Ragnarok came out on October 10th, 2017. I went back on the list of fics, turns out there are 422 pages: October 10th, 2017, is only the 56th page. The 56th. Please, let’s let that sink in. THAT is how much content was made for Thor before this damn movie even came along.

Don’t care for FF.net, though? I know a lot of people don’t. Do we really think AO3 will yield a considerably different result?

The “Thor (Movies)” tag features a total of 38,932 fics today. That’s thrice as much as what FF.net features. A total of 1947 pages. October 10th is at the 658th page. Again, more than half the content was written BEFORE Ragnarok. Not only this, but a lot of the content post-Ragnarok is quite likely not canon-compliant, as is typical in fanfiction (I saw quite a lot of Loki/Jane stories written after Ragnarok happened, and as anyone would know, Jane has been written out of the MCU so far, ergo the 2017-owards stories aren’t even necessarily taking Ragnarok into consideration).

Therefore, was the Thor franchise a box office failure? Man, I can’t even say if it was or wasn’t. But the fan response for Thor far outdid most everything else in the MCU. The thing is, it wasn’t the fan response Feige and the Marvel people were after. It’s basically the same concept as why Young Justice was cancelled back in the day: the target audience wasn’t responding to it as much as the audience they were actually reaching. Thor resounded the most with women, with an audience that saw a romantic hero where Feige and his cronies wanted a big buff moron who smashed on par with the Hulk. And that just wasn’t acceptable for these big executives.

Honestly, considering that the original Thor earned $449.3 million, and The Dark World earned $644.6 million, I don’t even know why they’re talked about as box office failures. Were they not as big as the other Marvel movies? I assume as much because of how people talk about them, and yet box office results that triple a movie’s budget should be far from failure. These movies were not flops. They may not have been the most successful with the critics and with a large portion of the audience, but like I said above, they generated a HUGE fan response. Bigger than many other fandoms related to the MCU (over at AO3, only Captain America beats Thor, from what I’ve seen).

So, my point is… would it have been THAT BAD to have a third movie that followed up on the previous two? Would it have been a box office flop? Considering that Marvel has a huge fanbase that watches every single movie they release without really caring about what’s in it, just because it’s Marvel, I don’t think it would have been a flop at all. Having Thor’s franchise as a less successful side of the MCU in terms of money, but more successful in terms of fanbase, would have been just fine, as far as I can tell.

But what do Feige and his buddies want? Money. And that’s why they went to Waititi.

Oh, people will say that Waititi was only an indie filmmaker, how could they know he was going to make a movie this big?! Well, the thing was, James Gunn was busy, so they had to find someone who was willing to make of Thor the same success Guardians of the Galaxy was and Waititi offered to do just that for them. Because, let’s be real: Ragnarok is practically a rip-off of Guardians of the Galaxy. Not only because of the style of the movie, not only because of the humor, but even because it’s fundamented on the notion of “unlikely team-up between different and damaged people united for the common goal of saving the world!”, which yes, you could say is the same notion that made Avengers what it was, but in Avengers there’s an actual effort to get the team together. S.H.I.E.L.D. wanted these specific superpowered people to work together to stop Loki. Here? It’s the same concept as Guardians of the Galaxy because a twist of fate, pretty much, brings all these people together by chance and they team up to put an end to a nasty threat. So, yes. Guardians of the Galaxy rip-off.

Why was it bad to recreate Thor as Guardians of the Galaxy, though? That’s what a lot of people might ask. Well, here’s the deal: you don’t expect Captain America to feature in something that feels like an Antman movie. You don’t expect Ironman to star as the protagonist in something more befitting of a Black Panther movie. Marvel movies are all largely similar in terms of how formulaic they tend to be, but they usually have their independent contexts, their IDENTITIES, and those identities aren’t easily replaced just like that.

Thor had its own identity. That identity was marked by Kenneth Branagh’s original Thor movie: it was practically Shakespeare in space. The development of the characters, its character-driven-storytelling, the organic unfolding of each situation, the understandable motivations of each characters, both heroes and villains, all of it made the original Thor something DIFFERENT in the early MCU. Ironman was the flagship of the MCU at the time, and Thor came out as a completely different story with ONE link to Ironman, in the form of Agent Coulson. Ergo, Thor stood on its own. Did it not stand as tall as the others, like I said? Big effing deal. It was its actual own thing. You could watch Thor without watching anything else and you would still get a fully-rounded movie.

Oh, but apparently it was a snoozefest for a large portion of the MCU fanbase who came here hoping to find the ten thousand action sequences from Captain America: The Winter Soldier or so. Shakespeare in space? That’s just lame! That’s just boring! Character-driven storytelling isn’t cool unless you have explosions on par with a Michael Bay movie! 

Well, to such “critics”, I’ll just say: Ragnarok wasn’t exempt from making people fall asleep either. I already have heard of several people who fell asleep halfway through, and my own mother couldn’t even finish it in a single sitting because of how utterly boring and annoying she found it. She ended up enjoying Deadpool better and she usually hates gratuitous violence on principle. Enough said.

Alright, so moving on: what else comprised Thor’s original identity? Humor. Oh, sure, it wasn’t “14-year-old boy in the midst of puberty” humor, but it was still humor. How many jokes have been made about Thor’s mug-smashing? How about him asking for a large enough dog to ride? Darcy made a lot of people laugh too. Are we really going to pretend none of that happened because “Ragnarok is funnier”? Or is it everyone just forgot about those things, quite conveniently? Thor was hardly a dry, dark and gritty franchise. It’s never been like that. Pretending otherwise to justify Ragnarok’s complete shift of tone and character is absolutely ridiculous.

The Dark World borrowed from Thor’s original identity and built up from there and Avengers to create a story largely disliked by fandom and critics and pretty much everyone, apparently. Still… it had a ton of jokes. If humor was all that mattered, why the hell was The Dark World not as successful? :’D Thor hanging the hammer on the rack, Darcy tossing the keys into the crazy dimensional portal, “How’s space?” “Space is fine”, Loki’s entire prison break sequence, just about everything with Selvig? Don’t come at me now and pretend nobody found any of this funny because there were posts, memes, EVERYTHING, going around about all this. Ergo, why exactly is it that HUMOR was deemed as the one thing this franchise needed when it was ALWAYS THERE?

Thor’s franchise had its failings here and there, perhaps. Maybe they could have handled things better, like I said above. But the failings were not what Feige identified, as far as quality goes. Again, though, what we really were facing was a big ole money-grabbing scheme from a big businessman. And all the audience fell for it like lemmings leaping into nothingness.

What exactly did Ragnarok do, then, to garner my rejection, spite and absolute disapproval?

First things first, like I said above, Waititi did away with everything that gave Thor’s franchise an identity. I’m going to get this first thing out of the way, but keep in mind that this is just the start: Waititi’s movie started to make mistakes I could barely forgive it for by doing away with TWO female characters who, as I proved with the link above, one of them (Sif) was reported to have an important role in the movie before Waititi came along. The actress for the other character, Jane, had said she was “done with Marvel”, but this was misunderstood and misinterpreted by fans as “Oh Natalie Portman HATED working in Marvel SO FUCKING MUCH, that’s why they got rid of her!”, when in truth…

“As far as I know, I’m done,” she said. “I mean, I don’t know if maybe one day they’ll ask for an Avengers 7, or whatever.” She continued by saying that Thor “was a great thing to be a part of.”

Thor was a great thing to be part of. Was it just courtesy? Was it just for the press? Who the hell knows, but this hardly sounds like the VERY MUCH WORSE stuff Idris Elba said about filming the Dark World, that still warranted him returning roles in Ultron, Ragnarok and Infinity War:

“I’d just done eight months in South Africa. I came to England and the day I came back I had to do reshoots on Thor 2.” He raises an eyebrow. “And in the actual scene my hair was different, my…” He stops and gives an exasperated sigh. “I was like, ‘This is torture, man. I don’t want to do this.’ My agent said: ‘You have to, it’s part of the deal.’ ”

Idris Elba says outright, on a published interview, that working on The Dark World, that working for Marvel, is torture. And he’s still been in FIVE movies of the MCU. Please, let that sink in.

Back to the subject at hand: Natalie Portman’s reported willingness to return to the franchise implies that the popular myth that Portman didn’t want anything else to do with Marvel, as an explanation for why she was no longer involved with Thor’s franchise, is nothing but rumors without real basis. It means, ultimately, that she was kicked out just because making Thor a more romantic hero than the rest was just not the angle Feige wanted. Likewise, Thor’s other potential love interest, who was never explored as one by the movies and honestly didn’t have to be, was similarly given a very shitty deal in Ragnarok:

“I was asked, but the timing of when they were going to shoot and when Blindspot was gonna shoot — it was pretty much the same time,” Alexander told Yahoo. “So there was a conflict there.”

Things might have worked out though if Marvel had given her more lead time. “I was hoping for more of a notice from [the studio] so I could make it work, but it was a short notice thing,“ Alexander said. “They called and said, ‘Hey, by the way, would you come do this?’ I said there is no way I can make that work that fast.”

Alexander did try, but ultimately “It couldn’t happen. They were on a different continent!” For reference, Thor: Ragnarok was filmed in Australia.

For further reference, Jaimie Alexander’s show is filmed in New York. As far as I can remember, that was where she was when the Ragnarok call reached her. And all things considered, she was better off not showing up, seeing as the Warriors Three just died within less than five minutes of screentime for each of them. There’s absolutely nothing to say the same thing wouldn’t have happened to Sif.

Why were they absent, then? To please a large crowd of movie-goers who were very consistent about how much they disliked Jane’s character, how much they wanted her to die, how she ruined Thor entirely, and the stories go on and on. Turns out that, the one time Marvel decided to listen to their audience, they got rid of one warrior lady and one female astrophysicist. Funny how this time no feminists gave a shit about that, because Valkyrie suddenly was the strong female character they wanted for the franchise (particularly because she was POC and bisexual, I assume).

But alright, alright. These characters weren’t the most essential part of the franchise, and a new movie could have done without Jane no problem… she didn’t really have to be involved with Ragnarok, and I get that. She also didn’t need to be broken up with Thor just for this, though. Especially broken up without any onscreen evidence that their relationship was doomed or bad or unpleasant. The last we heard, Thor was absolutely proud of her: suddenly she’s just not with him anymore and he’s just fine with it, apparently? Just… why? How? Couldn’t they just ignore Jane altogether instead of breaking them up with a single line in such a stupid and insignificant way?

Either way, accepting Jane and Sif are gone is relatively bearable, despite I really don’t like this, despite it means taking away one character who was essential to the two original movies and another who was meant to finally have her turn to shine on this one. But heh, that’s only the tip of the Ragnarok iceberg.

Finally getting into the movie’s content: my first question is how was Thor in Musspelheim? How did he get there? When? Why? The movie asks these questions for humor. It expects you to laugh at Thor’s monologue just because, but it doesn’t really stop to consider that maybe it SHOULD answer those questions. That maybe the last time we saw Thor, in Ultron, was A LONG TIME AGO. And within that time, he allegedly returned to Asgard because he left through the Bifrost and he should have found Loki impersonating Odin ever since, especially if Loki is so obvious about what he’s doing.

But nothing indicates Thor really had been in Asgard since then. Not at all, because when Thor returns to the Observatory, he runs into Skrull or whatever Eomer was called here. Skrull isn’t a newcomer, he’s not only just taking the job: he’s been here long enough to fill the place with shit he stole from all over the world by using the Bifrost (something worth wondering about, since who the fuck was opening and closing the Bifrost for him when he went on these trips, exactly?), but also by using his new position to appeal to women. Thor is surprised and confused because where is Heimdall? Well, Heimdall’s been gone for a while. And Asgard’s become a big ole’ shrine to Loki. This, then, proves Thor hasn’t been home for a while or else he would have at least seen the building of statues and the sudden shift in the population into Loki worshippers. Where the hell did the Bifrost take Thor after Ultron, then? If it was indeed Asgard, how is it he only realizes NOW that Loki is the one ruling when Loki has already spent a few years on the throne and, if this is his way of ruling, it should have been fucking obvious he wasn’t Odin since day one, according to this characterization? (This, despite we saw he was pretty good at his impersonation of Odin in The Dark World, he only made a tiny mistake that Thor was unable to notice anyhow, so he should’ve fooled Thor just fine)

So, first plothole, first inconsistency, first example of convenience writing and it happens barely ten minutes into the movie. But alas, I need a detour. I really do.

Loki’s a complete and utter idiot in this movie. There’s no other way to describe him. I’ve always thought part of Feige’s frustration with the Thor franchise was Loki’s massive popularity compared with Thor’s. Not that Thor wasn’t popular, but Loki was the first villain to actually warrant a fanbase in the MCU (and although Killmonger more or less got a fair share of people fawining over him, I honestly don’t think it was on par with the Loki phenomenon). Loki committed a crime for a MCU movie: he wasn’t there just to build up the hero’s legacy, he was there to tell his own story. We saw Loki develop from an uncertain ally of Thor’s to an outright enemy, to a begrudging ally, all over the span of Thor, Avengers and Thor: The Dark World. Which Loki do I prefer? The first one, of course. Avengers didn’t do him many favors, and The Dark World also could have handled him better.

But here’s the funny thing: Avengers built him up as a villain to defeat, but that meant Loki had to be menacing, had to be smart to some degree, he had to be respectable. He was smarter in the original Thor, yes, and he’s smarter in the Dark World too, but still, he was worthy of a certain respect in all three movies in terms of how he was built as a character.

Ragnarok obliterated all that respect. Ragnarok reduced Loki to a joke, a really bad joke, about how narcissistic and egotistical he was. He wasn’t smart, he wasn’t competent, he was constantly outdone by Thor in just about every regard, and there was nothing for him to do other than provide the audience someone to laugh at, and someone to project all their LGBT headcanons on, after the way they built up his situation with Jeff Goldblum’s hedonist character. Not that they needed to do that for Loki to be interpreted as LGBT, the fics I referenced above pretty much establish he’s been interpreted as of every sexuality you can think of, all because the original myths did establish him as someone with a very complex sexual identity.

But the point is, people told me Loki was amazing in this movie. I heard so much about that, how he finally got what he deserved… he got to be a laughingstock? That’s what he deserved? Oh, wait, he got to play second fiddle for Thor and accepted that as his place in the world. Was that it? I don’t even care if Loki doesn’t get to fulfill all his ambitions and dreams of recognition: I do care that he’s reduced to nothing but that, when his character was ALWAYS MUCH MORE COMPLEX THAN THAT IN EVERY OTHER MOVIE HE SHOWED UP IN. Being told that THIS is how Loki should be handled? It’s the same as being told the Avatar comics did a brilliant job at characterizing Azula, when I’ve written a fuckton of critical posts that prove that’s not the case.

So, when you give me a Loki whose entire purpose in Asgard is to turn it into Lokiland? You give me a joke. You give me a laughingstock. You give me something unworthy of the previous stories that established his character, amidst many things, as a man desperate to find a place where he belonged, desperate to the point where he could commit heinous acts to fulfill his quest, which is what made him a villain in the original film. And why, oh, why would anyone do such a thing?

Well, that’s because Taika Waititi had the brilliant idea of making Thor: Ragnarok as a standalone movie. I’m not kidding, it’s all right here:

“To be honest, what I did was I tried to approach it as if there were no other films.” Waititi explained. “I wanted to make this a standalone film. I loved Thor 1and Thor 2, but if I was going to make this film my own, I couldn’t have come in and tried to make a follow up movie, to try to make the next episode. I wanted to do my own thing.”

He says he loved the first two movies, but I question that’s true. Someone who loved the original movies would have likely avoided a fuckton of mistakes Waititi made in Ragnarok, mistakes that anyone who actually gave a crap about the first movies would have considered utterly ridiculous. When Waititi decided to build Ragnarok as a standalone, he did away with EVERY SINGLE CONCEPT ESTABLISHED FOR THOR IN THE MCU.

EVERY. SINGLE. ONE.

First Thor movie: Thor’s character is established as an arrogant guy who would send his world to war just because his pride was injured. This arrogant guy gets his power stripped away from him, as punishment for his irresponsible behavior, and it’s not until he reflects on his actions and eventually takes a step forward to stop the Destroyer when he was at his most vulnerable, that Thor finally becomes worthy of his powers again. His attempt to reason with Loki works, but he pays for it with his life, pretty much, until his powers return to him.

So… how is this situation soooo different from Ragnarok’s big fight against Hela? I’ll tell you how: Thor actually displays vulnerability in the original movie, something that hits home much deeper than “OMG I HAVE UNLIMITED POWER INSIDE ME, I DON’T NEED MY HAMMER!”. His pleas to Loki have the intent to SPARE his friends, to spare an entire town of people who don’t know him and probably never will. His fight with Hela has no pleas. He just gets his eyeball plucked out and is forced to watch Hela destroy his city just so he can rage into talking with Odin (if I recall right) and then go Super Saiyan. Because, uh, the power was always inside him!

After an original movie where the power was in choices, in the choice of sacrificing himself for everyone else, Ragnarok is a movie about obtaining literal power to smash your enemy with. You tell me which is more complex and compelling for an intelligent audience.

Oh, but was it deeper in other senses? The talk about colonization and culture erasure and all that was something so new to this franchise!!!

No. It fucking wasn’t.

Movie one opens with a story about the Frost Giants terrorizing the humans and the Asgardians taking them down. The story didn’t end there, though: the story continued when we visit Jotunheim with Thor to discover it’s a completely nasty ruin, as though they haven’t recovered at all from the war and everything Asgard took from them, including a treasure as valuable for them as the Casket of Winters or whatever it was called. And amidst what Asgard took is Loki: how much clearer can the message get? Odin STOLE Jotunheim’s prince for the chance of using him to broker peace between the realms when he deemed Loki ready for said task. He took Loki as a baby and yes, raised him, but he saw that child and thought he was looking in the face of an opportunity. You’re going to tell me that’s not more meaningful, that doesn’t drive in deeper the message about how harmful this sort of colonialist and supremacist culture is (Loki was raised to think his own people were monsters, driven to madness to the extreme where he was going to exterminate his own people just to show his father that he was a worthy son? Seriously, how were there no attempts to interpret this from a post-colonialist point of view, but there are for Ragnarok?), than some dumbass exposition scene with some old paintings in walls where oh noes, turns out Odin KILLED PEOPLE?!

BIG FUCKING DEAL!

WE’VE KNOWN THAT SINCE THE FIRST FIVE MINUTES OF THOR’S ORIGINAL MOVIE!

Just, how the hell is this a big damn surprise to ANYONE? ESPECIALLY TO THOR! He was willing to destroy Jotunheim because they ruined his parade: HE WAS DOING IT TO FOLLOW ODIN’S EXAMPLE. THE ORIGINAL MOVIE NEVER SHIED AWAY FROM THIS.

Oh but the surprise is that Odin had a daughter he locked away and hid from the world because he was ashamed of what he’d done? Just… how was he ashamed? When did we see Odin ASHAMED in the previous movies? As much as they tried to portray him as mellowed out, he always acted like everything had been necessary for peace. He outright says in The Dark World that he will immolate Asgard in its entirety if need be to defeat the Dark Elves. Please, how are we genuinely pretending NOW that Odin was hiding any of what he’d done, any of what he was capable of, from Thor or from Loki or from just about anyone?

This is also the part where the original myths and themes of Norse Mythology start to debunk Ragnarok with astounding ease. Original myths that, surprise surprise, the first two movies abide by with much more respect than Ragnarok ever could.

Norse mythology is complex and rich and arguably the second most recurrent mythology in popular culture right after Greek mythology (I reckon Egyptian used to be the second but has dropped in popularity in recent years). I am far from an expert with Norse mythology, I actually am most confident with Celtic mythology, in particular the Irish Mythological Cycle, but that’s not the point: anyone who hears about Norse mythology is likely to have heard about the characters we met in Thor, and about the afterlife according to these myths.

Death in Norse mythology can lead people to different places, not too differently from how it is in other mythologies. Let’s see what the lands of the dead are like:

Valhalla is an afterlife destination where half of those who die in battle gather as einherjar, a retinue gathered for one sole purpose: to remain fit for battle in preparation for the last great battle, during Ragnarök. In opposition to Hel’s realm, which was a subterranean realm of the dead, it appears that Valhalla was located somewhere in the heavens.

Hel’s realm is separated from the world of the living by a rapid river across which leads the Gjallarbrú that the dead have to pass. The gates are heavy, and close behind those who pass it and will never return again. Hel is the final destination of those who do not die in battle, but of old age or disease. 

As these two are the only ones that matter for this movie, I figured I’d bring these up. There are of course thousands of various interpretations on how these afterlifes work, and some people say it’s not so cut and dry, but in general, it’s understood that Valhalla is pretty much an honor.

This honor was extended to Frigga in The Dark World. The only good thing about her death in that movie was that it established HOW death works in the MCU’s Asgard. She died in battle: she was given the greatest honor and sent to rest in Valhalla. The land of heroes who die in battle, fighting for their own.

Hel, on the other hand, should be the afterlife for those who die in less worthy ways, meaning, not in combat. Death in combat is considered one of the greatest honors in Norse culture, from what I’ve understood from all the stories I’ve seen that are set in Norse or Viking settings, and not dying in combat wasn’t a favorable prospect for just about anyone. Deaths outside of combat are, of course, accidental deaths, diseases, old age, you name it.

Hel should be connected to Hela, the character from Ragnarok. Hela should preside over Hel, the unwanted afterlife for so many people who would rather die in a much worthier way.

Hel showed up once before in the MCU, by the way. In the very controversial and despised Ultron. And no, I’m not talking about Thor’s weird-as-fuck delirium about Asgard. I mean in this particular dialogue…:

Natasha Romanoff: Thor, report on the Hulk?Thor: The gates of Hel are filled with the screams of his victims.[Natasha glares at Thor and Banner groans in despair]Thor: Uh, but, not the screams of the dead, of course. No no, uh…wounded screams, mainly whimpering, a great deal of complaining and tales of sprained deltoids and, and uh… and gout.

Gates of Hel. That’s a direct reference to actual mythology. He could have said that Hel was full of Hulk’s victims, just like that, but he outright references the GATES. Ergo… Thor knows Hel exists.

PLEASE LET THAT SINK IN.

When you arrive at Ragnarok, Hela is a complete mystery for Thor. Oh, you can come up with whatever in-world explanation you care to, I honestly wouldn’t bother making up one to begin with: Ragnarok is built on the premise of defeating Hela, Thor’s scary sudden sister he had no notion of, who was locked away in some weird ass prison and who happens to be called Hela, but has no connection with Hel.

None.

Why do I say this?

Because her powers allegedly are connected to Asgard.

Allegedly.

Can someone please explain why should Hel’s powers have a connection with Asgard when there was such a bloody obvious possibility in making Hel the realm she’s connected to? She’s the goddamn REGENT of Hel! That’s not even up for debate in Norse Mythology, out of all the things that can be debated! But instead her power comes from the LIVING? It comes from VIOLENTLY KILLING WARRIORS WHO FIGHT AND DIE DEFENDING THEIR HOMELAND HONORABLY?

I’m going to outright say it: Hela should have gained NOTHING from a militaristic approach at attacking and destroying Asgard. If the plan was to make Hela a big shock for everyone, a plot twist… she should have spread disease and old age through Asgard. And then people die dishonorably.

And they end up in her realm.

And she could enslave them and use their souls to fuel her own power or so.

Please, do tell… how is this not a much more myth-compliant approach than “Oh lookie she’s just this SUPER BADASS FIGHTER! And she can take down ENTIRE ARMIES all on her own by FIGHTING!” How isn’t this more consistent with what was already established by the MCU? (oh wait, Waititi doesn’t care to keep things consistent, I forgot…)

Man, I’ve played Dragon Age: Origins a fuckton of times by now and one of the saddest and truest things I’ve seen in it, which connects with my own reality, is one of the riddles on your way to the Urn of Andraste: how did Andraste and the Maker destroy the Imperium’s army? Through FAMINE. Through HUNGER. What’s more disgraceful than living to EAT? Nothing feels more dehumanizing, and I can tell you that just fine considering that in hyperinflation that’s EXACTLY what venezuelans like myself live like right now.

Why didn’t Hela starve Asgard, then? Why didn’t she do something that Asgardians simply couldn’t FIGHT against, seeing as that’s all they know how to do?

Oh, again, because Thor is an ACTION HERO! That is the identity Feige and Waititi HAD to build for him! That’s what he ALWAYS was supposed to be!

I’m going to share now one of my favorite things about both Thor and The Dark World: the way Thor finishes his final battles.

In the first film, Thor defeats Loki by destroying the Bifrost. He uses Mjöllnir to destroy someTHING, not someONE. Hammers can be used to build and destroy, Thor used it to destroy at that particular point in time. By destroying, he stopped the chaos Loki was unleashing with the Bifrost and saved an entire realm.

The Dark World? Thor isn’t the one who comes up with the way to defeat Malekith, since it’s Jane who makes the wacky portable portals stuff. Nonetheless, Thor is the one out in the fray, fighting the big bad… but how did he take down OP Aether-addled Malekith? Not by shoving a fuckton of lightning into his face, he already tried that and failed. Nope: he nailed the device Jane built. He nailed it right into the motherfucker’s chest. And then Malekith gets portaled away and killed by his own ship. Again, it’s not Thor using POWER to kill his enemy, it’s Thor using a hammer’s natural damn use to his favor. It’s Thor using his BRAIN.

THOR.

USING HIS BRAIN.

THINKING SHIT THROUGH.

USING HIS AVAILABLE RESOURCES TO FINISH A FIGHT EFFECTIVELY.

NOT POWERING THROUGH EVERYTHING LIKE A DURACELL BATTERY ON DRUGS.

People out there who complain about how Infinity War gave Thor an axe instead of letting him be powerful all on his own piss me off, I won’t lie. Because Mjöllnir was NOT a crutch for Thor. It was a tool, in all senses of the word. It’s like pretending Doctor Strange’s cloak is the secret to all his powers. The entire first movie is about showing Thor that the hammer, that POWER, does NOT define him: why the FUCK did he have to lose it in Ragnarok, and suffer about it like he’d never been parted from the hammer when it happened just the same in the first damn movie? Hell, the first movie stole ALL his lightning and thunder-related powers and he STILL managed to find true worth in who he was after that! He still learned what he needed to learn to be worthy of his hammer again! This movie, though? It rewards Thor for losing Mjöllnir, ZERO GROWTH OR DEVELOPMENT NEEDED BECAUSE FUCK IT, HE DIDN’T LEARN A DAMN THING IN THIS MOVIE by making him superpowerful just because it could. And Thor ends up winning the day without using a hammer in the way a hammer should be used, breaking with the pattern of the two previous movies: again, the identity of the original movies gets tossed away completely.

It’s not cool. It’s not amazing. It’s devoid of all meaning. Thor losing his eye just like his daddy before him? Another piece of crap devoid of meaning. Thor didn’t need to lose a goddamn eye to be “parallel” to his father, because he’s already in the position where he has to take charge of Asgard to become king, and nothing’s a more apparent parallel than that.

Funny comparison time: did you watch Lion King 2? A lot of people think it sucks but when I was little I looooved that thing with the force of a thousand suns. Now, if you did watch it, remember Kovu? Remember the part where Zira scars him, leaving him to look just like Scar? The drama at that point is that Kovu has been groomed all his life to kill Simba, just like Scar killed Mufasa. He was “chosen” for the job, and all his similarities with Scar not withstanding, Kovu’s growth pushes him to NOT WANT TO FOLLOW ON SCAR’S FOOTSTEPS.

So, when he gets the same scar but acts entirely differently from how Scar would have? When he chooses to love rather than to hate? When he takes a stand for peace rather than to further stir up war? He’s choosing to be different from the lion whose example he’s been forced to follow all his life!

When Thor fights Hela… what does he do that is in any sense different from what Odin would have done, in his shoes? Could someone perhaps enlighten me? He fights Hela, he doesn’t extend a hand to her and offer her a second chance. He fights to defeat her, he gets Loki to unleash Surtur on Asgard and destroy it with Hela in it. Oh, wow, he distanced himself SO MUCH from Odin’s legacy by, uh, destroying his homeland and killing his sister. That’s not so different from locking Hela up for eons, let alone so different from saying that he would sacrifice as many asgardian lives as were needed to end the threat of Malekith.

Oh, but Thor saved lives, didn’t he? Sure he did!

No, he didn’t. Fucking Heimdall was the one worried about protecting people. Who the hell would have saved them if Heimdall hadn’t been there? Who the hell would Thor have saved if Heimdall hadn’t protected people and created that weird underground refugee site? If Thor had arrived and Heimdall and his people had been caught all along, who the fuck would he have saved? NO ONE.

Also, this concept of “Thor saving a few civilian lives WHILE MILLIONS GET SACRIFICED” might as well apply to Odin’s destruction of other cultures because of how they threatened Asgard too. Heck, Bor’s destruction of the Dark Elves is presented in the same light too in The Dark World. Ragnarok attempts to make people feel bad about all the deaths in the shallowest way I’ve seen, because for one thing, it tries to criticize the previous movies by being oh so shocked by Odin’s massacres when everyone and their uncle KNOWS that Odin’s been killing cultures and worlds and things since day fucking one. But it basically spits upwards when it says “Asgard is its people, not a place” and… kills the majority of the people, along with the place. Just… what the hell was even the point of pretending Asgardians would be refugees rebuilding elsewhere when, on top of it all, they all died in Infinity War anyhow?

Now, let’s think about it: how many named asgardians do we know who survived Ragnarok? We know Thor, Heimdall and Valkyrie. Loki is a honorary asgardian, I suppose, so let’s say he counts. Who else? Oh, damn, no one. I’m all out.

And THIS is where Ragnarok was always supposed to improve on the rest of the Thor movies. THIS. Because in a movie that was going to kill the Warriors Three, Sif, Odin and as many asgardians as they could, you had the reasonable obligation to make the audience GIVE A SHIT. Constant criticism for the original Thor movies by less passionate fans is that they didn’t care about any characters aside from Thor, Loki and Heimdall (cue my surprise when they all survive Ragnarok, it’s almost like it was fanservice, oh my!), and that Asgard was BORING.

Ragnarok should have tried its best to make Asgard less boring. It should have tried to make the less popular characters relevant, interesting, valuable…

What did it do? Killed them all. Every warrior dead. Sif would be dead too, if Jaimie Alexander hadn’t been too busy to go to Australia. Every last one of them would be dead. And as for Asgard? As for the place we should see Thor cares about soooo much?

We saw more of Asgard in The Dark World, of their customs, of their complexities, and the majority of the movie is spent elsewhere. We saw more of Asgard, obviously, on the original Thor, where half the movie is spent there. Ragnarok’s response to that, though, is to practically spend the entire fucking movie in a literal trash planet, because getting out of there was so very vital to the movie! When, uh, ending up there was already a fucking pointless waste of time in the first place.

Let’s think about it: why exactly did we need our heroes to end up there? Hulk could have crash-landed somewhere in Asgard. Valkyrie could have been an actual Valkyrie, not a cast-out drunk trying to forget her days of glory and misery. We could have seen THE Valkyries in action, gearing up to fight a serious threat, and people would be fawning about such a huge damn female army, on par with Wonder Woman’s amazons…!

But no. We went to a trash planet instead, all to make a shitty version of Planet Hulk, which yes, I haven’t read, but the people I know who did read it say it was a complete disservice to a story that was so much more complex and serious than the trash heap we were given through Ragnarok.

And, most importantly… all to make the movie FUN. All so Thor could have something else to do while everyone died in Asgard. All so he could indeed be incompetent as defender of his realm because in the end he couldn’t save most of them. And it didn’t even matter to him that he didn’t, that’s yet another thing that pisses me off: he mourns his father a lot, spends the movie bitter and angry that Odin had died just so he can have an understandable reason to be pissed at Loki, and sure, he wants to go back to Asgard and save his people from his sister. But I can’t remember him seeming genuinely concerned about what fate awaited his friends and the people he ruled. Of course, neither did Loki, but as Loki was portrayed as an egotistical maniac the whole movie, it’s no surprise. Our hero, though, should have a bigger heart than this, right? He did before, didn’t he? He did everything in his power to get Malekith to leave Asgard alone, including risking the life of the woman he loved, no less!

But naaaaah, in Ragnarok he did a lot for his people, uh-huh, sure as fuck. That’s why he spent all his time in trashland making jokes and having fun except for most the time he was dealing with Loki, because by then he got pissed because Odin’s death is all his fault. Just like Frigga’s death. Just like everything because Loki sucks and Thor is forever mad at him. Thing really is, he has pressure to leave, but you don’t really feel it going by his attitude. If everyone you knew and loved were about to die by the hand of your unknown sibling, would you be chill, trying and failing to flirt with a girl by tossing a ball to a wall so it can hit you right back?

Thor’s entire character in Ragnarok is cringeworthy. This isn’t just because he was so vastly different from who he was back in the other two films, it’s because of how he acts, how he behaves. How he takes next to nothing seriously, starting from Surtur, all the way to Asgard’s destruction. This is the man who was actually characterized for FOUR films as someone with a sense of humor, but with a strong sense of duty and honor that makes him an even better man than Steve Rogers (reminder of the hammer scene in Ultron, Rogers can’t quite lift the hammer yet, Thor’s supposed to be a worthier man than him, according to whatever criteria Mjöllnir uses). And here? Here he just jokes around, he wastes his time, he acts like a complete bufoon as he has stupid arguments with Hulk and deals with Jeff Goldblum, and flirts with Valkyrie, and outsmarts Loki (hell knows how, considering how incredibly idiotic Thor felt through this entire movie, but that’s how stupid Loki was in it too).

The ideal way to compare how Thor was written in the original films and in this one is the romance. Where in the previous movies Thor is charming, confident, treats women with respect (he supported Sif in her efforts to prove herself on par with any man, he encourages her to survive and live to tell her stories herself, he listens to Jane’s explanations about space and offers his own stories when she wants to hear them, and so on), in Ragnarok he meets Valkyrie and acts like, again, a 14-year-old fanboy who just met the celebrity he faps to every night in his bedroom. He’s nervous, he’s giddy, he’s trying, TRYING to impress her! Before anyone chimes in to say he’s meeting his hero, of COURSE he’d be nervous… please, no. Thor is a goddamn prince, as good as a king already. Thor has met countless people in his life and treated them all with the same amount of respect. He has NO REASON to dumb himself down and behave like a fanboy with Valkyrie. It wasn’t cute. It wasn’t funny. It was absolutely out of character, that’s what it was. For he wouldn’t be trying to flirt with her, let alone so poorly, even if he’s interested in her romantically. No, he would respect her, first and foremost. He would admire her without seeming a complete idiot in the process, the same way he did with Jane. He wouldn’t be trying to impress her by acting like he’s cool, but coming off as an idiot, because he supposedly grew out of his stupid arrogance all the way in movie 1. But naaaaah, not when he meets VALKYRIE! Nope, because she’s SPESHUL! 

Give me a break.

I’m sure there’s more about Thor, but I think I’ll leave him alone for now. I already did my piece on Loki earlier, so now… two newcomers.

Valkyrie bothers me. No, it has nothing to do with Valkyrie breaking the stereotypical blonde warrior aesthetic that people expect from Norse mythology stuff, because hell, Heimdall doesn’t bother me and never did just because he’s not aryan. Honestly, it doesn’t matter in the least what color they are.

What does matter with Valkyrie is that her change of heart and motivations make absolutely no sense.

When we first meet her she’s just scavenging trash to drag to Jeff Goldblum. She’s drunk, but she’s tough as nails and she gets everything done anyways. Is it ideal? No. It feels insulting, even, considering this is how the movie chooses to portray a valkyrie and its only heroic female character. But whatever, let’s move forward…

When Thor realizes what and who she is, he goes fanboy mode. Valkyrie dismisses all reminders of her past life, and as far as I can remember, she did that at least twice. Maybe thrice, I can’t recall that much. When Thor asked her why she didn’t want to help him save Asgard, her answer directly implies she remembers perfectly well what happened the last time she dealt with Hela and she is still too grief-ridden about it to bother fighting her again. Thor throws a tantrum, Valkyrie still refuses to go along with him, all ends just like that.

But when Loki does the ONLY useful thing he did in the entire movie, as in, hi-jacks Valkyrie’s memories and makes her relive everything, she changes her mind. Why?

Oh, because she reclaimed her past? Because she had forgotten it? BULL.FUCKING.SHIT. Valkyrie didn’t forget JACKSHIT about her past! The answer she gives Thor, initially, shows very clearly that she remembers EVERYTHING and refuses to go back anyhow. Because Hela is too powerful for her to defeat. But one forceful blast to the past makes Valkyrie not only NOT feel violated, which honestly blows me away, sure she hit Loki afterwards but I wouldn’t exactly be so chill after someone got inside my head and forced me to relive my worst memory, but it makes Valkyrie decide that she wants to help Thor now. 

WHY?!

There is NOTHING reasonable that has changed since she told Thor what she did. NOTHING! She didn’t come to a conclusion such as “well shit my life sucks badly enough here, I might as well go die”, nor does she have a heartfelt conversation with Thor about how hard this is for her but that maybe she can correct the mistakes of her past if she helps him out now. No, man, this movie doesn’t need anyone to have believable behaviors or motivations, because Valkyrie needs to join Thor so she can play the Gamora to his cheap Peter Quill, and if her brain needs to be bent backwards to join this team, so be it.

Again, let’s put things into perspective: was there ANY need for Valkyrie’s character to be exactly what it was? Why couldn’t she be the only line of defense in Asgard to endure against Hela’s attack, for instance? She’s presented to us as the only representative of this really cool elite group of fighters… and she’s just doing Jeff Goldblum’s dirty work. Please… can someone tell me what was the point of doing this?

Ah, wait, I know: COMEDY. Because that was the priority established by Waititi and who knows who else, because that’s what mattered most. So, was it fun to have a serious warrior lady kicking ass in Asgard? Nah, it was fun to make her a drunkard who’d fall over sideways when collecting Thor for Goldblum because she’s drunk. Haha. Funny.

Valkyrie is wasted potential. That’s the truth of it. She could have been amazing, but as it is, I find Sif a thousand times more interesting than Valkyrie because at least with Sif I can see where she’s coming from, I can understand her storyline even without her ever being at the forefront of any movie. Question now, why did it have to be Valkyrie? Why couldn’t Sif be the one helping Thor in Ragnarok? Fucking hell, why couldn’t it be BOTH of them? Aside from the obvious “we forgot Sif existed until ten seconds before filming the deaths of all of Asgard’s warriors” explanation, it’s because you can’t make the Guardians of the Galaxy formula work with well-rounded individuals, Nope, you need broken people. And what’s more broken than a warrior who lost her will to fight? Who lives to drink, like my good buddy Oghren who I mentioned back when this post began?

Valkyrie, then, is not a full-rounded character. She’s more convenience writing. She’s a happy coincidence for Thor, because woah, what are the odds that the ONE PERSON WITH ASGARDIAN PAST would find him in trashland? They’re not good. In fact, they’re pretty bad. But that’s what the movie needed, so that’s what the movie got. And how do you get her to change her mind about fighting when she’d given up? By convenience writing. Not even a pep talk, like what Jyn Erso got in Rogue One from her dad, which made her switch flip completely and she did a 180° regarding her opinion of the war and battles between the Empire and Rebels. I complained a bit about Jyn changing her mind so easily… but compared to Valkyrie? Jyn made a fuckton more sense than that. At least you could see where she was coming from when she changed her mind. At least you could say a fiber of her being was touched by her father’s words. Valkyrie was touched by Loki’s invasion of her mind? By what, exactly? By Waititi twisting her character over because otherwise his GOTG team-up wouldn’t work?

The absolute worst part of Ragnarok is realizing that, as a cheap rip-off of GOTG, it failed not only to hold up the identity of any Thor film before this one, it failed to imitate GOTG properly. GOTG felt organic, this feels forced. GOTG felt like a good story to tell, because it was a group of renegades, pretty much, saving the entire galaxy even though they’re nobodies, even though they’re as good as mercenaries, even though they’re a team brought together by what feels like random factors (but it’s not that random because, as a reminder, all of them minus Drax were after the Orb, and in the break-out Drax joins them because he hopes they can help him fulfill his quest for revenge). Everyone in GOTG has reasons to fight, though, reasons to work together. They seem to barely stand each other, but they’re convenient for one another at the start and they bear with it.

Ragnarok fails to achieve GOTG’s success in terms of storytelling because Ragnarok featured Thor as good as begging everyone to help him. Reluctant team-ups like GOTG’s are achieved by having two or more characters work together for a common goal, or for goals that they can only achieve with each other’s help (I have used the same resource in writing in the past plenty if times as it is). But when you have to feature a character BEGGING others to work with him, this formula doesn’t elicit the same feeling. It doesn’t result in “wow, look at all these unlikely heroes working together”, it results in “aw look at ‘em helping the little guy who needed them”. Thor offers everyone a chance to fight a battle that, in general, doesn’t concern them. Hulk has nothing to gain from fighting Hela. Valkyrie has no reason to fight her again, as she’d given up and displays no believable motivation to go for a rematch. Loki does have reason to fight, but Thor doesn’t trust him and it’s not until the last 10 minutes of the movie that Thor finally trusts Loki again, just because Loki is doing exactly what Thor wanted him to.

Give me a Valkyrie who has spent AGES looking for Hela through the universe, hoping to fight her, and upon hearing she’s back, she wants revenge. Give me a Thor who tells her “hey, maybe you can avenge your fallen comrades, but there are a lot of people who are still alive that we have to save too. Maybe revenge isn’t the only thing that matters”, and then Valkyrie reasons with what her motivations had been. Give me a more HUMANE Valkyrie, and that way she won’t be here merely to fulfill the typical and criticized “strong female character” trope, whose entire character arc revolves around being a cool fighter and being the object of admiration/affection/love interest of the main character, because newsflash, that’s what happened with her. The so very despised trope of “strong female character”, right here with Valkyrie.

Was Sif any better? Why, yes, I’d say so. Because Thor didn’t want her. Because she was only friends with him, because her life as a warrior took priority over any romantic interests she might have. Because her eagerness to go down in history in GLORY makes her near suicidal in movie 1, to the point where Thor has to make her snap out of it and force her to understand her life is worth more than the stories she wants people to tell about her in death. THAT is a character. THAT is a genuinely interesting female character, who got snubbed in all the films she featured and even in the one where she didn’t, precisely because she didn’t. Because her strength has flaws, because she’s not invulnerable, because she’s prone to failure, because she has loyalties, because she lives to serve her people. Sif is Valkyrie done right. Valkyrie is, like I said, a “strong female character”. And no, that she’s bisexual makes no damn difference, especially when said bisexuality is only known to people who follow Tessa Thompson on Twitter and general fans who look for information on characters outside of the movies themselves. Either way, if she had been shown making out with a girl onscreen that wouldn’t make a difference: she’s still only here to beat people up and to be a potential love interest for Thor, because if she’d had believable, understandable, EXPLORED motivations, she’d be more than that. But she doesn’t. Her entire character revolves around those two things. And that’s a failure in my eyes.

Finally… Hela. Why is Hela a terrible villain, on par with losers like Obadiah Stane, Malekith, the cheap excuse for Baron Zemo from Civil War, Darren Cross… honestly, spare me naming them all because frankly the only ones I wouldn’t lump together with the bulk of Marvel’s villains are Loki and Vulture, but my point is, Hela was all about appearances, all about the acting pedigree of Cate Blanchett, and nothing about making her into a decent villain. Why’s that?

I’ve talked in the past about why Marvel’s villains generally fail, and it’s because they’re not built to be characters but foils. Marvel’s not so subtle approach at storytelling holds a certain principle at its very highest, and said principle is that the story is about the HERO. The villain can’t be more developed than the hero, else you’re failing the movie’s purpose. Only a few of their movies failed at this (I can only think of Thor and Black Panther as examples of not keeping true to this precept), everything else does it just fine. Why, though? Because the villains are completely generic. Because they’re here to further someone else’s storyline, and not to have one of their own.

Loki had his own storyline in his first movie. You watch his ENTIRE thought process through Thor, you see that he didn’t start off with the “I’m going to annihilate Jotunheim!” idea, it’s something that builds up as the story unfolds. You meet Loki as a troublemaker, capable of very chaotic messes such as what happens during Thor’s failed coronation, but he’s not stupid. He’s not trying to cause a war, he’s just sabotaging his brother because, curiously, Loki is right about Thor at this point in time: Thor is NOT fit to be king, and Odin agrees eventually. The simplest provocation caused Thor to wage war on an entire realm, just because he wanted to rule Asgard RIGHT NOW. Loki’s mischief revealed this about Thor, but it wasn’t done with the intent to completely ruin Thor’s life: Thor’s reaction to Loki’s scheme is what reveals that he’s not ready to rule at all.

It’s especially clear when you recall that Loki ends up facing the truth about himself during the fight in Jotunheim: Loki has no idea what his true heritage is. He knows he’s been sidelined and treated differently, but he has no clue what’s up. Where Black Panther features a Killmonger who has already come to terms with his heritage and his connection with Wakandan royalty, Thor treats us to the ENTIRE PROCESS of Loki’s slow but certain collapse. He starts off fine, but he ends up losing all sight of who he is, of everything that matters, because his parents weren’t his parents, because he was lied to all his life, because his brother was favored over him all along and NOW, in front of us, he has come to understand why.

Loki’s entire journey parallels Thor’s. Where Loki grows more unhinged, Thor is humbled and grows into letting the goodness in him shine, in letting the better traits that make him a decent man pull through while he lets go of his arrogance and his belief that he’s entitled to a throne and to everything he could ever want. Their journeys happen simultaneously, and THAT is unique to any Marvel movies. You don’t see that anywhere else. THAT is what made Thor so successful with fans: it wasn’t JUST Thor’s story, it was Loki’s too. The Dark World at least gave Loki the courtesy of a small arc of his own. Ragnarok? Jokes at his expense and a diva complex that resulted in him coming back to help Thor merely because that would mean he would be regarded as hero and savior to Asgard. How is it not cringeworthy?

But that’s not what I was trying to get to, nope. No, my point was Hela: what was the purpose of Hela, in the end?

Ragnarok, traditionally, is brought upon the world by Loki. He’s the one who supposedly ends the entire world, causes the massive fight of the gods and wreaks havoc comparable to the Christian Apocalypse. But Loki can’t do that in Ragnarok because he has too much of a fanbase and can’t be guilty for such heinous crimes, can he? Nope.

Let’s, instead, find someone else to blame everything on. Are there other options for this role? Surtur, Amora, maybe? Oh, no! Let’s go with Hela! Who IS Hela, anyways?

In one iteration of the comics, Hela is LOKI’S DAUGHTER. Never, from my understanding, was Hela anyone’s sister, let alone Thor and Loki’s. Is it that terrible to make her Loki’s daughter? Well, yes, because that’d mean Loki would have to know of her existence and that would cause more problems than Waititi wanted to handle (plus, gives too much protagonism to Loki, and he certainly did not want THAT!). So, Hela had to be something else. She had to be something personal for Thor too, but making her an old flame would be too much (despite uh from what I read she even had a kid with Thor in one iteration of the comics? So it wouldn’t have been completely out of left field?), because we don’t want Thor having multiple romances, we don’t even want him having a full romance, because that’s why the first movies failed! Nope, that can’t do.

Oh, wait a minute, I know! Let’s make Hela Thor’s SECRET SISTER! AHAHA, PERFECT! Because it’s not like he already had a brother in black-and-green clothing who was snubbed and given a shitty deal by their dad and who came back from said betrayal by Odin to destroy everything Thor holds dear. It’s such NOVEL storytelling, so unique! So unexpected! We totally never have seen this story told before!

Hela is a cheap rip-off of the original Loki. Just as the entire movie is a rip-off of GOTG. Hela TRIES, so very hard, to be as impressive and imposing as Loki originally was. Hela fails. Why?

Because for one thing, she’s a crappy retelling of Loki’s story. She has nothing new. She’s not impressive in any regards because she does nothing unexpected, nothing that makes her ANYTHING aside from a bad villain Thor needs to defeat. Loki was Thor’s friend and brother once: Hela generates no such conflict because she could easily be Odin’s former slave rather than daughter and the story would be the same. She could have literally ANY relationship to Thor and nothing would change. Why? Because her being Thor’s biological sister does NOTHING for the story. It creates no bond between them, because the bond that existed between Thor and Loki was established during AGES of growing up together. Hela has no such thing, ergo, you can’t pretend that her being Thor’s sister will amount to anything just because Odin handled her poorly (newsflash, Odin has been handling shit poorly since the first time he showed up in the MCU and most of Thor’s problems in his movies come from that, ergo this is, again, nothing new). 

For another thing, Hela is here to take Loki’s place as the complicated family member Thor needs to get in line. Hela is, I theorize, Waititi’s wish fulfillment for what he’d like to have done to Loki but couldn’t because he needed to be around to keep his fanbase appeased and buying tickets for the movie. Hela, though, was new. Hela was irrelevant in the larger scheme of things. Hela could turn into all of Loki’s “evil” and “chaotic” impulses, while Loki is reduced to narcissism and cheap comedy, and this way Hela is turned into a cartoon villain who’s only here to break everything because she allegedly obtains her power by doing so.

I already got into it before, but I guess I’ll do it again: Hela’s connection to Asgard is absolutely idiotic. There’s an entire damn realm named after her, connected to her. It’s like saying Hades from Greek Mythology obtains his powers from the Olympus. Or like saying Satan derives his powers from Heaven. No. That makes no effing sense. Therefore, destroying Asgard to destroy Hela feels stupid, and defies all logic. But they needed Hela to cause a catastrophe in Asgard, otherwise you can’t justify destrying Asgard by using Loki to, HAHAHA, HONOR THE ORIGINAL MYTHOLOGY, HAHAHAHA, AFTER ALL THIS TIME OF SHITTING ON IT AND UNDERSTANDING NONE OF ITS CONCEPTS, NOW THEY WANT TO HONOR IT, IT’S THE ONLY FUNNY JOKE IN THE ENTIRE MOVIE!

It’s bad enough that the movie fucks over Loki’s character as it does, but it attempts to make him a good, dutiful brother who steals the Tesseract from the vaults but still takes Surtur to the funky flame thing. The destruction of Asgard is ultimately done by Loki, but not really, no, it was Surtur. And not really, no, it was because Thor asked Loki to. So, in the end, it’s actually Thor who killed Asgard and his sister. But um, they were being faithful to the myths, sure.

Hela is a failure of a villain as usual for Marvel. Her story is presented via exposition, via TELL, NOT SHOW. We don’t witness the crumbling relationship between her and Odin because that would have required for her to exist since the first movies. No, we are told all about how Odin used her as his ideal tool to KILL PEOPLE!!!1 (I think I raged enough about this before, didn’t I…?) and then locked her up somewhere because she was too dangerous! Compared to Loki’s very palpable fall from grace, Hela’s character arc is absolutely insignificant. People only liked her because she was hot. That was it. Like I said earlier, Cate Blanchett’s doing. Had it been any less than stellar actress, Hela wouldn’t have garnered more than a couple of shrugs.

I guess it warrants to say Odin was probably the only thing this movie maintained close enough to the original movies (despite he was poorly written in his death scene anyhow). Odin making shitty decisions seems to be one of the main story points in Thor’s franchise, so I suppose that’s not out of line. Ironically, though, staying true to the same variable with Odin is… pretty damn old by now. All of Thor’s movies have featured Odin being controversial, doing shitty things for his perceived greater good (from stealing a child of another culture to comparing his son’s girlfriend to a goat), so Ragnarok isn’t even telling us anything new about Odin. It’s also not telling us anything new about Odin and Thor’s relationship, because we already know Thor loves the man despite it all, and whatever shitty decisions Odin made, Thor accepts them. He did since the first movie, he does again in this one. Zero new information.

As for a few more inconsistencies:

The Bifrost. Remember how Loki activated the Bifrost and destroyed a lot of Jotunheim by leaving Heimdall’s sword in place, back in the first movie? At one point in Ragnarok, the sword stays in place again and nothing happens. Nothing. Absolutely nothing. The scene could have easily happened without the sword there, too. But nope. It stayed in place for no reason, and what came from that? Nothing. Just, a completely absurd situation where, again, Ragnarok is inconsistent with the original Thor.

Another inconsistency, this time one that people laughed about becuause “it fixed the Gauntlet problem”. Reminder: the Infinity Gauntlet shows up for the first time in Asgard’s vaults in the first movie.

In Ultron, though, inexplicably Thanos is wearing the Gauntlet and saying he’ll deal with everything himself (what did he even have to do with Ultron is a pretty good question, one I still have no idea what its answer is). When this happened, people thought Loki was working with Thanos and gave him the thing. Or Thanos broke into Asgard and stole it. But ultimately, it meant Thanos had the Gauntlet and we were doomed, right?

Ragnarok “solved” this problem by featuring Hela saying the Gauntlet in the vault was fake. She knocks it over and says that’s just a shitty copy of the real deal. Fast forward to Infinity War, though…

Tyrion and his buddies fron Nidavellir built the Infinity Gauntlet for Thanos. It happens before Thanos even has access to the Time Stone. Ergo, Thanos couldn’t have made the dwarves craft THE ORIGINAL GAUNTLET and then, I don’t know, used the Time Stone to show it to Odin ten thousand years ago just to get him to make a fake version of it to put it on display for Hela to knock over later. Even if he had done that once he gains access to the Time Stone, someone needs to have at least a shred of common sense and ask themselves why the fuck would Thanos do something so pointless.

Because ultimately, a plothole becomes even more absurd when the attempt to fix it just fucks it up more more. The fake, copy of the Gauntlet, which looks EXACTLY like Thanos’ Gauntlet, existed first. It’s like saying Windows was the original when Bill Gates outright worked for Apple and got his ideas for his own business and OS through working on the MacIntosh. No, Windows isn’t the original. Neither can Tyrion’s Gauntlet be the original because IT MAKES NO SENSE WITH ANY TIMELINE YOU CAN THINK OF.

Had Ragnarok ignored the Gauntlet, nothing would have happened. The destruction of Asgard could have meant this proto-Gauntlet died with it. Thanos could have simply asked the dwarves to make him a new gauntlet because the one that existed was in Asgard, out of his reach by Ultron’s time, and simply gone by Infinity War. But oh noooo, they had to FIX THAT! Well, good fucking job, as usual. You created yet another stupid ass plothole, Waititi. Congratulations.

In short… Ragnarok’s big success comes from it being a “funny” movie with scatological jokes about anuses and orgies, for instance, with Thor making a complete dunce of himself throughout the painful two hours of movie (I don’t even know if it was two hours but it felt like an eternity to me), and let’s not get started again with what happened with Loki. The movie fails at establishing new characters anyone with common sense would be concerned about because they’re as complex and deep as a puddle on asphalt, and it fails at characterizing old characters too. The movie does its best to be funny, but the constant efforts to be funny are akin to a stand-up comedian who is desperate to make his audience laugh at whatever cost. It’s forced, it’s stupid, it’s consistently unfunny, at least it was for me. I can honestly say I laughed at zero points in time in the movie. Was I predisposed to dislike it? I’ve been predisposed to dislike a lot of things before. That the movie failed to subvert any of my expectations is hardly my fault: it was exactly every bit of a failure I expected it to be.

Because when they turned that original logo into a garbage new one, worthy of 1998 Word’s WordArt, when they released a trailer that was HUMOROUS, I knew I wasn’t going to watch something worth my while. You can make comedic stories about the end of the world, people have done it in the past, but Thor did not lend itself for that sort of thing because Ultron establishes Thor is going to be RESPONSIBLE for Ragnarok. Thor has a responsibility to the end of his world. And the Thor we knew, originally, wasn’t the type who would smile and shrug if his mistakes would cost the lives of millions of people.

This is like telling a version of Harry Potter where Harry, faced with Voldemort’s second rise to power,decides to go look for Horcruxes in casinos and strip clubs because hey that’s more fun than an endless camping trip. Well sure, it’d be more fun, but it’d make absolutely no sense and people would die while he enjoys himself and fails to find a single damn Horcrux, right? It’s also like telling me that in Avatar, when Zuko reveals Ozai is going to use the comet to destroy the Earth Kingdom, Aang goes “Oh wow… that’s a shame, huh? So, how about we go back to playing now?” instead of thinking he had to prepare and fight with Ozai to put a stop to the man. 

It’s telling me that the destruction of Asgard, of Thor’s world, of his realm and kingdom, is a fucking JOKE. And if we’re not supposed to take it seriously because Thor won’t take it seriously, the movie is a failure. I never felt like any of the previous Marvel films wanted me to take them as jokes, not even the most comedic of them. I did with Ragnarok. Because all that death, all that destruction, all the sacrifices made, brushed past Thor like water from a shower, that he just dried up and walked away. Because the destruction of his world, of his friends, of everything he was supposed to protect, indeed isn’t deserving of a serious treatment because selling movie tickets via comedy is more important. Because quality, consistent, COMPLEX, storytelling isn’t anywhere near as important as making your audience laugh.

Well, congratulations, Feige, Waititi. You guys should have been stand-up comedians instead and left movie-making to people competent enough to make something worthwhile.

This movie is singlehandedly to blame for my loss of interest in MCU matters and in the Thor franchise. I would still write the occasional story for it, I would still enjoy other people’s works about it, but right now? I’ve even blacklisted a bunch of terms so I can see as few Ragnarok posts as possible. And precisely because I want nothing to do with it have I never gotten in the way of people who do enjoy it unless they outright ask me for my opinion, as you did, Anon. If anyone enjoyed Ragnarok despite EVERYTHING I wrote here, that’s on you. I don’t need any arguments to convince me that I’m wrong and they’re right about why this movie has some worth. The contradictions, conveniences, poor characterization and lack of creativity that went into this film will not go away just because someone excuses them one way or another, so if anyone is hoping to “enlighten me” about why this movie is actually brilliant? Save it. For your own good.

So, after these twelve thousand words on why Ragnarok is the worst MCU movie for me… is there anything left unsaid, really? I suspect so, because I watched it too long ago to remember every detail. Still, I’d have nothing good to say anyhow, so it’s probably for the best that I stop now that I’ve made my case quite clearly, right?

[boglog]

Utopia (2013) notes

Despite the infantilised female assassin w a father complex trope being the Bane of my Existence (re: Hanna 2011) and the fact that she Literally has Ramona Flowers hair, Jessica is God and we stan

I don't understand this bizarre little peck she gives Becky's head in the last ep and I don't need to. Queen of emotionally stunted social skills.

We also stan reverse-eugenicist Ygritte and her manic pixie faux suicide at a black tie gala

We do not however stan Wilson whose motivations and subsequent double agency didn't make sense to me as much as Milna and Philip's philosophy

Which is sort of a tragedy considering he's one of two major characters of colour but considering we still have Ian we don't necessarily fall into the "The Brown Guy Was Evil All Along" horror trope

Necessarily

And upon finding out that not only is Philip Roma but also that Milna has "been in a genocide" meaning that she is probably for sure Jewish, I'm sure the show is framing Utopia as revenge for WWII, esp given that the adjustments to Janus is literally going to wipe out everyone who isn't Romani.

So wi this context, Wilson's sudden support of Janus is also revenge on white supremacy, colonialism, and genocide, and later his entire character is deliberately turned into a caricature with the fedora and the eye patch and the tattoo

Not to mention Wilson's name is itself a joke and perhaps a reference to Cast Away's greatest inanimate imaginary friend: the Wilson volleyball

Grace Lee of What's So Great About That made a Utopia analysis where she states that the show's colourful composition and stock characters are meant as an uncanny valley contrast to its realism and violence

And wrt to how it portrays violence I think it's well-done in that rather than feeling gratuitous its lack of theatre makes everything uncomfortably real and sometimes the quirky neons add to this tension

But with Wilson's character his goofy attributes feel like forced inconsistencies, as an antagonist he cannot carry the show's final stretch w as much authority and intimidation as Milna nor does he have the depth equivalent to her inner conflict about being in love w Phillip

There's nothing poignant or scary or ironic about him he's just so flat my belief has gone past unsuspension and lies dead on the ground

I know him cutting mr rabbit into his own chest was supposed to be visually symbolic but I actually thinks it takes away from his authority, his vanity making him more vulnerable than Milna whose identity as mr rabbit was ultimately hidden for three decades bc guess who didn't tattoo "rabbit" onto her chest????

I'm going to admit I didn't pay very good attention to some of finer plot details bc here's the next point, the overall thesis of my Wilson meta:

The show is overly complicated while being a very bad comedy: tone what is it

I think when it's playing it straight as a conspiracy thriller it's great (see also the infodump flashback episode 0201)

But whenever it's trying to play off its quirky ensemble cast of Girl Next Door, Nerd, Freaky Prepper and Violent Ten Year Old (occasionally ft The Whitest Family on Earth) there's something so flat and genuinely boring about all of them

And the characters forcing a sarcastic familiarity between each other with monickers like "shithead", "twat" etc? When they've known each other for 5 minutes? That's a CinemaSin ™ :/

Dialogue wise we could've toned down some name dropping and on-the-nose-ing

It's a v ambitious outlandish magical realism comedy v dark film noir balancing act that doesn't always land esp wrt its final antagonist which imo is the show's biggest flaw

The soundtrack as well is great but a little overused

Another problem I have is Becky's accidental addiction to opium, I'm sure I missed something obvious like maybe her "dealer" was connected to the network ? but when I saw it the twist felt tangential to the show at best. We know Becky is naive but to the point of being manipulated into a drug addiction? Wasn't she supposed to be intelligent? It would be smart if it weaved itself into the plot a bit better

Overall I think it's thematically tied to how we're easily manipulated esp via Big Pharma so I guess...? I guess that works? Kinda¿

The oddball family tableau near the end with Jessica, Milna, Phillip and Arby is thrilling and complicated by the internal conflict of wanting to kill each other out of their contrasting ethical beliefs and wanting to love each other out of a vague sense of loyalty / longing bc they're all lonely af

V surprised that I did not feel cheated at the reveals that Phillip was in fact alive and in a psychiatric ward (cliché) it was perhaps awkward that he was found in someone's basement, and meanwhile Arby's secret family felt totally normal AND Milna's hesitation to kill Jessica out of her love for Phillip ALSO WORKS

The intensity of the relationships btwn the family who've barely spent a second around each other for years is thrilling and to be honest way more interesting than anything else the show offers so it's a shame they didn't try to focus on that more but that's just me being predictably drawn in by dysfunctional families

So on the bright side the show is visually stunning, uses inherently interesting premises and parses out the information in a clever pace, Milna's entire arc must be my favourite bc everything about it was incredible, the chemistry between Milna and Philip was perfect (although an answer to why they never officially got together and ended up w different people other than plot convenience is still up in the air)

Ian faking a Somali accent when he's caught committing data theft is iconic and equivalent to when Chelsea Manning labelled the CD filled w war crime scandals as "Lady Gaga"

Jessica: [hardened by a lifetime of torture, slides her chained hands across the table and asks for the Bible because she's bored] / me: 😳

That one hacker guy who swears at his mother is the face of the far right movement

The blonde guy who was about to leave his family to die as he went into hiding in the Bahamas looks like Stan from The Americans so he kinda deserves that

And finally I would like to remind everyone that the notion of blaming global warming, plummeting economy and ressource scarcity on overpopulation is a bourgeoisie lie

It's their fault

We literally have enough food and water and shelter for everyone if only the 1% would put down their million dollar martinis

Once I eventually rewatch it and manage not to be overwhelmed by worldbuidiling I might have a better opinion

Thank you for listening to my TEDtalk

[pope-francis-quotes]

13th March >> (@ZenitEnglish By Larissa I. Lopez, Translation by Virginia M. Forrester) #Pope #PopeFrancis Homily during the celebration of Holy Mass on Friday, Second Week of Lent in Santa Marta: Pray for Pastors to Choose ‘Best Means to Help’.

Full Text of Pope’s Homily at Santa Marta

“These days we join the sick, the families, who are suffering from this pandemic. And I would also like to pray today for pastors who must accompany God’s people in this crisis: that the Lord give them strength and also the ability to choose the best means to help. “

This is the request of Pope Francis today, March 13, 2020, at the fifth Mass in Santa Marta broadcast live in the face of the coronavirus pandemic.

In addition, he added: “Drastic measures are not always good, that is why we pray: that the Holy Spirit gives pastors the pastoral capacity and discernment to provide measures that do not leave only the faithful people of God. May the people of God feel accompanied by the shepherds and by the comfort of the Word of God, the sacraments and prayer ”.

The Holy Father does not refer to the measures taken by the Government to contain contagion by avoiding public activity, but to those that pastors must undertake taking into account the needs of the faithful who need to be spiritually accompanied in such a dramatic moment.

In his homily, commenting on the readings of the day, and in particular the parable of the homicidal vine-growers, he reflected on infidelity to the covenant of those who take possession of the gift of God that is wealth, openness and blessing, and cage it in a doctrine (Mt 21: 33-43.45).

For Francis, the appropriation of the gift of God “is the sin of forgetting that God has become a gift for us, that God has given us this as a gift and, forgetting this, becoming teachers”.

In this case, “the promise is no longer a promise, the choice is no longer a choice: ‘The pact must be interpreted in my opinion, ideologized.'” And in this attitude, the Pope observes “perhaps the beginning, in the Gospel, of clericalism, which is a perversion, which always denies the free choice of God, the free covenant of God, the free promise of God. Forget the gratuitousness of revelation, forget that God manifested Himself as a gift, he has made himself a gift for us and we must give it, make others see him as a gift, not as our possession ”.

In this sense, the Pontiff pointed out how “clericalism is not something unique only in these days, rigidity is not something of these days, it was already there in the time of Jesus.” For this reason, he exhorted: “Let us ask the Lord today for the grace to receive the gift as a gift and to transmit the gift as a gift, not as a property, not in a sectarian way, in a rigid way, in a” clericalist “way. “

******

Full Text of The Holy Father’s Homily

Both Readings are a prophecy of the Lord’s Passion. Joseph sold as a slave for 20 shekels of silver and handed over to the pagans. It’s Jesus’ parable, which speaks clearly, symbolically, of the killing of the Son. The story of “a man who had a plot of land, and planted a vine there — he did it with such care — he surrounded it with a hedge, he dug a hole for the press and built a tower — he made it well –. Then he rented it to farmers and went away.”

This is the People of God. The Lord chose those people; those people were elected. They are the Chosen People. There is also a promise: “Go forward. You are my people.,” a promise made to Abraham. And there is also a Covenant made with the people in Sinai. The people must always keep the election in their memory — the fact that they are a chosen people, the promise to look ahead with hope and the Covenant to live fidelity every day. However, it happens in this parable that, when the time came to gather the fruits, these people forgot they weren’t the owners: “The farmers took the servants, beat one, killed another and stoned another. Then the owner sent other servants, more numerous, but they were treated the same way.” Jesus certainly makes one see here — He is speaking to the Doctors of the Law — how the Doctors of the Law have treated the prophets. “Finally he sent his own son,” thinking that they would have respect for his son. “However, the farmers, seeing the son, said to one another: ‘He is the heir. Come on, let’s kill him and we’ll have his inheritance!”

They robbed the inheritance, which was another. It’s a story of infidelity, of infidelity to the election, of infidelity to the promise, of infidelity to the Covenant, which is a gift. The election, the promise, the Covenant are a gift of God — infidelity to God’s gift. They did not understand it was a gift and took it as their property. These people appropriated the gift to themselves and took away it’s being a gift to transform it into “my” property. And the gift that was richness, openness, and blessing, was closed, caged in a legal doctrine — many doctrines. It was ideologized, and so the gift lost its nature of gift and ended in an ideology, especially in a moralistic ideology full of precepts, even ridiculous precepts because it descends to casuistry for everything. They appropriated the gift.

This is the great sin. It’s the sin to forget that God made Himself gift for us; that God has given us this as gift and, forgetting this, becoming owners. And the promise is no longer promise; the election is no longer election: “The Covenant is interpreted according to my view, ideologized.” Here, in this attitude, I see perhaps in the Gospel the beginning of clericalism, which is a perversion, which always reneges God’s free election, God’s free Covenant, God’s free promise. It forgets the gratuitousness of revelation, it forgets that God manifested Himself as gift; He made Himself gift for us and we must give it, make others see it as gift, not as our possession.

Clericalism isn’t only something of these days; rigidity isn’t a thing of these days; it existed already in Jesus’ time. And then Jesus goes on in explaining the parable — this is chapter 21 –, He goes on until He arrives at chapter 23 with the condemnation, where God’s wrath is seen against those that take the gift as their property and reduce its richness to the ideological whims of their mind.

Let us ask the Lord today for the grace to receive the gift as gift and transmit the gift as gift and not as property, not in a sectarian way, in a rigid way, in a “clericalist” way.

Translation by Virginia M. Forrester

13th MARCH 2020 17:54POPE'S MORNING HOMILY

[punchdrunkheart-blog1]

JoAnn from Church Reviews “The Full Monty” at Uptown Players

In its final weekend, I had the privilege of seeing Uptown Players’ production of “The Full Monty” with an actor colleague and his mother, JoAnn. JoAnn is a dedicated churchgoer, phenomenal cook, and all-around hilarious and delightful human. She was so full of opinions after seeing this show that I was compelled to interview her about it. The following is the conversation we had on the way home, with minor editing for clarity (WARNING: SPOILERS).

Clint: So JoAnn, you knew absolutely nothing about this show going into it, did you?

JoAnn: Oh, not at all! [My son] just said it was based on the “Full Mounty” movie from the 90′s (whatever that phrase means), but I never saw that. He was just a boy then, and I didn’t want him to be exposed to anything smutty. Go figure he would go and become a professional actor and make smut for a living. *chuckles*

C: You don’t approve of much of [your son]’s work, do you?

J: Oh, well, he’s very careful about what he auditions for. He wants me to be able to see most of the shows he’s in, but there have been a few that he’s told me to not come see because they would make me “concerned for his soul.” Have you seen any of those shows of his?

C: I saw one of them. He was incredible.

J: I’m sure he was. I’m so proud of him.

C: But anyway, you thought you were going to hate “Full Monty,” right?

J: I absolutely did. [My son] even warned me. He said, “Now, you might hate this show, but the music is great, and a lot of my friends are in it, and I have a spare comp ticket, so let’s just try it out.” He’s usually right when he says things like that, but I remember him thinking I’d hate “Napoleon Dynamite,” and that’s one of my favorite movies!

C: So what did you think of this show?

J: I loved it! I had a wonderful time from start to finish! I have a feeling the original “Full Mounty” movie was very different from the musical, because they used police outfits at the end rather then mounty uniforms.

C: Hold on... Are you saying “Full Mounty?” Did you think this show was about mounties?

J: Isn’t it? I thought it took place in Canada.

C: No, it’s “Full Monty.” It’s a euphemism for “naked”.

J: Oh! Well, I never!

C: They say the name of the town several times during the show.

J: Well I thought maybe Ontario had a Buffalo too. It was confusing since all the actors were doing perfect Canadian accents.

C: We’ve rabbit-trailed a bit... Tell me the moment you started to love this show.

J: Honestly, it was from the very first line. That redhead came out with her big Texas hair and 80′s clothes, and I thought, “Oh, she looks just like I used to look!” And she was just so happy that she made ME happy!

C: That’s so great! What did you think of the music?

J: The MUSIC! Oh, it was so different! Not like most musicals. It reminded me of Michael Bublé’s music, and I LOVE Michael Bublé! And those kids were all such good singers! You wouldn’t expect men who look like that to sing so beautifully.

C: Look like what?

J: Oh, you know! They just looked so much like guys that you’d see at a steel mill, not like actors at all! I wonder where they found those guys...

Greg is my favorite, of course. I’ve seen him in a few shows now, and he’s always so polite and gentlemanly whenever he talks to me. He reminded me so much of my husband in this show! Have you worked with Greg?

C: Oh yeah, I love working with him.

J: Such a nice young man.

C: What things did you notice about this show that were different from most shows you’ve seen, and which of those worked or didn’t work, in your opinion?

J: I really liked that there were a few older people in the cast. So many parts are written for young people, and the older you get, the fewer stories you see about you. It starts to feel like there’s no place left for you in the world. I didn’t expect someone like Horse to show up, but he was one of the best characters for me!...

The one thing that confused me was the old pregnant lady.

C: Oh, I think those were supposed to be her boobs.

J: Ohh, that makes more sense now.

C: What would you say was your absolute favorite part of the show?

J: I would say it was the one man’s relationship with his elderly mother. He just loved her so much, and the scene they had was so sincere, and it reminded me of my relationship with my own mother. When she died and he sang for her, I just started bawling. I hope my son gives me a sendoff like that someday, and that he has as good of friends as that character had.

C: Was there anything about the show that bothered you or made you uncomfortable?

J: ...You know, I thought I would be offended by the stripping, but it was really tastefully done, and if I’m being perfectly honest... I kinda liked it. Those boys seemed really nice, and they had great butts! And it was more funny than provocative, really... Yeah, I can’t really think of anything offensive in this show.

C: What about the cussing?

J: There was cussing?

C: Yeah, they said the F-word a few times.

J: Oh, that’s right! Well, I didn’t like that the little boy cussed, but it wasn’t gratuitous, and there was a moment when the mom told the main character to watch his language, so it all balances out. And besides, TV shows these days are way worse.

No, what I was expecting was for the the theater to push an agenda on me. I’ve heard things about that particular theater, so I was a little nervous through the whole show, but then nothing like that happened! It was just a few butts here and there, and really, there’s nothing gay about that.

C: What about the kiss?

J: What kiss?

C: The moment when the two men almost kissed.

J: Oh, THAT’S what that was...

(long pause)

You know, my nephew is gay, and he almost killed himself during college. He told me later that the thing that kept him from going through with it was watching his roommate’s old “Will and Grace” DVDs. He said he knew his family loved him and would be heartbroken if he killed himself, but that show made him feel like there was a place for him in the world... I guess that’s what all of us want, isn’t it?

...I can’t stand “Will and Grace,” though.

C: Ok, if you could write a tagline for “The Full Monty” in a newspaper, what would you say?

J: “Come see ‘The Full Monty’! It’s not about Canadians, but it’s still fun for the whole family!”

“The Full Monty” at Uptown Players runs through the end of this weekend.

[tarakaybee]

So....American Live Action Death Note Adaptation on Netflix eh? Gonna try and give my thoughts without saying that inaccuracies alone are bad.

Short answer, it wasn’t great but it was entertaining in places and I like that they made the effort to have plot twists be different.

I don’t like that Ryuk coerced Light into using the Notebook, in the anime/manga, Light had murdered hundreds of people by the time he’d so much as met Ryuk, because the idea behind their relationship was that Light, as a human was exponentially more evil and bloodthirsty than any Shinigami had ever been, which is why Ryuk is so interested in him.

Light as a whole feels boiled down to an archetype, his original version had a unique and interesting character. He was basically perfect in every way, he was athletic, had a genius level IQ, was liked by everybody and financially well off and had basically no problems, then when he uses the notebook to kill a person, his guilt morphs into a god complex in order to protect his very fragile ego. He wasn’t supposed to be sympathetic, he was supposed to be a Macbeth sort of figure, somebody who had it all and fell from grace because of supernatural interference that didn’t do more than exist in his presence. This version makes him an american nerd who gets bullied and wants to talk to the cute girl, that’s not building off a concept, that’s boiling down a complex and interesting character into every american teen hero to have existed.

I actually don’t mind the changes to the rules, I feel like the new rule of ‘burning a page will cancel the effects written on it but only once’ serves the plot.

However, I don’t like the fact that the notebook can apparently now cause collateral damage, besides being gratuitous, it opens the plot hole of ‘why doesn’t he just collateral damage L into an accident’?

I like Willem Dafoe as Ryuk, I think the Green Goblin voice totally works and I liked the live action/CGI blend they did. I DIDN’T like the changes to his character however. Again they boiled down an interesting character to a generic, corrupting demon. Anime/Manga Ryuk was a Chaotic Neutral, he wasn’t good or evil, he was a god, he regarded humans as food and entertainment because he lives on a different scale to them, he was basically a messed up audience surrogate character, he didn’t care about any of the humans as possible, he just wanted to see if they’d do anything really funny with the weapon of mass destruction he dropped near them (Personally he was always my favorite character in Death Note because he’s so straightforward with his plans and yet completely beneath notice)

I did like the changes to Misa/Mia. The character type of ‘j-pop star’ wouldn’t translate well to an American setting even if everything else was accurate in my opinion, and I liked that she was Light’s equal. She was basically like a combination of Misa and Takada. Not that I disliked either but it’s a good way of condensing two good characters into one new-ish character.

Why were events at the start shuffled around randomly? In the original he concludes that Light lives in Kanto based on the location of what he correctly identifies as the first murder, then contacts interpol to arrange the Lind L Taylor gambit, and then using that he confirms the theory,

[mygangtome]

who were they then, who are they now: richard armitage

My dearest, dearest tumblr user. We’ve been here before, haven’t we? I’ve tried time and again to persuade you to watch this glorious, bonkers, utterly compelling madhouse of a show, and despite my recommendations of yesteryear, you still haven’t been persuaded.

So I’m going to have to bring out the big nose guns.

HEY! ARE YOU IN ANY OF THE FOLLOWING FANDOMS: THE HOBBIT, HANNIBAL, SPOOKS, CAPTAIN AMERICA?

DOES THIS FACE LOOK GOOD TO YOU?

pictured here: god he’s so dashing i hate him so muuhuhuhuch

Ladies, gents, and nonbinary friends, I present to you Richard Crispin Armitage. If you don’t know who he is, you probably haven’t been on Tumblr before.

who he was before?

pictured here: he’s a fiend in feline shape, a monster of depravity

Back in the hazy, long-gone days of 2006, Richard Armitage already had a more substantial following than a lot of the Robin Hood cast. He’d been around a bit in stage and the small screen; he joined a circus in Budapest, played Macavity in Cats, stood by the side of a pool as eye candy in Cold Feet, gave a career-defining performance as Smug Man At Party in This Year’s Love, and even turned up as an extra in Star Wars.

pictured here: DIDN’T KNOW THAT, DID YOU, EH?

The sudden explosion of Richard into the public consciousness is primarily due to the BBC’s North and South in 2004, in which he played a brooding Northerner who primarily wears black and holds a position of power.

Then he got cast as Guy of Gisborne, a brooding Midlander who solely wears black and holds a position of power.

Typecasting? What’s that?

who was he then?

I’ve talked extensively for previous My Gang To Me days about Guy’s character, and his excellently melodramatic interactions with other characters on the show. He’s the big baddie in a show which needs one; the sneering, scowling foil to Robin’s optimistic heroism. But he’s also generous to a fault, obsessively loving, and full of thwarted ambitions. No other character divides the fandom more - is he a misunderstood good guy or an overindulged crybaby? Are he and Marion meant to be or an abusive relationship? Does he deserve a redemption arc? I DON’T KNOW, I’M NOT THE BOSS OF ROBIN HOOD, STOP ASKING ME ALL THESE QUESTIONS.

pictured here: there’s no such thing as too much eyeliner

Two years ago, I wrote the following about Guy, and it holds true:

More often than not we end our hijinks with an exasperated shout of “GISSSSBORRRRRRNE!” echoing through the castle and a shot of Guy slinking off to explain how he got foiled this week… Despite being a handsome devil, he is so deliciously dislikeable in a proper, old-school, tying-people-to-the-railroad tracks kind of way. And I’ll be honest, it’s worth watching the show just for a demonstration of how Armitage is able to smoulder with all parts of his body up to and including his back.

Where the Sheriff revels in his own villainy, Guy never thinks of himself as anything but The Hero Of This Story, and is all the more gloriously villainous for it. It certainly doesn’t hurt that the show is well aware of the fact that Richard looks nice without a shirt on.

pictured here: how many times can i use this screencap before it become gratuitous

Admittedly, my particular preference is for bearded-and-soulful-Armitage (more on that later on) but you know, any Armitage is good Armitage.

richard on guy

The Thing You Probably Know Already About Richard Armitage is that he is a ~method actor, which means that he takes all his roles Very Seriously. He wrote a diary for Thorin. He underwent waterboarding in order to get in character for his role as Lucas North in Spooks. He got extremely into William Blake for Dolarhyde. And, believe it or not, he also got very emotionally attached to Guy.

Today, [Richard] knocks on [series writer Dominic Minghella’s] door with a pencil and pad. Can he ask me some questions about his character? I tell him, truthfully, that I can’t believe he is here - an actor of his talent, sitting on my sofa, talking to me about playing this part. I feel so lucky. Suddenly, I stop myself - do I destroy what little (gamma-male) authority I have by being so candid? I glance at him. My concerns are unfounded. He is blushing. 

source: interview in sunday telegraph, october 2006

pictured here: richard cosplaying as 80s investment banking!au guy of gisborne

I can’t even be mad at this point. 

His own opinions on Guy are about as complicated as the fandom’s.

“I’m really hoping that when people sit and watch this, when Gisborne is trying to woo Marian they absolutely squirm in their seats and their skin is crawling. That was my main aim with this character, to make people absolutely despise him.” 

source: interview on bbc robin hood website, october 2006 

“His love for Marian is something which is beginning to unravel him and he’s becoming more human through her. It’s actually surprising him. I don’t think he quite realises what’s happening to him - he’s becoming human throughout the course of the series, I think.” 

source: interview on robin hood audiobook, “will you tolerate this?”

who did he become?

pictured here: i’ve never seen spooks so i can’t comment but OOH, DASHING

After Robin Hood, Richard officially became a Household Name when he joined the cast of Spooks as Lucas North, a series regular. Technically he started filming it whilst finishing off Robin Hood, which must have been an experience.

He stayed with Spooks for three years, becoming That Guy Off Spooks With The Face, You Know The One, and also turned his hand to a few other television and film roles over the years. 

He warmed the cockles of our collective hearts when he turned up as Dawn French’s love interest and future husband Harry Kennedy in The Vicar of Dibley. Bit of a jump for him, this one, as it’s a handsome and charming accountant, rather than a handsome and charming spy. Still, he rose to the occasion masterfully, and also got to snog Dawn French, so he won on multiple accounts.

In 2011, he turned up as the bespectacled Nazi spy Heinz Kruger in Captain America: The First Avenger. He got to have a secret submarine and run around with tommy guns. One time Chris Evans punched him in the face. It was awesome.

And then Thorin happened.

pictured here: majesty~

I will keep this brief, because if I talk too much about Thorin Oakenshield I’ll burst into tears, but it was the role that changed his life.

“I just think it’s a really amazing opportunity to take a character from a book that I was brought to as a child. My first experience on stage was in a production of The Hobbit at the Alex Theatre in Birmingham, and I played an elf.  And Gollum was a papier-mache puppet with a man offstage on a microphone. It’s been in my childhood very prominently, so to come to it as an adult,  a middle-aged man, and have another look at it is a brilliant opportunity." 

source: ‘the hobbit’ cast press conference, february 2011

Yes, that’s right, Richard Armitage is a Tolkien nerd. He wore elf ears made from cereal boxes to see the Two Towers in cinemas (he was thirty years old at the time).  And in 2012 he first graced our screens as Thorin, the proud and noble long-lost king of Erebor and a significant change of pace for a man who had developed a career as shifty, morally-dubious hired killers. 

He developed a reputation on set for being “moody and broody” (his words, not mine), due to all that method acting stuff that kept him fretting about the fate of the dwarven race when everyone else was fretting about lunch, but his performance was hailed as one of the best in the trilogy and - of course - it absolutely transformed his career.

who is he now?

Good question, and really one for Richard himself, or his doctor or his therapist or maybe a priest, but we’ll take a stab at it anyway.

After The Hobbit, Richard took a break from the massive media scrutiny and did what all British actors do when they’re scared, which is be in a play. In his case, the play was The Crucible at the Old Vic (I saw it, it was INCREDIBLE) and it earned him an Olivier nomination.

pictured here: bad timez 4 johnny p

He bounced from that into a couple of movies that you are, on the whole, unlikely to have seen - disaster movie Into The Storm, social drama Urban and the Shed Crew, bizarre fantasy Alice Through The Looking Glass…

But his most iconic role of late has been in Hannibal, as serial-killer-with-a-heart-of-gold-actually-no-wait-he-murders-people Francis Dolarhyde. He joined Hannibal for the last explosive season, and seems to have had a lot of fun killing people and wearing flower crowns and… I don’t know, I don’t go here, I’m doing my best.

pictured here: @nettlestonenell challenged me to fit at least one additional shirtless shot into this post, so here’s naked dolarhyde doing something that’s probably evil

It seems to have gone down well with the fans. And things are only looking up for our boy, who’s filming season two of his spy thriller Berlin Station as we speak. He’s based in London these days - still famously private about his private life, but happy to chat on twitter and instagram - just finished performing in his off-Broadway debut in Mike Bartlett’s Love, Love, Love, earning rave reviews, and he’s got several movies coming up.

my gang, to me!

Have I persuaded you yet that you want to get to know the man who was Guy of Gisborne? Well, you’re in luck - the boy’s been busy. You might see him on the big screen this year in Pilgrimage, or Ocean’s Eight, or Brain on Fire. He’s aging well, like a fine wine, and you only have to poke a toe into his tumblr tag to find that his ‘army’ of fans are as passionate now as they were when Guy first slithered onto our screens, eleven years ago today.

pictured here: then & now

I think he might actually be aging in reverse.

Of course, if you want to see more of Richard, there’s one surefire way to do it - and it’s the reason I made this post. Come along and join the gang in Sherwood, and get to know Guy for yourself! Buy some DVDs, or fire up a stream, and settle down with a couple of glorious episodes of the friendliest, loveliest show in television - BBC Robin Hood. 

No matter how famous he gets, to us, he’ll always be Guy. And we wouldn’t have him any other way.

Sorry, guys. We saw him first.

-

post by @interestinggin / with thanks to richardarmitage.net & richardarmitageonline.com

[chilly-territory]

Gangsta: Death of Anosmic Stray Dogs, chapter 3

We’re well over half the book now, with only 2 chapters and the epilogue remaining. The plot is clear now, too, with only some minor details to work out.

Chapter 4 is longer and wordier so will probably take more time to translate though. The original Japanese text is still provided by valgerdrgodiforseti.

Gangsta: Death of Anosmic Stray Dogs by Kawabata Junichi

Chapter 3 (pages 103-140)

After leaving the garage where the sneering dog rampaged to its heart's content, it took Worick about 2 hours to make it back to the Benriya office.

Johann was waiting in front of the garage, so Worick dumped Dario, who didn't even make an attempt to walk with his own two feet, on him. That said, since Worick had sustained some wounds himself, he needed to drop by Theo's clinic along with the two, as well.

He had Nina dress his wounds, and when he returned to the office, Nicolas turned to him, gracing him with an annoyed look. Lying on the couch, he pressed a glass bottle of carbonated water to his lips. Having taken 2 gulps, he put it on the table.

After that, Nicolas held his right fist in front of his face and, bending his wrist, banged it against the left side of his chest. Then he made a motion like he wanted to grab his head with the whole of his right hand.

'What are you fucking up for, idiot.'

Seemingly satisfied with just that, he took a shish-kebab out of the paper bag sitting on the floor and bit into it.

"Whatcha eating?" 'Salted grilled fish. Bought it from a street stall.'

Worick cracked a smile.

"Really. Yummy?" 'Passable.' "How carefree of you when I was being put through some really awful experience. What if I died?" 'You're still alive though.'

Nicolas got up from the couch and threw the skewer the kebab he had finished in a flash was on in the trash can. The long stick fell with a small clunk, joining 2 more like it already in the trash can.

'Speaking of, don't go wandering off alone if you know you're being targeted, moron.' "Don't look so cold, man. It's part of the job."

Worick plopped down on the other couch next to the one Nicolas was occupying. Nicolas gazed at him expressionless.

'Is he the mafia slayer?' "Who knows. I'm not sure yet." 'I thought you took a shine to him.' "Did it look that way? I'm just really good at getting close to strangers, is all."

Worick lit up a Pall Mall. Lifting a corner of his mouth, he flashed a nasty smirk.

"You suck at dealing with him, don't ya." 'I just don't like him, is all. For some reason.' "Haha, way to be blunt. Not that I don't get what you mean though."

Taciturn Nicolas and talkative Dario were the polar opposites. But at the same time, Worick had a feeling that their sets of values were surprisingly similar. If it looked like Worick was being friendly with Dario, that had to be the reason why.

Both of the short men didn't give a damn about the rules of society. They had their own internal set of iron-clad rules, which was linked with instincts rather than reason. Nicolas' rules originated in his having been born a Twilight and formed under the effects of his complicated upbringing. With Dario though, Worick couldn't tell for sure. But he could venture a guess that Dario, too, had a past of some controversial kind that cut into his neck like a chain. Because he was unhealthily obsessed with the past. In the form of 'forgetting', to be exact. It was the same as with a child's puppy love. Peering hard and avoiding to look at all costs bore the same meaning in that context, denoting the overwhelming obsession with the object.

Or, alternatively, perhaps Nicolas' disagreeable sentiment could be attributed to a natural dislike towards one of the same kind. ---Well, if we started talking unsightly past and criticizing people for it, I'd be on the list, too, Worick admitted to himself with a strained smile.

"But don't let it be said that I haven't learned my lesson. So now I want you to stick by me, Nic-chan. Protect me from the scary-scary people, partner." 'Hell if I care. Learn to protect yourself with your own power.' "Oh, don't sulk." 'I’m not.'

Worick blew out the cigarette smoke in Nicolas' direction, and the shorter man grimaced not unlike a dog.

Nicolas would protect Worick no matter what. Even if it meant putting his own life on the line. And there could hardly be any doubt that the feelings driving him to do so were neither those of friendship nor those of duty. It was more like something that was part of the instincts etched into his essence.

*

Evidently, Worick accumulated too much fatigue because the next day he slept in until noon. He felt he had dreamed of a woman but didn't really remember.

He woke up with a dull headache, maybe from the hangover, or from having been hit in the head. His shoulder, grazed by the bullet yesterday, stung when he was taking a shower. But since the wound could be written off as a mere scratch, he didn't feel much inconvenience even when washing his head.

Leaving the office together with Nicolas, Worick had a kebab sandwich bought from a street stall for lunch. Fashionably late by 10 minutes to the appointment with inspector Chad for that reason, he spent another 10 minutes trying to ignore the gratuitous lecturing the good inspector subjected him to.

20 minutes in total later than planned, they finally got to the main issue at hand.

"Geez. Making me waste my energy on garbage disposal day after day." Chad scowled while puffing on his Hope cigarette.

The meeting place was the interrogation room,  found in a corner of the police station and plastered with wanted posters of all kinds of scoundrels.

Worick, cheek resting on his hand, managed to shrug his shoulders without changing his pose.

"We're fans of tidiness ourselves. Right, partner?" 'I've nothing to do with it,' Nicolas' hands signed. "The 5 guys yesterday, what family did they belong to?" Worick asked Chad. "The Bandera family." "Oh. A place pretty high up on the totem poll." "They're street-level. Then again, they were just lapdogs of their heavy-hitting Capo Regime." "And that Capo Regime got offed by the mafia slayers."

That's how the story had to go, evidently, given the hysterical woman's words.

Chad nodded.

"His corpse was found the day before yesterday. Shot through the head at home in his own bed. Along with the women serving as his body pillows. There were 7 people and 1 dog in that house. Only the dog survived." "So they weren't slain with a bladed weapon?"

One of the big reasons why Worick and Nicolas were set up as the fall guys for the mafia killings was because the murder weapon was a blade.

"You're not off the hook though, your weapon of choice is Colt Government, forgot?"

Chad ground out his Hope cigarette, smoked up to the filter, on the cheap ashtray of stainless steel and stuck a new one in his mouth.

"Chad-san, ain't you smoking a bit too much?" "Shuddup. There's a talk going round that soon smoking at the station will be banned. So I smoke while I can." 'Ain't it high time you retired though?' Nicolas' hands moved, a wicked smirk taking over his face.

Chad smacked him on the head.

"Like I can with the shitty brats severely lacking discipline around!" 'Why are you always taking it out only on me?'

"So?" Worick, following suit, lit up a Pall Mall. "How hairy the situation is right now, exactly? For how long will the Bandera family be after my head, in your opinion?" "The Monroe family is indirectly holding them down for now. But only indirectly." "Yeah, figures."

Daniel Monroe was this city's mighty power balancer. It figured that he couldn't possibly play favorites and openly back up the Benriya who were but two puny individuals. The request he had placed with them was in part purely meant to protect them - at least that's what Worick thought.

Chad took a deep drag out of his cigarette through the filter, breathed out a cloud of white smoke, then spoke.

"Every time new blood gets spilled, you two gain more hatred and grudges against you. And those grudges are quite tangible. You get what I mean, right?" "Mn. I get that you're worried about us, Chad-san." "Shuddup. I just don't wanna see this fucked up city get fucked up more than it already is."

Worick let out a puff of smoke too, and flicked the ashes off his cigarette over the ashtray.

"Yesterday's evening, did the mafia slayers hit again?" "Got no such reports for the time being. Excluding the five you've wasted, that is." "Five?"

Worick only shot two. And only one of those was dead beyond any doubt. He didn't know the fate of the other one. Additionally, Dario ran over 2 more. Even if all of them bit the dust, it totaled to 4 bodies. The numbers didn't add up.

"All 5 are confirmed dead?" "Yeah. 2 on the street, 3 in the garage. What, did you want a confirmation of your feats?" "Well, I was really drunk yesterday, so."

Did it mean that Dario killed at least one, possibly two while Worick was unconscious? If so, the numbers would add up. Except how could he do it, with his gun out of reach and his leg hit by a bullet?

At the guess that popped up in his head as he tried to solve that puzzle, Worick couldn't help but laugh.

---Was Dario putting on an act?

Really, now? Where did the acting end, then?

Stubbing out the Pall Mall on the ashtray, Worick scratched his head.

In any case, the situation was still deteriorating. Slowly but surely, like a swamp you kept sinking into.

"I want the list of the clients the Lombardi family pushed their 'dynamite' to. You've investigated them, like you were supposed to, right?"

That was the start of the mafia killings. The only clue they had that could be called more or less solid was that 'dynamite'.

Chad, however, shook his head.

"We're still investigating." "How sloppy. Didn't those guys keep records?" "That's not it. There's no doubt they were a family particular to death about every penny. It's just that someone apparently made off with all of the records on their 'dynamite' deals." "Oh. Makes you wonder just who it could be."

The answer to that was obvious as obvious got - the mafia slayers. And with that, it only stood to reason to suspect that they acted on a personal grudge. A grudge having to do with the 'dynamite' - if the perp was a Twilight, a myriad of valid reasons why came to mind.

"What about other documents?" "We've rounded up all the paper scraps we could find at the Lombardi family's place, from threatening letters that sounded like a kid's scribbles to pinups from the walls. Wanna take a gander?" "Yeah," Worick nodded and glanced at Nicolas.

Probably bored of the long talk, the dark-haired man was entertaining himself with reshuffling the wanted posters on the walls. It looked like he was lining them up in order of the amount of hair, so now one corner sported a herd of shaved headed thugs.

"Nic-chan. Sorry, but could you play by yourself for a little longer?" 'I'm already bored of it.' "Next try lining them up in order of their nose size then." 'What fun is that?'

At this rate, it wouldn't be too odd if he went off somewhere on his own. Only, right now, Worick didn't want them to go anywhere separately.

"Gimme just 5 more minutes. I'll be done right away."

He had no idea how much was there to go through, but just flipping through all the papers shouldn't take much time in any case. And Worick didn't forget anything he had laid his eyes upon just once. He could recall it perfectly at any time he wanted. He would ponder on the content of those documents later.

"This way," Chad rose up from his chair.

Approximately 10 minutes later, the two Benriya exited the police station.

Having found a florist's that carried violets, Worick bought a bundle of them, planning to drop by Dario's hospital room. An armful of flowers for a get-well visit paid to someone like Dario felt jarringly out of place, but popping up there empty-handed was even worse.

Dario, lying on a bed on the second floor of Theo's clinic, was reading a book out of having nothing better to do, but lifted his head when he caught sight of the two handymen.

"Yo, my friends. Came to invite me for a drink again?" "This is a get-well visit. Since you got worked over pretty good." "Ooh, thanks for the trouble."

Dario put the wrapping of a used up book match in place of a bookmark and shut the book.

"Whatcha reading?" "Ah, this. A fairy-tale that girl - Nina-chan, was it - brought me trying to be thoughtful." "Oh yes, Nina-chan." "Yeah, she's such a good girl. And she’s got ‘em skills. She'll turn into one fine woman one day, I'm telling ya." "Agreed wholeheartedly," Worick said, then raised his brows. "Wait, what, were you crying?"

There were traces of tears in the outer corners of Dario's eyes.

"Hm? Well, yeah." Not embarrassed in the slightest, Dario help up the book. "It's an eastern book. I looked down on it at first 'cause it's for kids, but it's awesome."

Worick laughed.

A guy who failed to give a damn about guns pointed at him and ran over 2 people with his beloved car even after having been shot in the leg, cried over a kiddy fairy-tale.

It was clearly weird, but when you saw this guy, somehow it all made sense and seemed only natural.

Worick felt Nicolas clap him on the shoulder.

'I'll be outside,' the deaf man signed disinterestedly. 'If something happens, gimme some signal.'

Nicolas sniffed, nose twitching. The smell of rubbing alcohol must have been getting to him. The second floor had 4 beds and looked a lot more like a hospital than the floor below. Worick nodded his okay.

"Give these to Nina-chan as a present then."

Nicolas spared a look at the bouquet Worick held out, and took it with a sigh. Throwing the flowers over his shoulder, he walked away.

Dario gave Worick a coarse sneer from his bed.

"I did praise that girlie, but trying to seduce a girl that little?" "If I wanted to seduce her, I'd give her those flowers myself. She's Nic-chan's pair. And the flowers are for your Fiat. They're of the matching color." "You're giving flowers to a car? That's weird." "That car's my lifesaver. It put its body on the line to save me." "A car is a car. It's useful, sure, but it's only a tool. It got nothing on your own two legs."

It seemed like Dario really did forget all about the Fiat. Or, at the very least, he revealed no sign of being sad about losing it.

"How do you like this hospital?" Worick asked.

Dario shrugged. His features twisted - did his wound hurt, perhaps?

"I like it good enough. Johann does, too. The doc here don't talk much, thankfully." "Aren't you bored without someone to talk to?" "Guess so. Than again, it's much better than doctors doing nothing but throwing questions at you." "Oh. That's a surprise." "What is?" "I thought you loved talking." "A talk with doctors is never any good." "Really? Doctors talk so they could heal you. It's their job and their duty." "And I don't like that. They come asking you questions about your health for the record. 'How are feeling, Dario-san?' I don't fuckin’ know how I'm feeling, that's why I'm paying you big money to examine me and find out! What the hell’s with dumping everything on the patient, what are you, a quack or something?"

The corners of Worick's mouth lifted up. True, Theo was a man of few words as well as skilled. Although he was also a corrupt doctor, for a portion of his patients he was probably close to the ideal.

For about 5 minutes after that, Dario continued to vocally complain about hospitals, only pausing for breathing. That for some reason the smell of cresol used for disinfection was similar to Bowmore he had had in the Spanish bar, that the flavor of the food served to him was flat and it was more like fishfood than something meant for humans, and so on and so forth, but on the other hand, it seemed like he had no dissatisfaction with this clinic and even expressed roundabout gratitude to it, going by his comparison with other hospitals.

When the short man's tongue took a short break at last, Worick spoke up, "There's something I wanted to ask." "Yeah, what is it?" "About yesterday. What happened?" "What d'you mean 'what happened'?" "To be honest, when I came to in that garage, I was 80-90% sure that you'd departed from this world for good. If they hadn’t captured you, then you had to be dead. Yet, you turned up alive. It's also a mystery to me how you even found where they took me."

When Dario swooped in to save him yesterday, Worick's suspicions about his being the mafia slayer got somewhat stronger.

The man himself was probably not strong, or skilled by any stretch of imagination. He was lucky, sure, but that was all he had going for him. And yet, he had somehow pulled through a really sticky spot and even saved Worick. So Worick naturally found himself suspecting that the man had some special ability or something of the sort that wasn't immediately visible to the observer.

"You wanted to ask about something that trivial?" Dario laughed. "I'm a lucky man." "So your luck is to thank for absolutely e~verything, you say?" "Everything's up to luck. Stumbling upon an apple tree when you're hungry and have no money is luck, finding a wallet on the road is luck, meeting a friend that treats you to a meal is luck. See? Yesterday, as luck had had it, Johann turned up to help."

Worick had guessed that much. After all, Johann was outside the garage, waiting for Dario to come out.

"That pampered kid? Why though?" "Dunno. I was out cold for a while. Ask Johann."

This man said absolutely lame things with impossible grandeur.

"Even if so, it doesn't explain how you had located that garage." "That'd be 'cause nose knows." "Nose?" "Yup, nose. I can tell the smell of good luck and of bad luck. And Johann--"

But there, he was interrupted with a knock on the door.

It was Nina. On her tray, there were two bottles of orange juice and a vase with the violets arranged in it.

"D-Did I interrupt you?"

Worick sighed and shook his head.

"Not really, we were just chatting about silly things."

Nina smiled and put the vase by the window. Then she deposited one bottle of  juice on the side table by the bed. Worick took the other.

"Thanks. You're so considerate." "No, it's not me. These are from Johann-san."

Worick looked at Dario.

"I asked him. Y'know, to go shopping for me and stuff. What's he doing?" "He's downstairs, talking with Nico." "Ooh," Dario smiled in surprise. "I can't imagine what kind of conversation they could be having."

Worick had to agree. In contrast to Nicolas and his mad dog tendencies, Johann was like a chihuahua kept by a refined Madame. But for what it was worth, they were the savior and the saved, so holding a formal conversation on that account out of common courtesy was probably not impossible.

After Nina bowed and left the room, Dario changed the subject.

"You see, Johann came to this town to find his l'il sister. His sis is like the reason for living to him." "That girl in the photo you keep?" "Yeah, that's her. They got separated some time ago due to some rotten circumstances. And recently, we finally found out that she's somewhere in this city."

From how Dario worded it and from the real reason why they had to come to this city, Worick incurred that the girl in the photo was not in a position that set the mind at ease about her well-being.

"Didn't Johann-chan come to this city because he was free though?" "Him? Did he tell you that himself?" "No, you told me that. You really forget everything, huh." "Oh, I see. Oh well, it does sound like something I'd say." "What does it mean though?" "Just what it sounds like."

Dario yawned sleepily, apparently not immune to losing strength due to an injury. Then he added in a voice that somehow sounded a little vacant, "Being free is nice and stuff, but there are all kinds of limitations. You keep getting hungry for as long as you live, and require sleep, too. And if you get pumped full of lead, sometimes you end up dying." "That's right. Although I was under the impression that you didn't know that." "Everyone has a chain hanging around their neck. But if you got to chose where the limitations trap you, that's freedom. He pinned it on his sister. Catch my drift?" "Yeah, loud and clear at that." "In that case, there you have it."

Dario closed his eyes.

"Think you can find that girl?" Worick inquired.

He didn't hope to get an answer, but Dario did reply, if mumblingly, "Yeah, without fail. I'm a lucky man, after all." "How?" "Dunno. Ask Johann."

He was sound asleep the second the words left his mouth, breathing peacefully. Having gotten off his chest all he had to say, he went and fell asleep just like that. Like a child.

Worick moved the side table with the bottle of orange juice on it out of the way so that even if Dario tossed and turned in his sleep, his hand wouldn't bump into it. Then, after putting a bedsheet round Dario, he left the sickroom.

When Worick came down to the first floor, he didn't find Nicolas or Johann there. Instead, there stood Theo, leaning against the wall and blowing out cigarette smoke.

"Where's Nic-chan?" "No idea." "And where's Johann-chan?" "No idea either. I'm not their babysitter."

Worick came closer and leaned against the wall next to the doctor as well, taking out a Pall Mall.

"Lately, we've been imposing on you a lot. You have my gratitude." "Have no use for it. I'll take money over gratitude any day. Besides, it didn't eat up much of my time, so it's fine. His wounds aren't serious." "He got shot in the leg and then charged into a garage head-first. You can't tell me that his wounds aren't serious." "Even so, none of his wounds would have any lasting effect." "You can tell just by looking that the guy is tenacious. I'm glad that luck is on his side." "In that case, his companion is luckier." "Johann-chan?"

Theo nodded.

"When he stayed overnight for examination, he was up all night enduring." "Was it that bad?" "It's still bad. And won't heal. For now, he's just lucky to be able to move at all. Like with that partner of yours, those are some high-maintenance mess of bodies they have."

Worick raised his brow, dubious. "A Tag?"

Face wiped off all expression, Theo blew out the smoke. "Did you bring him here without knowing? I can't believe you."

Worick scratched his cheek.

---Nose knows, Dario said. Per his admission, he could tell the smell of good luck and of bad luck, and Johann...

Just what smell could Johann tell?

"How bad is it looking for that baby-faced boy?" "If he's alive 2 years from now, it'll be some really potent good luck, amazing enough to call it a miracle." "Why though? It's not because of the wound he sustained the other day, is it?" "Partly because of his odd compensation. But mainly due to the reckless use of Celebrer."

There was no lack in Tags weakened by Celebrer.

"I see," Worick returned curtly. "And that compensation, what is it?"

Theo indicated the area around his bangs with the hand holding the cigarette.

"He has a tuft of hair, here, that's white, remember?" "Isn't that just a pubescent teen thing? Like, because he thinks it's cool." "Different parts of his body age differently."

That was hard to grasp.

After letting it sink, Worick confirmed his understanding, "So you’re saying only part of his hair became that of an old man?" "If it was only his hair, it wouldn't matter any. The manner he ages in is first only his right arm gets old, then only his left leg, and so on. If his heart'll age suddenly, his life span will greatly shorten. And if he repeatedly ODs with a body that irregular from the get-go... you follow what I'm getting at?"

Worick puffed out a cloud of smoke and watched it dissipate away.

"Sorry for bringing you another patient that can't get better." "Damn straight."

Theo ground out his cigarette that still had about half of its length intact, on the ashtray he held in hand and turned his back to Worick.

"Hey. It's a problem for me if you take away the ashtray, y'know?" "Like I care. Don't get my floor dirty."

Theo proceeded to the back room without looking back.

Worick thought of Nicolas as he gazed at his Pall Mall that had nowhere to go now. Nicolas had run into Johann, there was no doubt about it.

*

About 15 minutes prior, when Nicolas came downstairs, Nina came out of the examination room found in the back of the first floor at the same time. Seeing Nicolas, the girl smiled.

"Ah. You're just in time. The doctor said to give these to you."

She held out two plastic cases she previously cradled to her chest.

Celebrer. Uppers and downers. Twilights' lifeline and the main cause of their death.

Celebrer cost a lot. It was made expensive for a reason different than it being a high-costing drug to produce. Celebrer was the most direct means of making Twilights obey the rules set by Normals. There was an absolute need to make Twilights view Celebrer as "the life credit bestowed upon them by Normals out of goodness of their hearts", so if Celebrer was easy to obtain, that equilibrium would crumble.

For that reason, generally, only rich people or prominent mafia families involved in managing and controlling said Celelbrer as their bread and butter could afford to keep Twilights. Worick was neither that rich nor that powerful, so he had to rely on Theo selling him the stuff the doctor got through his own routes illegally .

'Are you done helping the doc?'

Nina understood perfectly what Nicolas' hands signed.

"Yes. At the moment, Dario-san is the only hospitalized patient, and his condition is stable. And the doctor is in the back, trying to outstare some other patients' charts."

Nicolas nodded his acknowledgement. Then, noticing the girl's gaze shift from his face to somewhere a little to the side, he remembered about the violets.

'From Worick.' With that, Nicolas presented the girl the flowers. "Eh? For me?" 'Supposed to be a get-well gift to the mofo sleeping upstairs. But flowers for a dude is even more pointless than pearls before swine, so take them.' "No, I could not possibly. But the sickroom decorated with flowers will make me happy, too. So thank you."

Nina reached out with both hands, and Nicolas lifted the flowers higher in the air. By reflex, Nina jumped for them, but the flowers were held just out of her reach. When she landed, Nicolas lowered them, and when she jumped, he held them up again, rinsing and repeating a few times until Nina groaned in frustration.

It wasn't like Nicolas had a dislike for Nina or particularly wanted to harass her. It was just that her troubled expression was fun to watch for some reason, so he teased like that for a bit. Before she had the chance to get peevish for real, he mouthed, 'I'm bored', voicelessly with only his lips, and thrust the violets into her chest.

Nina smiled happily, cradling the flowers gently.

"Thank you," she said.

Nicolas wasn't one to pay much mind to the subtle workings of others' hearts, but he had grasped the real meaning of Nina's words, as well as the reason why she lowered her head immediately after, as if realizing her verbal slip.

If she wanted to give thanks for the flowers, she would have thanked Worick. But her thanks wasn't about that, what she was grateful for was her relationship with Nicolas, probably. To Nicolas, the time spent with her was not unpleasant or anything, but calling it a kind of a compulsory job would not be too off the mark.

Pretending he hadn't realized anything about her true feelings, Nicolas lightly flicked her forehead with his middle finger.

'If you wanna thank someone, thank Worick.' "Okay. Ah, but it would probably be weird for me to thank him for the flowers meant for Dario-san."

She giggled.

It was like he was playing make believe human. Him, a Twilight - him, who carried another set of tags deep inside him on instinct. That said, the fact made him feel neither good nor bad or sad. Neither did he ever wish to be a Normal, for that matter. It was probably the same as a child's play of imitating how a dog barked or a cat meowed. A mere game that had no meaning beyond killing time.

"Nice smell. I'll go fetch a vase for them," Nina smiled, and the same instance the front door opened. Nicolas glared in that direction.

"Nicolas-san."

On the doorstep stood someone familiar. The young man wearing a quilted down coat clearly too big for his lanky form.

"Thank you for saving me the other night."

Johann bowed nervously. His straight bangs with a white lock rocked with the motion.

'I wasn't the one to save you.'

Johann knitted his brows and scratched his cheek sheepishly.

"I'm sorry, I don't understand sign language." "Hmph," Nicolas snorted. It wasn't like he had any desire to talk with this young man anyway. The youth held a paper bag in his right hand - probably bought something for Dario. Nicolas pointed to the ceiling, imbuing the gesture with the "get going already" meaning.

"Ah, right, thank you."

Johann bowed again and was about to pass Nicolas by... but suddenly stopped in his tracks.

Nicolas tensed slightly, one eye narrowing. Johann, too, turned his head to him, narrowing his eyes to slits and staring at Nicolas.

"Nina-san, I am sorry to trouble you, but could you please take this to Dario for me? There are 2 bottles of orange juice in here, so please give one to Worick-san."

Nicolas could tell something was off - it was not a conclusion of the mind, rather, he felt it with his skin.

There was the abnormal politeness with which Johann spoke to Nina even though she was just a child and it wasn't necessary. How familiarly he referred to Dario in contrast. And how he didn't doubt that Worick was upstairs even though he seemingly had no means of knowing that for sure. Probably all of that combined.

Notwithstanding, Nicolas still didn't find himself particularly interested in the young man. Whereas he could tell that Johann was very interested in him for some reason.

"Eh? Ah, alright."

Nina accepted the bag, balancing it with the vase in her hands with some difficulty. Nicolas was about to help her carry the burden, but before he could make a move, Johann said, "Excuse me, Nicolas-san, would you mind sparing me a little of your time?"

Nicolas cocked his head to the side in puzzlement. Asking why with voiced words was bothersome.

"Please. There is something I would like to ask you. So let us step outside for a bit."

In the sharp gaze of Johann's eyes visible from beneath his long bangs, there was something akin to a killing intent. Except it wasn't really that. If it was a real killing intent, Nicolas would know the same instance.

For a very short while, Nicolas considered the issue of Worick's safety. Technically, he was told to protect him, supposedly. In which case, leaving wasn't advisable.

"I will make it quick. Please, to the street in front of the clinic."

Johann turned and started walking.

Nicolas sighed. And then followed Johann.

As long as he didn't get too far away from the clinic, he wouldn't miss any changes that might occur inside, he judged. After all, Nicolas had extremely good eyes. He would notice it if a window got cracked by a bullet.

Out of curiosity that rared its head, Nicolas wondered what would happen if he just ignored Johann who was advancing with steps grand and confident like never before, but what intrigued him the most was the meaning behind the young man's strange look.

Johann came to a halt once they exited Theo's clinic, but Nicolas didn't. The reason was he remembered that there was a chicken street stall about 20 yards away from the clinic. One kebab sandwich for lunch was not enough.

So now it was Nicolas leading the way with Johann in tow to buy a spicy grilled chicken leg.

'It ain't half-bad,' he recommended it to Johann, too, just in case. Johann seemed to more or less get what he signed, but he shook his head, declining the suggestion.

Nicolas was devouring his chicken with big bites on the way back to Theo's clinic. Peeling off the skin with a slurp, he sucked it into his mouth. The taste was on the blank side, but spices and burnt oil smell were tasty on their own.

Noticing that Johann had finally felt like talking, Nicolas focused on reading his lips.

"---away from the stall and I am grateful for that. It was much too smoky there that I could not even speak."

Nicolas didn't reply to that. The reason why he moved away from the stall was because the next customer in the line frowned in resentment upon noticing the tags on Nicolas' chest, and Nicolas simply didn't want to cause trouble to the stall-keeper by overstaying his welcome, but trying to explain all of that to Johann, who didn't understand sign language, was too much trouble.

About 5 yards away from the clinic, Nicolas stopped, and Johann got to the point.

"I came to this city to find my little sister."

Nicolas propped the back of one leg against the fence and leaned his weight on it. Biting into the chicken leg close to his own fingers that held it, he urged the youth with his chin to go on.

"It is this girl. Do you know her?"

Johann produced a photo of a boy and a girl. The boy was Johann, but Nicolas didn't know the girl. Must be that little sister of his. The girl was about 12-13 and wore a silver necklace shaped like an angel's wing.

Nicolas didn't remember ever seeing it though, so he shook his head.

"That's not true," Johann said in a cutting tone. "I can smell my sister's scent on you."

At that, Nicolas sniffed his own arm. It smelled only of chicken to him.

Johann's eyes were completely serious.

"You must know her. I have never been wrong about smells. That was how I found Dario and Worick-san yesterday."

Even if so, what Nicolas didn't know he didn't know.

"To be honest, this clinic, too, smells of my sister just a little, but the reek of the chemicals is too strong, so I cannot say for sure. Does anything come to mind?"

Nicolas drew a complete blank.

Speaking of girls in Theo's clinic, only Nina came to mind. Besides her, there were only outlaws spreading the alcohol stench.

So Nicolas waved a hand, letting the other know that it didn't ring a bell for him.

"I do not like lies."

But it wasn't a lie. He really didn't know that girl.

Nicolas let out a weary sigh. The chicken leg had mostly become only the bone now. His belly, in contrast, felt sufficiently full. So he launched the remaining bone into the nearest garbage bin. Come to think of it, they had found this young man at a garbage dump site, too, Nicolas idly recalled as he wiped his stained fingertips on the fence. But remembering that served no purpose.

He gazed at Johann sideways. The youth was talking too fast, and it was hard to read it.

'Is that all you wanted from me?'

At Nicolas' gesture, Johann cocked his head to the side quizzically.

Nicolas' words didn't reach him. Not that Nicolas intended to get through to him to begin with.

He had humored the guy for long enough already. Time to go back to the clinic, he decided and moved his leg off the fence it was rested against. When he turned his back to Johann, he felt a voice come from behind him.

"Wait!" the youth had probably screamed. Unfortunately, Nicolas didn't see his mouth to know for sure.

The young man thrust a hand beneath his down coat clearly too big for him. A gun? Or maybe a knife. He was fingering something intended to deal damage to the enemy confronted head-on, in any case. That much could be read in the youth's pupils.

The thirst for blood. Except it was too dull. Yawn-inducing, even.

'When you work up the resolve to take that out, come again and we'll play.'

Communicating this without voicing, Nicolas started walking towards the clinic. As expected, his urge to kill did not get more tangible just from Johann glaring daggers at him.

*

In the end, Worick dealt with his cigarette butt by running after Theo to dispose of it.

Just when he pushed the door leading from the back room back to the examination room open, the door on the other end of the room opened as well, and Nicolas showed his face.

Smiling a light smile, Worick waved a hand at him.

"Welcome back, Nic-chan. Did you get in a fight with Johann-chan?" 'We didn't come to blows.' "I see. That's a cryptic answer though."

Before Worick closed the door, he stuck only his head in the adjourning room to say, "Well then, see you, doc. But I'll be back." "Don't be. Your wounds will heal on their own without my help." "Not for that. I forgot to bring something."

A few hand waves later he closed the door.

"I'll go retrieve it now, so come with me," he then requested of Nicolas.

With Nicolas coming to his side, he studied his face and suddenly stared in wonder.

"You went to grab a bite, didn't you?"

Now that he thought about it, he had left collecting the pay from Granny Joel for fulfilling her request to Nicolas. Due to him drinking the night away with Dario that evening, his memories were vague, but he felt he had yet to see his share of the money.

Nicolas wiped his lips of pepper stuck to them.

'It's only due reward. I was the one to do all the work for that request anyway.' "You just went and arbitrary pocketed the money. And I got stuck with babysitting." 'Didn't you crave to get close to him? Bed-sharing's your forte, wasn't it.' "My manual labor costs more than yours, Nic-chan, and I need to be properly paid for it. Was it yummy? Where did you buy that chicken? I want a bite of it too."

When they exited Theo's clinic, Nicolas took a careful look around the street.

"What, did the stall poof out of existence or what?"

There was no sign of a possible attack. At least Worick didn't feel anything of the sort.

'Johann's gone.' "Oh."

Worick took in their surroundings and noticed something. One of the windows on the second floor was open.

"Up there. Maybe he entered through the window." 'Window?' "You do it too when you're in a hurry."

Seeing Nicolas' puzzled expression made Worick realize that for some reason he had irrationally expected Nicolas to notice a certain fact about Johann somehow.

"Apparently, that boy, too, has tags hanging around his neck, you see. Although they're hidden by his huge down coat." 'Ohh.'

Nicolas flashed a slasher grin. That of a hungry predator.

Worick's lips twisted into a strained smile.

"Owie, Nic, such a scary face. What on earth has happened?" 'I should've made him take out whatever it was he was hiding, by force if necessary.' "So you did get in a fight with him, huh. I was worried, you know?" 'We were only a mere step away from fighting.' "Oh really." 'So frustratingly close.' "Is it too much to ask of you to try and open your eyes to the concept of pacifism, if just a little?" 'Did you know that peace and war hold the same meaning for all the species except humans?'

You guys are humans too, Worick was about to say but held his tongue. For Worick, too, was prepared to unsheathe the proverbial sword against Johann - tonight or tomorrow. In the not so distant future, in any case.

If Johann had turned his blade against them first, it would have made this a little simpler, perhaps. Or if Worick just hadn't bothered with him on that first night to begin with. But that wasn't how it went.

It was strange, Worick thought. Why did Johann let himself be beaten up without resisting on that night? If he fought back, it went without saying that a gang of 3 puny thugs wouldn't have stood half a chance. Did he try to uphold the three laws? No, couldn't be. There had to be something else, some other---

When he arrived at the word 'reason', he couldn't help a laugh.

No, he couldn't let himself be bothered with details. Not this once.

Johann was a Twilight. And also, in all likelihood, the one behind the mafia killings. But the person Worick’s mind was preoccupied with even more than Johann was Dario.

If so, there was no need for reason or logic with him. Not with someone who didn't give a damn about guns pointed at him, who ran over two people with his beloved car even after getting shot in the leg, who cried over a kiddy fairy-tale. With someone who was a big fool of a man that way.

Worick looked up at the sky. A cloud had arrived and the dusk of the evening colored it dull gold. The humidity levels were on the rise, Worick thought, pressing a hand to his forever lost left eye.

← to chapter 2  to chapter 4 →

[topmixtrends]

OF HOW MANY literary journalists can we say that one of the defining intellectual publications of the second half of the 20th century grew out of a piece of that journalist’s occasional criticism? Probably not many, and yet that’s exactly what Elizabeth Hardwick achieved with her 1959 Harper’s Magazine essay “The Decline of Book Reviewing.” Four years after the essay appeared, the editor who had commissioned it — Robert B. Silvers, who died earlier this year — went on to found, with Barbara Epstein, The New York Review of Books, enlisting the support of A. Whitney Ellsworth, Jason Epstein, Robert Lowell — and Elizabeth Hardwick, whose essay Silvers always pointed to as the earliest source of inspiration. “That essay is crucial,” he told New York magazine on the occasion of the Review’s 50th anniversary in 2013.

“The Decline of Book Reviewing,” included here in a long-overdue collection of Hardwick’s essays (selected by the novelist and critic Darryl Pinckney and published by NYRB Classics), is a powerful and persuasive broadside against the “sweet, bland commendations” that were all too common in the book pages of daily newspapers in Hardwick’s time — and, one is a little embarrassed to admit, are still too common in the twittering society of mutual admiration that is our literary culture today. In a famous passage, Hardwick berated The New York Times for the “flat praise and the faint dissension, the minimal style and the light little article, the absence of involvement, passion, character, eccentricity — the lack, at last, of the literary tone itself,” that too often characterized its literary coverage. She viewed the Times as a kind of bloated provincial rag — a judgment that surely must have ruffled a few metropolitan furs over at the Gray Lady. Yet Hardwick, despite her polemical tone, was being more than just polemical: she was being hostile in the defense of a value. (She did not generally traffic in gratuitous hatchet jobs or cultural postmortems.) She took books — literature — seriously, and could not suffer the sight of alleged newspapers of record treating something so important so blandly:

[T]he drama of the book world is being slowly, painlessly killed. Everything is somehow alike, whether it be a routine work of history by a respectable academic, a group of platitudes from the Pentagon, a volume of verse, a work of radical ideas, a work of conservative ideas. Simple “coverage” seems to have won out over the drama of opinion; “readability,” a cozy little word, has taken the place of the old-fashioned requirement of a good, clear prose style, which is something else. All differences of excellence, of position, of form are blurred by the slumberous acceptance. The blur eases good and bad alike, the conventional and the odd, so that it finally appears that the author like the reviewer really does not have a position.

Hardwick was in her early 40s when she wrote “The Decline of Book Reviewing.” The last essay included here in The Collected Essays, an appreciation of Nathanael West, appeared in The New York Review of Books in 2003, when Hardwick was 87. In the intervening four decades she not only managed to live up to her own exacting standards (the dull thought, the tired phrase, may knock but never enter), but she also grew to become one of the 20th century’s towering writer-critics, deserving of a seat at the table of Virginia Woolf and V. S. Pritchett. Like them, she approached criticism artistically, metaphorically. George Eliot, she writes in one of the essays collected here, was “melancholy, headachey, with a slow, disciplined, hard-won, aching genius that bore down upon her with a wondrous and exhausting force, like a great love affair in middle age”; William James and his siblings, in their childhood, were “packed and unpacked, settled and unsettled, like a band of high livers fleeing creditors”; the Jewish businessman Simon Rosedale, in Edith Wharton’s The House of Mirth (1905), is “weighted down, as if by an overcoat in summer, with a thickness of objectionable moral and physical attributes.”

On every page of this book you will be reminded that Elizabeth Hardwick was not simply a great critic but a great writer. This distinction matters. Hardwick’s essays are always sticking their neck out; their aphoristic grace and easy impressionism are a way of speaking to their subjects in their own language, without deafening them with comprehension and analysis. For instance, in the great essay on Herman Melville’s “Bartleby, the Scrivener” (1853) — is there, indeed, a greater essay on this story? — Hardwick is not, in the scholarly or theoretical manner, trying to solve the enigma of Bartleby’s resignation; she eschews this temptation, and even gently reprimands Melville for, in the story’s final sentence, inviting it. Instead, she follows Bartleby’s language — his style — and offers up her own in comparison:

Bartleby’s language reveals the all of him, but what is revealed? Character? Bartleby is not a character in the manner of the usual, imaginative, fictional construction. And he is not a character as we know them in life, with their bundling bustle of details, their suits and ties and felt hats, their love affairs surreptitious or binding, family albums, psychological justifications dragging like a little wagon along the highway of experience. We might say he is a destiny, without interruptions, revisions, second chances. But what is a destiny that is not endured by a “character”? Bartleby has no plot in his present existence, and we would not wish to imagine subplots for his already lived years. He is indeed only words, wonderful words, and very few of them. One might for a moment sink into the abyss and imagine that instead of prefer not he had said, “I don’t want to” or “I don’t feel like it.” No, it is unthinkable, a vulgarization, adding truculence, idleness, foolishness, adding indeed “character” and altering a sublimity of definition.

I find this passage astonishing. Notice how quickly Hardwick is tempted into literary detail (“suits and ties and felt hats” [my emphasis]) and metaphor (“a little wagon along the highway of experience”), and then, tellingly, how she encourages us to view Bartleby from the perspective of his creator, Melville, by entertaining poor alternatives to his famous utterance. She is writing as a creator herself, sharing in the language of literary creation, and all the while still managing to perform the task of the critic. No comprehensive analysis of “Bartleby” that I’ve ever read is as suggestive — perhaps because Hardwick, in the end, dares to be just that: suggestive, as opposed to conclusive; aphoristic, as opposed to comprehensive; metaphorical, as opposed to merely critical.

Born in 1916 in Lexington, Kentucky — a place she wasn’t sorry to be from, she said, “so long as I didn’t have to stay there forever” — Elizabeth Hardwick moved to New York City in 1939 to study English at Columbia University. She published her first novel, The Ghostly Lover, in 1945 and shortly afterward was enlisted by Philip Rahv to pen book reviews for Partisan Review, where she quickly gained a reputation for her acerbic, cutting style. (When Rahv asked Hardwick what she thought of Diana Trilling, The Nation’s book critic, Hardwick quipped: “Not much.”)

In 1949 she married the poet Robert Lowell, a decision that would shape her life for decades to come. They were engaged while Lowell, who suffered from bipolar disorder, was recuperating from electric shock treatment in a hospital north of Boston. Hardwick was warned against the union by the poet-critic Allen Tate, who described Lowell’s mental state at the time as being “very nearly psychotic.” Shortly before the engagement he even went so far as to call Lowell “dangerous,” claiming there were “definite homicidal implications in his world, particularly toward women and children.” Lowell’s Boston Brahmin father was no fan of the engagement either. “I do feel,” he wrote to his afflicted son, “that both you and she, should clearly understand, that if she does marry you, that she is responsible for you.”

But even these warnings could not have prepared Hardwick for the mental breakdowns and momentary break-ups, the impulsive infidelities and public indiscretions she would suffer through for the next 20-odd years. “I have sat and listened to too many / words of the collaborating muse,” Lowell self-incriminatingly wrote, “and plotted perhaps too freely with my life, / not avoiding injury to others, / not avoiding injury to myself.” Their turbulent marriage finally ended in 1970 when Lowell left the United States for England to live with Lady Caroline Blackwood, whom he married in 1972. For Hardwick, however, worse was yet to come: Lowell famously made public art of their marital difficulties and divorce; in the poetry collections For Lizzie and Harriet and The Dolphin, both of them published in 1973, he quoted from Hardwick’s personal letters to him, a trespass his friend Elizabeth Bishop scolded him for in a stinging letter: “It is not being ‘gentle’ to use personal, tragic, anguished letters that way,” she wrote, “it’s cruel.”

Though she suffered greatly, Hardwick maintained that marrying Lowell was one of the best things that had ever happened to her. She called him an “extraordinarily original and brilliant and amazing presence, quite beyond any other I have known.” Speaking to Darryl Pinckney in 1985, she said that Lowell, for all his flaws, was at least encouraging of his wife’s intellectual pursuits:

He liked women writers and I don’t think he ever had a true interest in a woman who wasn’t a writer — an odd turn-on indeed and one I’ve noticed not greatly shared. Women writers don’t tend to be passive vessels or wives, saying, “Oh, that’s good, dear.”

Women writers — and women in literature more generally — were the focus of Hardwick’s most influential collection of essays, Seduction and Betrayal, published in 1974. (Regrettably, and a little ill-advisedly, it is not included in The Collected Essays; it was reissued separately, in 2001, also by NYRB Classics.) These stirring, evocative portraits — of the Brontë sisters, Zelda Fitzgerald, Sylvia Plath, Virginia Woolf, Dorothy Wordsworth, and others — have sometimes been viewed as a veiled response to Lowell’s betrayal, though this notion seems reductive, as if Hardwick needed Lowell to betray her in order to challenge perceived truths about literary history. Seduction and Betrayal was a challenge to precisely such notions: the romantic view that women writers are either victims or heroines (or both). “Toward the achievements of women,” Hardwick had written in an earlier essay, “I find my own attitudes extremely complicated by all sorts of vague emotions.” These attitudes and emotions were to the benefit of her readers, for if they were not complicated they would not interest us, at least not from a literary perspective. As Hilton Als has beautifully put it, the human impulse in Hardwick’s writing always outweighed the abstract.

Though Hardwick achieved her greatest success in 1979 with Sleepless Nights, a much-admired collage-like quasi-novel, the compressed density of her style was always more suited to literary essay, which may be why it was the genre she remained most faithful to. In sheer size alone, The Collected Essays, which spans six decades and 600 pages, is a testament to the happy union between author and form. Hardwick could quite simply squeeze more into a sentence than most writers could an entire paragraph. Reviewing a new biography of Ernest Hemingway, she writes of the literary biographical genre that “in a hoarding spirit it has an awesome regard for the penny as well as the dollar.” William James, in The Varieties of Religious Experience (1902), was guilty of “running on both teams — here he is the cleverest skeptic and there the wildest man in a state of religious enthusiasm.” And, in an essay on Simone Weil, we are told: “the present fashion of biography, with the scrupulous accounting of time, makes a long life of a short one.”

There is a danger for the reviewer, when describing Hardwick’s essays, of becoming a mere anthologizer, a dazed and dazzled collector of writerly gems. This is partly because Hardwick herself was a serial jeweler: “I like the offhand flashes, the absence of the lumber in the usual prose,” she once said. But now and again, the writing becomes all flash and no lumber — her style, so hypnotically idiosyncratic, can veer off into eccentricity and become difficult to follow, as demonstrated by her tendency to write sentences that are hardly sentences at all but dashed-off story outlines. From a single essay: “The overwhelming scene, the tremendous importance of the union and its dismaying, squalid complications of feeling, Yasnaya Polyana, the children, the novels, the opinions”; “Every quarrel, every remorse, moments of calm and hope and memory. Diaries, rightly called voluminous, letters, great in number, sent back and forth”; “Lady Byron’s industry produced only one genuine product: the hoard of dissension, the swollen archives, the blurred messages of the letters, the unbalancing record of meetings, the confidences, the statements drawn up”; and so on. It’s like reading literary criticism written by Augie March.

Still, these are minor complaints — the unavoidable thumbprints of such playful, busy hands. For whether she is reporting from the front lines of the Civil Rights movement or tracing the contours of Robert Frost’s reputation, Hardwick revels in her subject matter. Everything in these essays, be it real or fictional, comes alive to Hardwick’s touch. And how funny she is! In Marge Piercy’s novel Dance the Eagle to Sleep (1970), “the girls are constantly available and practical — I’m afraid rather like a jar of peanut butter waiting for a thumb.” William James (again) was guilty at times of being “a sort of Californian; he loves the new and unhistorical and cannot resist the shadiest of claims.” And Peter Conrad’s Imagining America (1980) is described as “a text that bristles like the quills on a pestered porcupine.”

¤

If Hardwick’s achievement as an essayist has been left to cool somewhat in the collective shadow of her more illustrious contemporaries, The Collected Essays is a much-needed bringer of heat. For Hardwick was mercilessly free of the many occasional sins of her time: she had none of Susan Sontag’s modish, Francophile theorizing, none of Norman Mailer’s wounded egoism, but neither did she succumb to the breezy generalities of Alfred Kazin. She was, on the contrary, George Orwell–like in her good judgment and common sense, admirably demonstrated in this collection by the moral beauty of her essays on the Civil Rights movement and the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr.

Because she outlived them all, the last third or so of The Collected Essays revisits many of those fellow writers who belonged, like Hardwick, to the intellectually gilded age in American letters that spanned the second half of the 20th century (an age that might be said to have ended, earlier this year, with the death of Bob Silvers). Hardwick knew and befriended the likes of Mary McCarthy, Dwight Macdonald, and Philip Rahv, not to mention European exiles like Hannah Arendt and Nicola Chiaromonte. In the last half of this collection, then, we learn that an “evening at the Rahvs’ was to enter a ring of bullies, each one bullying the other”; that Edmund Wilson gave the impression of “a cheerful, corpulent, chuckling gentleman, well-dressed in brown suits and double martinis”; that Hannah Arendt, in her apartment on Riverside Drive, served “cakes and chocolates and nuts bought in abundance at the bakeries on Broadway.”

Yet such anecdotes are kept mostly in the margins; Hardwick always stopped short of outright memoirism. Despite her strong voice and presence on the page, the impression she leaves is one of humility. She was not a romantic of the self; living with Robert Lowell and witnessing the self-destruction of so many of her contemporaries (Randall Jarrell, Sylvia Plath, John Berryman) probably inoculated her against the myths of the mad genius. Thus what she admired in the Brontë sisters was not the romantic notion of them having managed to write any novels at all but rather “the practical, industrious, ambitious cast of mind too little stressed. Necessity, dependence, discipline drove them hard; being a writer was a way of living, surviving, literally keeping alive.” Similarly, she was impressed by Zelda Fitzgerald’s “fantastic energy — not energy of a frantic, chaotic, sick sort, but that of steady application, formed and sustained by a belief in the worth of work and the value of each solitary self.”

In Sleepless Nights, the narrator writes of her mother’s child-rearing (she gave birth to nine children): “It was what she was always doing, and in the end what she had done.” In a similar vein, The Collected Essays are a tribute to Hardwick’s ceaseless activity as a literary essayist, as a critic and a reader — proof, indeed, that being a writer is a way of living.

¤

Morten Høi Jensen is the author of A Difficult Death: The Life and Work of Jens Peter Jacobsen (Yale University Press, 2017).

The post Flash and Lumber: Elizabeth Hardwick’s Essays appeared first on Los Angeles Review of Books.

from Los Angeles Review of Books http://ift.tt/2AAKd65

[lazyreviewstudent7-blog]

Misunderstood Movies: Part One of Two

There are some films under the enormous umbrella of modern cinema that are just misunderstood. They spend their lives after their release being subjected to endless incorrect assertions or negative perceptions they just can't stand up to. And so, like the proverbial young schoolboy faced with his chain-smoking chums, they are swept away on a tide of popular pressure. They become whatever they are perceived to be in the public eye. I don't think it's any kind of secret that this number is fairly low amongst mainstream movies. You could spend hours upon hours picking through obscure, cult or unknown pieces of cinema and find an abundance of "Misunderstood" films. Therefore I've chosen two of the most infamous examples of this section of cinema. The first I'd like to talk about is that infamous and tabooed household name of horror cinema: The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974) dir. Toby "Tobe" Hooper. So, what was the first thing that popped into your head when you read the title there? Chances are you have almost certainly heard of the film and know of its huge reputation. I'll bet that thing you thought of was either blood or gore! TXCM is widely considered to be the most gory, gratuitous and violent film ever made by the vast majority of the public. Only two things connect this huge group of people; firstly their shared opinion of the film, secondly that they have in all likelihood not seen it. The writer, actor and presenter Mark Gatiss once said that upon his first watching of the film he was utterly stunned by the sheer lack of gore, (See "Mark Gatiss's History of Horror" a 3 part BBC TV documentary, highly recommended!). This reaction is widespread and common amongst first-time watchers, and despite the fact that I myself knew of the film's content before seeing it I was still shocked. Tobe Hooper is a director who excels at striking that difficult balance of playing by the rules but also breaking and expanding them. He chose to follow the by then well established Val Lutonian school of horror, (you can create more scares and genuine horror by not always showing elements directly), when it came to the famous kills. We watch Gunnar Hansen's Leatherface leer and snarl and gibber as he drives home the titular chainsaw. We hear, albeit very subtly, the sickening sounds of death by powertool. But we do not SEE anything at all. Nope, you heard right ladies an' germs. Nothing. Viewers who feel cheated by this sad realisation may wish to direct themselves to the film's only true scene of gore. All Mr Hooper treats us to is a blink-and-you'll-miss-it closeup shot of silly old Leatherface dropping his gosh-darn chainsaw on his own leg and giving himself a deep-ish cut, (trombone and canned laughter). It is interesting to note that Hansen famously wore a makeshift body armour plate of cheap metal under his trousers for this scene, reflecting another virtue of the movie I will discuss soon. Violence in movies, it is often said, should never be glamourised or dwelt on. TXCM's most common criticism and the core component of its critics' argument is that it revels in violence. It is a horror film whose legendarily blood-soaked scenes of gore reflect lazy content. Why didn't the production crew fill the film with sinister creeping horror instead of shooting for vomit-inducing scene after scene of hacking, slashing and sawing? But Hooper spills not one drop of blood. All the gore and deaths are implied, with the exception of Teri McMinn's Pam whose gruesome kill on a meat hook is neatly obscured through shot design. Consequently the deaths are leant an extra-disturbing quality through their lack of visual climax. It's rather like watching a car crash but closing your eyes at the last minute. You do not want to see what happens, but thanks to human anatomy you can't cover your eyes and plug your ears all at once. A whole essay could be written on Hooper and Wayne Bell's sound design but, suffice to paraphrase Mark Gatiss "(TXCM) ...is a movie about what you hear, not what you see". So having covered the gore and subtlety misunderstanding, we move to another common view. Over the years TXCM's inescapable reputation has branded it a trashy exploitation flick. A lowest common denominator unintelligent shock piece. Ask any horror buff worth their salt about TXCM and they'll most likely launch into a long complex rant about what a hidden gem the movie is. Whether or not you like the fact that its reputation has shut out non-fans and made it an underrated classic in the mainstream, TXCM is an intelligent example of its genre. Upon watching the movie it is plain for any film fan to see that the direction, sound design, acting, cinematography and premise make it a highly effective and original horror flick. Such examples I would personally cite include Marilyn Burns's raw and uncommonly disturbing performance as Sally, the multiple layers of the "Dinner" scene, and in my opinion one of the the greatest pieces of physical acting ever: the "Chainsaw Dance". This, the film's last scene, is a beautifully crafted combination of TXCM's every positive element. Through the weird, compelling and uncompromisingly emotional movement of the dance Hansen and Hooper transform Leatherface. In a fit of emotion, the hideously ugly and clumsy brute suddenly and shockingly transcends almost every facet of his personality. In short: Leatherface finally gets to be graceful and emotional and very nearly human, but only via his horrendous failure of letting Sally escape. This wonderful piece of narrative introspection is brought to life through Hooper and Daniel Pearl's fluid realistic cinematography, Hansen's acting, and the jarring edit of the quick climax. I would recommend this scene as just about the most perfect example, with the requisite context, of how and why TXCM is a great movie. Finally, the most stunning fact about TXCM's production in relation to quality? The film was produced on a shoestring budget. Hooper made the movie with friends on a budget of $140,000, yet flat out refuses to let it show. The film does not acknowledge its cheapness and instead makes smart use of every piece of physical or intangible material it possesses. So there you have it. TXCM, a misunderstood masterpiece of horror cinema. It may not have the cinematographic prowess of Kubrick's "The Shining", the edge-of-the-seat suspense of Hitchcock's "Psycho" or the worthy allegorical heart of Romero's "Night of The Living Dead". But through its originality, fresh perspective on horror and shocking performances, TXCM has carved, (no pun intended), its place bloodily out in the annals of horror history. Like the titular tool, it is a sharp and highly effective thing designed to carry out a clear purpose with precision and quality: to horrify. NEXT TIME: "Starship Troopers" (1997) dir. Paul Verehoeven.

[pope-francis-quotes]

13th March >> (@VaticanNews) #Pope #PopeFrancis offers Mass for pastors. #Pope Francis’ intention for Mass on Friday was for pastors, asking the Lord to give them strength and the ability to “choose the best ways to help”.

By Vatican News

Beginning his Mass on Friday morning at the Casa Santa Marta, Pope Francis reminded everyone that we are “uniting ourselves to those who are ill and to their families”. He then announced his intention for the liturgy which manifests that he understands the dilemma that priests in Italy find themselves in.

“I would also like to pray today for pastors who need to accompany the people of God during this crisis. May the Lord grant them the strength and the ability to choose the best ways to help. Drastic measures are not always good. Therefore, we pray that the Holy Spirit might grant pastoral discernment to pastors so that they might perceive measures that might not leave the holy, faithful people of God alone, and so that people of God might feel accompanied by their pastors”.

Later, during his homily, the Pope reflected on the parable of the tenants presented in the Gospel of the day (Matthew 21:33-46).

God and His people

This parable refers to God’s care for His people, the Pope said. The vineyard is the chosen people, the tenants are the Doctors of the law, and the servants are the prophets. God did His work well in the vineyard, he Pope said. The hedge, the winepress and the tower can be compared to God’s election of the chosen people, the promise He made to Abraham, and the covenant relationship He entered into with them on Sinai.

“The people must always keep that election in their memory – that they are a chosen people; the promise –so they always look ahead in hope; and the covenant in order to daily live in fidelity.“

Infidelity

When God sends His servants to receive the fruit of the vineyard from the tenants, they are beaten, killed and stoned. Instead of respecting His own Son, they kill Him to get His inheritance. “They robbed the inheritance”, Pope Francis said. “It’s a story of infidelity” to God’s call ; infidelity to their election, to the promise and to the covenant, which are God’s gifts.

“They don't understand that it was a gift. They take it as a possession. These people appropriated the gift. They took away the aspect of the gift to transform it into their own possession. The gift that was richness, openness and blessing was closed, put inside a cage”.

Forgetfulness

Pope Francis attributes this transformation of the gift into a possession as the result of the “sin of forgetting”. We forget that “God has made a gift of Himself to us so that He might be given as a gift”. Instead of receiving the gift, we begin to own it.

“So, the promise is no longer a promise, the election is no longer an election, the covenant is interpreted according to my own opinion. It becomes an ideology”.

Roots of clericalism

It is possible that the Gospel hints at clericalism which was already present even then, the Pope said. Clericalism, “always denies” the gratuitousness of the election and the promise. Since God has made a gift of Himself to us, this gift must be given freely to others and not as if it belongs to us.

The Pope’s Prayer

The Pope concluded his homily with a prayer that we might be granted the grace of “receiving the gift as a gift and of transmitting this gift as a gift and not as a possession, not in a sectarian, rigid or clerical manner”.

Topics

POPE FRANCIS

SANTA MARTA

HOMILY

MASS

13 March 2020, 09:33