#film discourse

[popironrye]

Max's reveal at the end of The Lost Boys is another one of those scenes I've been overthinking about. Particularly the few seconds post revelation that the boys were all dead.

When Max and Lucy return home he takes little time to head to where David died. An obvious choice given the fates of the other boys what with Paul being soup, Dwayne blown to pieces, and Marko's body being way back in the cave.

In the background Sam, the Frog brothers, and Lucy are pretty loudly arguing and talking over each other in the other room but this scene is eerily quiet. The scene plays out is a realistic view of mourning. Max's actions here are rather tender and you can tell by the look on his face that seeing David like this does have an affect on him.

There's a blatant pause. I like to think that was Max grieving, coming to terms with what's happened. His boys are gone, probably reliving a lot of memories. It's never revealed, but I choose to believe Max turned David first, and the following boys were slowly turned the same way Michael was, by drinking Max's or David's blood. And I headcanon he was turned a long time ago, meaning Max had a lot of years with the boys. He is shown as hostile in the beginning to them when they come in the video store, but I like to think that's just Max wanting to keep a reasonable distance to keep suspicious eyes from prying (and to keep things a twist for the audience) especially since he's playing the childless bachelor as that's what's has worked for them for so long so far (although come on Max, if you played up the single father to Lucy, you would have totally won. Just saying.)

But what about the rest of that scene? Max recovers pretty quickly from losing his boys. While some may argue it's because Max didn't really care for them, I choose to believe that's not the case at all. I think he's putting on a face to remain calm in front of the others, especially Lucy. Since he still wants to turn her into his vampire bride, even without his boys to mother. Perhaps he could just be thinking he can start his vampire boys over with others boys, but then there's THIS scene!

The scene where Star reveals to the audience that David was hiding Max's involvement from her and Michael. David wasn't just keeping Max a secret, Star declares that he was "the secret David was protecting." Key word being, 'protecting'. Max's identity as the head vampire is important and it's in his best interest for the vampire boys to be seen around him as little as possible. Especially since Sam figured it out early on in the movie he was one of them. And so, David and the boys choose to act on their own most of the time. Not only to give themselves the feeling of carefree freedom, but also to keep Max safe. And it's clearly a situation they all like, or at least tolerate, as while there is no hope in them turning back if Max were killed first, but David and the others had no intention of ratting him out and letting him die.

My favorite part of this scene. Max's smile. After Star says her line, Max nods in agreement, but the smile afterwards is interesting. I think he looks proud. Proud of David. Proud to have heard that David, even as he died, was protecting him. I choose to believe Max cared a lot for the boys and I also choose had he be given the chance later, would feel very lonely without them.

[anarchic-miscellany]

"Looking forward" to the shit-tier intercinine discourse sure to sprout up around "Queer" (it's pretty good, I enjoyed it: sets an excellent mood. Meanders a lot, but that's par for the course with Burroughs' writing - the man was made of heroin and bad decisions). Not the "should straight actors play gay characters" but "this is problematic because Burroughs, and the character is a dick" discussions and the speed-running of popular opinion. Dudes, we can throw this shit around in castles all day, debating "bad Versus no representation", but down there in the shitty cesspits of society, people are barely evolving beyond the branch of "gay people exist? Eww!". A lot of this discourse is going to be monkeys looking at monoliths. Anyway, my Universal Soldier sequels arrived today, fuck yes!

[billyrussoapologist]

Challenging Challengers - why one of the most popular films of the year is also one of the most divisive

I don’t get the criticism for Challengers. I get just disliking it, that’s valid, personal preference and all. But some of the hate is so bizarre. I’ve seen people saying it glamorizes cheating (considering all three characters are miserable, pretty objectively terrible people, I don’t see it), that it’s gay p*rn (there’s not a single s*x scene in this movie), that the character arcs are incomplete (those last few shots say a lot. Besides, it’s not like they were suddenly going to become great people after being toxic for so long).

The most baffling criticism I’ve seen is calling this movie a chick flick, geared towards women, a woman’s fantasy. I can assure you that no remotely sane woman is watching this film and seriously wants to be like Tashi. The characters are complex, the cinematography is insane, the score is the best I’ve heard in a while. It’s not even like the central protagonist is a woman (although even if that was the case, I don’t see how that would automatically make it geared towards women). While all three are main characters, I would argue if there was one central protagonist, it would be Art. The movie starts with his daily routine, seen through his lens. Although they’re all morally questionable, he’s arguably the most relatable and has the strongest conscience. Also, both of the male leads are attractive, but in a realistic way. Sure, they’re shredded, but that fits in context with their characters as professional athletes. Otherwise, they’re attractive in a very real, obtainable way, which is nice to see. If this was a “woman’s fantasy,” then surely they would have the more stereotypical razor sharp features of types like Rob Lowe or Zac Efron. There are films with similar relationships that aren’t seen as strictly “for women.” Match Point, Vicki Cristina Barcelona, Y Tu Mama Tambien, The Dreamers (which contains explicit scenes of incest in addition to the threesome relationship), all of which are heavier on the s*x/romance than Challengers, and none of which are seen as geared specifically towards women.

So why does Challengers get this treatment? As far as I can tell, it’s just because a lot of young women have very vocally praised this film. When women, especially young women it seems, latch onto something, the perceived total value goes down. It also raises the question of why it’s seen as an insult that a movie would be geared towards women, like it’s somehow inferior and less prestigious than movies geared towards men. I believe a lot of men have watched women latch onto this film without knowing much about it or understanding it much, and think that women must be glamorizing cheating or leading men on. When in reality, women just love a great movie.

If you read some of all of this post, thank you. It was lengthy, but I had to get this out. I’m always up for a discussion, if you agree or disagree, feel free to share. Just please keep it civil and polite.

[snoddie]

"Turning Red isn't relatable this movie sucks"

Listen I had to spend 20 odd years watching movies about clueless teen boys not knowing how their wee wees work and that shit wasn't relatable to me at all. Let the ladies have this one 😭😭😭

[anderperrylover]

THOUGHTS? DEAD POET'S SOCIETY EDITION

Just thoughts I wanted to get out there

So Dead Poet's Society? Right? Now that I think of it was a film that came out when my dad was in his like late teens (technically he was around the same age as some of the cast). And somehow this film - made and released during their time has been one that resonated with the next generation? I am looking at the film and thinking, and I couldn't help but wonder.

I am not talking specifically about the aesthetic or anything but namely how this one film was definitely not made for my demographic. However - 35 or so years later I read a post here or come across a playlist or an edit or a series of head canons - I see how much this single film has impacted generations who came after.

I relate to this film on a very personal level (put the shipping factors aside). I remember watching scenes with Neil and I could almost recall having similar conversations in life and I had to take a step back and think as to why I wanted to block this film out for a while. I resonated with Todd as a writer but also as someone who had a very similar experience (shy - lack of confidence - but one who found their people). Other than that there were relationships within the story that made me look back at the ones I have and had and all that I am grateful for.

Also as a coming of age film I feel like it is one of the most realistic ones out there. The themes and the extremely bittersweet ending are raw and it hit me like a pile of bricks. The fact that they fell apart because of the things they loved - the heart of the group not being there made things drift apart - and those dreamers and poets who speak out are the ones to leave behind a deeply flawed system (and the cause and reason and leaving is depicted in extremely sad ways - they might give up on everything - or be kicked out for what they believed in - or carry extreme guilt for the rest of their lives) - There are those who fall in love and the ones that betray you and all of that can happen in just a few month. Things that took years to build like friendships and fellowships can crumble because of something external and all you believed in might not fix that.

(Also something weird just jog my memory if I am wrong but throughout the film these three use O Captain, My Captain - and its all in important moments - The last one to use it is Todd - Which I just think just captures his growth - he's taken up the confidence brought by two of his closest friends and a teacher who changed his life for at least a small fraction in time)

I had a few teachers in my life like Keating. They are the reason I never gave up on writing or doing things I love. They gave me reason to believe that I had something small I could put to use - I had a teacher who taught me at 14 who told me to never give up writing and another teacher who told me to continue writing poetry - another who showed to me that I should continue to fall in love with reading - another who showed me that the world was beyond the academics (as I studied classics - it was far more than that cookie cutter stereotype) - Also Keating as a teacher who actually listens - who is there to guide and help the boxes that literally hold students in uniformity

I don't know why - and how a film from the past can have such an impact on me in the 21st century - Very few films have impacted me in this manner and most of the films that have impacted me in that way were released in my lifetime. That being said I think myself lucky to have this to go back to. The film is a cathartic ritual of living, laughing in the moment and weeping and crying afterwards.

[everythingseasoning]

I’ve been getting asks and praise about my analysis’ and 🥹🥹🥹🥹🥹 !!

that’s all I gotta say, peace (for now)

[banthaboyboba]

[for-the-writing-artist]

Look, I might concede the point that all humans like to see a reflection of their humanity in their non-human counterparts, and that it makes for an interesting storytelling device.

But I'd argue that, in such a saturated environment, you begin to lose reference of what these dynamics were based upon.

I'd further argue that it is a harmful device in the long run.

See, we have dogs as children, robots as friends (or even more humane than humans) and people as ─ at least in the most extreme ─ gross caricatures of themselves.

I don't think it's clever. I think in the worst of films, it is used as a sorry patchwork to hide the writer/director's lack of skills.

You find it easier to attribute human actions to something that isn't even human?

How does that work? How do you decline so far?

I don't even have beef with this. If you have a courier robot that says Made in Britain, and you work some British humour into him, I'd probably be the first to laugh.

I don't think it's funny, or innovative, or smart to use that trope in a soulless fashion to make a propaganda exegesis BS of a plot because of ideological reasons.

Animals are not human.

Machinery, no matter how cute you make them, are not human.

What even is humanity, for you, that makes it impossible for you to write them as a person with moral failings, and goals and views, like everyone else?

If the antagonist of your creation is the antithesis of all that is good, and moral in your world, with no organically human reason for being ─ he's just a sock puppet, or straw man created to justify the Hero's Journey.

And that doesn't make them human, either.

[silkendandelion]

A question for everyone:

If you had a genie wish for ONE piece of lost media—like, a season finale that was never made for your favorite tv show, or a director’s cut of a film that was lost in a house fire, or a storyboard that was canned by a focus group:

What would it be?

Some notable mentions from the group chat to start us off—

- Sam Raimi Spider-Man 4

- Ralph Bakshi’s first concept for Cool World

- Guillermo del Toro’s vision of H.P Lovecraft’s ‘At the Mountain’s of Madness’

- the original super-cut of Event Horizon

[popironrye]

I reblogged this with my last Max post, but I just love this scene so much, I'm gonna make it a post all on it's own! :3

Watching this movie knowing everything that happens and knowing who Max is, is such a trip.

In this scene, Max got this goofy grin on his face when he sees Lucy being caring to a lost little boy. Almost like the grandpa vamp gets puppy crushes (which I totally believe by the way. I think all the vampires get first sight crushes, I mean did you see how David looked at Michael XD). Makes it all the more fitting when his own boys waltz right on in to bug him.

I love the look on David's face in this scene. The boys walk around the counter, pretty much a complete circle around Max, and what's he doing. Too busy focused on Lucy to let them bug him. XD

Then they come around to the front again, and what are they doing? Not looking ahead. All, especially David, are looking Max straight in the face. And the smiling Max immediately turns his attention on them to sorta scold them out of his store. And I can't believe I never noticed this until now. David actually looks at Lucy in this scene.

There's a pause, but he looks right at her. Then he looks back at Max and Max has this serious expression on his face (that honestly tells me despite Max's line this is the FIRST time he's telling them to scram) and he isn't the only one. I thought Dwayne was looking at Paul, but I think he also looks at Lucy, as does Paul and Marko. And when David looks at Lucy again, I swear he's trying not to laugh.

David sees Lucy getting Max's attention, and he almost laughs. XD

Their dad is trying to score, and wants them out of there and they know it. Not to mention Paul's knowing shoulder grab on Dwayne is even funnier knowing Max is after Lucy in this scene and his👌gesture is a sign of understanding to Max. XD And then Max sorta rolls his eyes at the boys antics.

The deleted scene where the boys circle Lucy on their bikes is another scene I love where the boys know Max just wants a date, and they jump in to mess with her. It's gold.

[positively--speculative]

Since I'm thinking about live action reimaginings, I really hope that people don't start doing that annoying thing where the THING is automatically seen as bad by default because they think everyone collectively decided that the THING is bad.

Live action reimaginings CAN be good and if one is bad, it's not because it's a live action reimagining. And, honestly, I'm already seeing the discussion make this awful turn. I already saw this happen when everyone seemed to decide that all women in fiction had to be feminist in order to be considered well-written which led to some god-awful writing for a good while. And a lot of people took well to it because it matched the popular discourse and they were afraid to go against it because they didn't want to appear dumb or whatever.

[snoddie]

Long rant post warning hhhhh

Something I think about a lot lately is how people just- kinda forget not everyone is chronically online.

Like yes we live in an era where the internet and technology is more widely used than ever, but some folks shaming people who watch a certain movie don't really realize that a lot of the time, it's just parents taking their kids to watch some funny cartoons.

Like back in yee old times, not everyone cared about what the actors in plays did behind the curtains, they just wanna watch a show. A lot of us are so obsessed with the internet,doing background checks on everything, having everything we enjoy agree with us that we've kinda forgotten that people are just living their lives and wanna watch a movie to entertain themselves.

By all means it's important to call out bad apples and crappy business practices, and there's nothing inherently wrong with seeking out content that agrees with you and makes you comfortable. But I always find it frustrating when say..people call you a consoomer for watching films or accusing everything and anyone who does of being 'woke'. Sarah isn't watching that new Disney film because she loves oppression or is some 'blue haired feminazi', she's watching it because she works a 9 to 5 job and it's finally the weekend for her and her kids.

Some of my most pleasant memories have been going to a cinema, buying some (admittedly overpriced jfc-) snacks,plopping my butt on a comfy seat and watching a movie I have no knowledge about on the big screen, no one telling me about how problematic it is or how woke and terrible it is. Even if I didn't like the movie I came out having a good time.

I don't really see why consuming entertainment now is some kind of political statement, judge of character or what have you, some people just wanna have fun, and while it's easy to avoid some of the more infamous corpos, it's basically impossible to live in capitalism without partaking in *society*.

To summarize, life is short, not everything you do should be constantly judged and sometimes it's better to look at things from other perspectives rather than assume everyone doesn't know what grass feels like.

[everythingseasoning]

Thank you for sharing your thoughts, and your rationale was impeccable. Can you tell me one thing? Is it strange to pose the same question to several Tumblr bloggers because I am so new? The way some people are behaving makes me believe that it's deemed strange in here. For those who think I'm a weirdo, I'm not; I'm just genuinely interested in other people's viewpoints and the reasons behind their perspective on ambiguous aspects of any piece of media.

Thank goodness I was asking question anonymously otherwise some folks would have bombarded my blog with hate. (I'm not referring to you, respected blogger.).

Once again, thank you for taking the time to answer my question.

Oh thank you!! I try really hard to understand and see characters from a nuanced lens (knowing psych, phil, etc helps), but I’m definitely still learning how to do that! || Anime Analysis Masterlist

As for your question, I personally don’t think it’s weird if people haven’t stated in their rules that they don’t want to engage in discourse, because I 100% love discussing things. TW: mentions of the word rape, referring to this answered ask. However, other people who like Sukuna (not me lol) might get angered by that ask because he’s a character they enjoy, and rape is a serious topic, so they wouldn’t wanna associate him with that. That’s one speculation I have, at least. It just depends on what people want to do in their space on the internet. A number of tumblr writers here don’t like discourse, so I’d just read their rules to see if they want that sort of thing. If they don’t have rules talking about that, I don’t think it’s necessarily wrong to ask, but others might establish boundaries about that sort of thing if they receive your ask. I’m sorry that people are misinterpreting your intentions, it sucks when we’re not being understood. Thanks for stopping by in my inbox! Take care :)

[atoasttotheendoftheworld]

Things we do for love...

Like lots of people, I saw "Avatar: The Way of Water." Now, putting aside my personal opinion of J. Cameron's work (with the exception of Aliens) I had many issues, upon the end of the movie, with the movie itself. Definitely congratulations to the work of all those involved, undoubtedly there was plenty of effort and it certainly has to be acknowledged. However, the plot left me with tedium and bitterness. And, no, it's not about the end.

SPOILER!

What annoyed me most, in terms of the narrative itself, is that the story would (in my opinion) appear to be based on a variety of events that have happened in human history. Like the atrociously unfair actions of the Colonizers against Natives from different parts of the world (specifically I think Natives from the areas of current USA and New Zealand & Australia) as well as the War of Vietnam. A good setting, for sure, to have a narrative in which Humans are represented as Aliens, thus a reversal of the standard "aliens invade earth." Interesting. Except that then, throughout the film, the plot itself is just a slightly different copy of the first film, with the one major difference that the main characters have moved from forest to water and the bad guy isn't physically human anymore but has assumed the appearance of the Na'vi.

However, it all remained centered on the one-on-one fight between Jake Sully and Colonel Miles Quaritch. As in the first film. Only, while in the first film it did make sense and was more than all right for laying the groundwork of the narrative, in this second chapter it is (in my opinion) redundant.

The whole first part of the film has been completely ignored, that gory fire sequence that destroyed Pandora's ecosystem and threatened the lives of the Na'vi. Completely ignored the fact that the United States (yes, because I refuse to consider it a representation of the whole Earth) has established, without any logical connection other than that of the self-centered colonizer, that the Na'vi are the enemy to be put down and destroyed, to invade and subdue in order to steal the whole planet. Fully ignored also that, possibly, "earthlings" might be pushed by a sense of desperation for their own salvation, becoming selfishness of actions. It has been totally dismissed that it doesn't even matter whether Sully is here or not, the Pandora forest and the folk living there will still be in danger of death. It's not Sully that draws the war, it's the U.S. Military that brings it to Pandora; to all of Pandora, regardless of Sully.

Sully alone is uniquely able to understand (besides scientists genuinely interested in Pandora's biodiversity and ecosystem, thus peaceful observers and researchers) the humans' line of reasoning and their potential actions, as he was. He was a U.S. Military. Yet he isn't the reason for war, he isn't the one putting Pandora and its people in danger.

The film's narrative, though, seems to concentrate on that. On the one-on-one confrontation of Sully and Colonel Miles. Ignoring that it's just a battle, but there, someplace in all of Pandora, there is a whole war. War of which we no longer are informed, of which we no longer hear. That Sully himself doesn't appear to comprehend is there. It focused on personal struggle, on family, on a desire to protect it, and that's fine, it may be a metaphor to convey the will to stand up for all the Pandora folk and the peaceful life they live closely with nature and environment.

Nonetheless, I didn't find it well-structured and it annoyed me. For I could have enjoyed three hours of more elaborate metaphors about the triviality of evil and the differences between defensive aggression and dominative violence. Of storytelling about humans as invaders of a planet. Of many other potentially interesting things that, instead, are being ignored in favor of a philosophy about family and sea as metaphors of life and death, of hate and love. Nice, admissibly, yet a bit too mild for a second film.

That's all, I just wanted to say it. As I had this opinion about it and wished to get rid of it, since in daily life I can't engage in dialogue about the movie. (I doubt my cousin will follow it).

Ah…by the way. I firmly reject considering the humans portrayed in the film as a representation of all human beings. At most, they are representations of the U.S. Military system and the U.S. government. I don't see, on Pandora, military/scientific bases of other Nations. So, if I don't see and it's not hinted either with visuals (even hasty ones) or with a few hints in casual dialogues, I cannot assume that all humankind on earth knows what is going on on Pandora and agrees. Neither can I assume that other Nations are cooperating with the US. Therefore, for me, the humans portrayed in the film are U.S. military and that's all. Not the representation of "Earthlings." Although, ultimately, there could be a complex and long conversation about this as well.

[m-jay-gee]

i have a friend that started critiquing inception for not actually having anything to say about anything and how she doesn't like it because its saying nothing deeper.

but also

why cant we just like films for the sake of it

for the cinematography, the acting, the music, the plot, etc.

things dont have to have deeper meaning for you to enjoy it, just enjoy it because it's good