#film essay

[viscountessevie]

Obsessed with the fact that Brokeback Mountain is trending! I might post excerpts of my fave college essay dissecting that film if anyone wants to read that? 👀

It's called Toxic Masculinity & Compulsory Heterosexuality: The Real Villain of Brokeback Moutain

Edit (as of 12th Nov): Part 1 has been posted here!

[attemptsonherlifepdf]

a streetcar named marge: a character study of marge simpson through the lens of tennessee williams

trigger warning for brief but not graphic mentions of assault & abusive behaviour throughout

wacky, absurd comedy ‘the simpsons’ has been airing since 1989 and remains an integral part of the pop culture ecosystem. its self-referential humour and parody structure work in conjunction with one another to effectively satirise the lives of lower-middle class america. set in the town of springfield, that shares its name with approximately thirty other towns across the states, the simpsons strikes the balance between relatable and outright absurd that keeps the show entertaining. the show slots neatly into the cultural zeitgeist of the 1990s and 2000s, and has constructed spoof after spoof of the significant political, social and pop culture moments of each season’s respective time period. most notably, the second episode of the fourth season titled ‘a streetcar named marge’ draws on tennessee williams’ ‘a streetcar named desire’, using the histrionic character of blanche dubois to create commentary on marge’s role in her relationship with her husband, homer. the episode’s main plot follows marge auditioning for and starring as blanche in springfield’s local production of ‘a streetcar named desire’ and depicts parallels between blanche and marge’s romantic lives. homer is likened to stanley kowalski, famously portrayed by marlon brando in the 1951 film adaptation of the play; a brutish, loud ‘uncouth lout’ who dominates both his wife and delicate sister-in-law. the core themes this comparison explores include the notion of animalised masculinity, marge’s passiveness and invisibility, and the idea that the character of blanche is used as a vehicle for marge’s unexpressed feelings regarding her husband.

williams’ descriptions of stanley throughout the play draw on a notion of animal masculinity; stanley is described upon his introduction to the audience as having ‘animal joy his being [which] is implicit in all his movements & attitudes…his heartiness with men, his appreciation of rough humour, his love of good drink and food and games…’ this description paired with blanche’s comment that he is ‘a little bit on the primitive side’ demonstrates the beginnings of a semantic field of animalism, characterising stanley’s masculinity as almost being below humanity, simply base and primal in comparison to his more humanised counterparts such as mitch and steve. we can also see these traits, particularly ‘rough humour…love of good drink and food’ echoed in homer simpson’s characteristic obsessions with food and beer that are consistent throughout the entire shows run so far. similarly, ‘a streetcar named marge’ has lewellyn sinclair, the director of springfield’s ‘a streetcar named desire’ production, aim to depict that ‘blanche…is a delicate flower being trampled by an uncouth lout-’. additionally, lewellyn gives ned flanders (who plays stanley) the direction that he is ‘pulsing with animal lust’, again referencing williams’ construction of animal masculinity that encourages the audience to view stanley’s desire as less than human.

to add to this semantic field that both the original play and simpsons episode share, ‘a streetcar named marge’ recreates the infamous ‘stella!’ scene wherein stanley screams his wife stella’s name from below her balcony in a desperate attempt to win her back after physically assaulting her. the simpsons replaces the original incident of domestic abuse with an example of homer’s weaponised incompetence instead, where he fails to pull the lid off his can of pudding in marge’s absence as she rehearses next door with flanders: ‘[screeches] oh no! …so i can open my own can of pudding, can i? shows what you know, marge.’ he then shouts ‘marge! hey marge!’ in the garden while marge looks on from flanders’ bedroom window, referencing stanley screaming for stella below her balcony. marge comments dryly, ‘keep yelling, you big ape.’ the use of the insult ‘ape’ serves to contribute further to the characterisation of homer / stanley as animalistic and dehumanised. both the simpsons and williams animalise masculinity to demonstrate the danger of it, presenting it as uncontrolled and wild in comparison to the average male. in this moment, the simpsons subverts the narrative of the original play. in williams’ original, stanley’s screams draw stella downstairs to him and they embrace as she ‘forgives’ his abuse. in the simpsons’ version, marge instead responds with contempt for her husband and appears disgusted and unforgiving. in the wider context of the show, marge is largely portrayed as a very passive housewife character, including in this episode. in the opening scene of this episode, the following exchange takes place:

HOMER

and where exactly are you going?

MARGE

i’m auditioning for a play.

HOMER

well, this is the first i’ve heard about it.

MARGE

i’ve told you several times. it’s a musical version of a streetcar na-

HOMER

excuse me, marge! i think if you told me, i would remember. i mean, i’m not an idiot!

MARGE

hm. well, i-i thought i told you. i’m sorry honey.

HOMER

it’s okay. we’re none of us perfect.

the audience is shown marge informing homer of the play multiple times before this exchange, to which he repeatedly and absentmindedly replies ‘sounds interesting.’ despite being in the right, marge timidly apologises to homer and accepts blame she does not deserve. this interaction contrasted with her later contempt for him demonstrates how the role of blanche has encouraged marge to see her husband’s flaws rather than ignoring or tolerating them as she usually does. additionally, marge’s initially failed audition again presents her as passive and defeated by her husband’s lack of support. lewellyn witnesses marge’s phone call to homer and recognises blanche’s delicateness and defeat in her:

MARGE 

(into the phone)

homie, i didn’t get the part. you were right. outside interests are stupid.

LEWELLYN

wait a minute.

MARGE

(into the phone)

[groans] i’ll come home right away. alright, i'll pick up a bucket of fried chicken, extra skin…rolls, chocolate cream parfait-

LEWELLYN

[snatches phone from marge]

stop bothering my blanche!

marge’s admission, ‘you were right. outside interests are stupid’, shows her beaten down by homer’s lack of support for her interests and suggests that she was ‘stupid’ for branching out outside of her duties as a parent and housewife. this echoes blanche’s eventual exhaustion and ‘defeat’ after stanley’s aggressive, dismissive and abusive treatment of her.

marge’s attitude towards abusive behaviour in general is notably submissive: when rehearing the scene where blanche breaks a bottle in order to attack stanley and defend herself, she struggles to get into character and gives a lacklustre performance. lewellyn encourages her, ‘passion, mrs simpsons, this man disgusts you.’ in a later rehearsal a few scenes later, marge argues, ‘i just don’t see why blanche should shove a broken bottle in stanley’s face. couldn’t she just take his abuse with gentle good humour?...i just don’t see what’s so bad about stanley.’ this is a clear reference to her relationship with homer, wherein she has consistently, throughout the show so far, responded to his boorish behaviour with passive disapproval, attempting to make light of the ridiculous or unkind situations that homer creates with his behaviour. lewellyn retorts with ‘stanley is thoughtless, violent and loud. marge, every second you spend with this man…he is crushing your fragile spirit.’ lewellyn’s description of stanley is interposed with homer’s comedic but frustrating attempts to use a vending machine wherein he screams and charges at the machine, and proceeds to honk repeatedly at marge from the car to rush her into leaving. this pushes marge to a breakthrough where she suddenly becomes genuinely angry at ‘stanley’ / homer, directing that fury at her stanley (flanders), who’s face morphs into homer’s:

[car horn honking]

HOMER

marge, move it or lose it!

MARGE

[lunging at flanders]

♪ i'll twist this bottle in your face ♪

LEWELLYN

hallelujah! i’ve done it again!

ned, you’re supposed to overpower her.

FLANDERS

[straining]

i’m trying, im trying!

this scene exemplifies the extent to which marge is usually subdued and quiet, by creating a stark contrast with the outburst she has here. lewlleyn’s reminder that blanche is ‘disgusted’ by stanley is reminiscent of marge’s very real but very repressed disgust at her husband. marge’s demeanour in the episodes leading up to ‘a streetcar named marge’ is largely resigned to homer’s typically thoughtless behaviour. comparing her usual quiet disapproval with her strong reaction to homer in this scene demonstrates the extent to which she usually fits the descriptions of blanche so far in the episode - that of a ‘delicate flower’ with a ‘fragile spirit.’ these comments on blanche’s character oppose those of stanley and paint the two as contradictory. stanley is a brutish ape whilst blanche is the flimsy rag doll in his grip. ‘a streetcar named marge’ relies upon this contrast to illustrate that marge and homer’s relationship is dominated by homer’s careless masculinity which serves to leave marge feeling resigned, defeated and unheard. however, while blanche becomes weaker over the course of the play and becomes less like herself due to stanley’s behaviour towards her, marge also becomes less like her usual self due to homer but becomes stronger and more assertive instead. the character of blanche serves as a vehicle for marge’s repressed resentments and frustrations and facilitates both her and homer’s understanding of their relationship.

homer’s eventual understanding of marge is illustrated by the final scene of the episode; homer congratulates marge on her performance as blanche and explains, ‘it really got to me how…blanche was sad, and how that guy stanley should have been nice to her…the poor thing ends up being hauled to the nuthouse…when all she needed was for that big slob to show her some respect.’ marge’s demeanour shifts and she reacts with ‘...homer, you got it just right.’ homer muses, ‘hey, you know, i’m a lot like that guy…like when i pick my teeth with the mail and stuff.’ the classic structure of a sitcom like the simpsons requires that things are resolved or return to the status quo by the end of each episode, and while marge and homer’s relationship becomes peaceful once again due to homer’s realisation, it is not necessarily returning to its previous state; if it did, their relationship would be strained due to homer’s lack of consideration for marge’s feelings. instead, marge finally feels seen. marge is understood and has asserted herself. as is suggested by the play’s title, ‘a streetcar named desire’ has desire itself as its core and central theme. the audience are shown stanley’s desire for sex and power, blanche’s desire for validation of her beauty, stella’s desire to have stanley’s baby. these desires are what drive the plot of the play and motivate each character to act in ways that push their desires into being realised. similarly, in ‘a streetcar named marge’, the audience are shown homer’s desire for food, drink and so on but more significantly, marge’s inherent desire to be seen. she makes repeated attempts for her family, particularly her husband, to notice her and take an interest in her endeavours which is consistently ignored until the end of the episode. the opening scene exemplifies this:

MARGE

i haven’t been in a play since high school…and i thought it would be a good chance to meet some other adults.

HOMER

(not looking away from the television)

sounds interesting.

MARGE

you know, i spend all day alone with maggie…and sometimes it’s like i don’t even exist.

HOMER

(still looking at the television)

sounds interesting.

marge’s invisibility within her family and within the wider context of springfield is interestingly addressed in raphael bob-waksberg’s fifteen-tweet poem entitled ‘does marge have friends?’ the poem explores marge’s role in the show via the lens of her relations to other people, e.g ‘who are marge’s friends? is helen lovejoy a friend? sarah wiggum? agnes skinner?’ the third stanza questions ‘who tells marge to leave the brute, knowing she won’t? ‘you don’t have to stay. you deserve so much more.’’ the use of ‘brute’ to describe homer is a sentiment that ‘a streetcar named marge’ hones in on, and is a descriptor that we can again see paralleled with the original ‘a streetcar named desire.’ as previously explored, stanley is described as ‘primitive’, a familiar adjective in the context of homer. additionally, bob-waksberg uses a hypothetical voice to tell marge ‘you deserve so much more’ to illustrate that there is no real friend in marge’s life to tell her this themselves. in williams’ original play, blanche’s isolation is also addressed and it is shown to make her an easier victim for stanley’s abuse; eunice reassures stella in the final act ‘she couldn’t stay here; there wasn’t no other place for her to go.’ blanche is alone aside from stella, who has her institutionalised, and this makes her all the more vulnerable as she has nobody to tell her not to accept abuse. this is another way in which ‘a streetcar named marge’ subverts source of its parody; where blanche is abandoned and becomes weak and ‘mad’ from stanley’s abusive behaviour, marge is empowered by the character of blanche and experiences the opposite of abandonment - she is finally seen and acknowledged. 

‘does marge have friends’ also touches on another moment where marge can be likened to blanche in a more roundabout way. as a succinct character study of marge, the poem alludes to her relationship with maude flanders. stanzas six to ten speculate on the nature of their relationship, asking ‘does she [marge] see in her late neighbour a cautionary tale? seldom-remembered, semi-anonymous maude - could this fate too befall marge?’ this is vaguely reminiscent of blanche’s relationship with stella in the sense that marge mourns maude and blanche mourns stella and while their respective reasonings are different, the central theme here is the mourning of a fellow woman for her ‘smallness.’ while marge mourns maude’s invisibility and sees the same in herself, blanche mourns stella for being dominated by stanley, a ‘common…animal’ and mourns stella’s insistence on forgiving his abusive behaviour as she does in the infamous ‘stella!’ scene. blanche says to her ‘you go out with a man like that once, twice, three times when the devil is in you, but to live with and to have a child by? well then i tremble for you…’ to blanche, stella is a cautionary tale of the consequences of accepting abusive behaviour from a ‘rough’ man, and as bob-waksberg puts it, ‘could this fate too befall’ blanche? it can and it does, as she concludes the play having been assaulted by stanley herself. it can be argued that blanche’s mourning of stella matches the way a hypothetical friend would mourn marge’s relationship with homer, worrying about her wellbeing in the face of his carelessness and strong personality. furthermore, bob-waksberg describes a hypothetical scenario between marge and maude that echoes blanche’s encounter with the local paperboy: ‘perhaps, once at a summer barbecue, when both were still alive, maude grabbed marge's hand under the table and held tight. what prompted this sudden connection, this sudden expression of— what was it, warmth? the two weren't close— acquaintances, sure, had they ever even hugged? and yet here they were, holding hands, silently, secretly, while their children shrieked and their husbands grilled the hot dogs.’ this moment depicted in the poem is soft, mundane and warm. in ‘a streetcar named desire’, scene five demonstrates these same themes, wherein blanche says to the paperboy ‘i want to kiss you - just once - softly and sweetly on your mouth.’ the direction then follows, ‘[without waiting for him to accept, she crosses quickly to him and presses her lips to his.]’ this exchange shows blanche seeking the same ‘sudden expression of…warmth’ that bob-waksberg discusses, echoing the same principle that in this interaction, ‘the two weren’t close.’ it must, however, be acknowledged that blanche’s advances on the young paperboy, while seeking warmth, were arguably predatory where marge and maude’s interaction is less romantically charged and more platonic and equal.

the final parallel to be noted between ‘a streetcar named marge’ and ‘does marge have friends?’ lies in the final five stanzas of the poem. bob-waksberg describes marge in her garden on a sleepless night, encountering maude over the fence: ‘maude, pale as a sheet, her eyes wet with tears.’ she goes on to say to marge ‘it’s not the calm before the storm that frightens me, it’s the calm that follows.’ this is evocative of blanche’s rise and fall through the play; the ‘storm’ in question being the assault carried out by stanley and the ‘calm that follows’ being her subdued but also hysterical, dreamlike-state in reaction to the assault that results in her being institutionalised. ‘a streetcar named marge’ depicts this ‘descent into madness’ by having marge / blanche fly around the stage on a harness with flashing lights and a smoke machine in the background, in typical overexaggerated simpsons fashion.

at its core, the simpsons is about dysfunctional american families. homer is both a ridiculous and exaggerated buffoon character but circumstantially lives the life of the average working class / lower middle class american man that stanley kowalski also lives. while homer’s unsupportive behaviour towards marge is often played off humorously throughout the show’s run, ‘a streetcar named marge’ uses the intensity of williams’ play to construct a legitimate criticism of homer’s actions and a commentary on marge’s invisibility, unexpressed resentments and her experiences of marital dysfunction. as the title suggests, ‘desire’ itself is at the core of both williams’ play and the simpsons episode based upon it, and marge’s inherently repressed desire to be seen and appreciated is finally realised via the adoption and subversion of williams’ classic play and its connotations regarding the transfer of power between characters. marge is finally seen by homer, and she no longer has to depend on the kindness of strangers.

[gayiconwaluigi]

Twin Peaks and I Saw The TV Glow are really companion texts. Laura Palmer dies, and with that death, the normal facade of the town is peeled away, while when Maddy disappears, there is no fuss and no grand change. Maddy dies to find her actual world being run by nefarious supernatural beings. Her actual life isn’t banal suburbia. It’s evil. It’s life and death. She tries to peel back the reality of the Midnight Realm for Owen just as Agent Dale Cooper peels back the mysteries and horrors of Twin Peaks, while Owen pleads with her to go to the cops, to engage in the rules of the fake world they live in. Except in Twin Peaks, Coop is a visitor who leaves messages to Diane on his tape recorder, an outsider willing to believe in the supernatural, while Owen is a prisoner who speaks directly to the audience and cannot believe what Maddy has told him. While the whole world of Twin Peaks cracks and falls apart from Laura’s death and Coop’s investigation, revealing the town’s underbelly, Maddy’s death does not free Owen. Instead, the horrors simmer for decades, the facade of normalcy plodding on until the suffocating shell of existence breaks under exhaustion. You are trapped but in what way. And who is there to free you.

[bisexuallylitpod]

I wrote an essay. It s about a movie, and it’s about how the world falls apart. If you’re a millennial traumatized by the financial crisis or if you’re interested in finance, you might like it.

I’m gonna blaze this post bc this is the first thing I’ve published in years that was just me, so I’m hoping people check it out.

[ufonaut]

Hey, gang! I'm over on the Drunk Monkeys literary journal talking about the merits of Elvis Presley's films for their special 2023 Pop Culture issue. Go check it out!

[makinghappy]

The Substance, Crip Time and Loving My Other Self

Sat in the cinema, watching Demi Moore’s back split open and birth Margaret Qually, I felt seen in a way I did not expect, and that I could not identify. It wasn’t that I was living as a feminine person in a society rife with ageism and sexism, not that I had been in and out of the entertainment industry since very young, seeing the perverse expectations of perfection living in every audition room. Not even as someone who often feels like a monster shuffling unseen through the world due to my queerness, although you could easily look at this film through a Trans lens with no issue, especially considering the love us queers have for body horror.

- Evan Gwen Davies, 2024

A queer, chronically ill reflection on the 2024 film The Substance.

[lonelywretchjervistetch]

My DCCU: Character Essay - Mr. Mxyzptlk

So...did you see the last episode of MAWS?

I just wrote an essay discussing this series, and without making you read that (although here it is if you wanna), let's just say I love almost everything about it, but the villains have me...nervous. Which, yeah, not exactly a unique take on the series, critically speaking. It is, in fact, the most common refrain about the series amongst Superman fans.

Now, since then, to be fair, we've gotten some very promising characters make their debut, or becoming more prominent. Task Force X - which includes Amanda Waller, the General (who's gotta be Sam Lane, but may also take some inspiration from Wade Eiling; time'll tell on that one, though), and a very cool super-armored version of Deathstroke - are our main antagonists, and I'm excited to see what comes out of them. Their former associates, power couple Brain and Monseiur Mallah (who are also gay in the comics, if you didn't know) are a more sympathetic turn on the characters, but quite satisfying in this form.

But no, there's only one real reason I'm making this post. And that is of course, the villain featured in the most recent episode, as of me writing this post. He's already up above, so let's just get into it.

Fun fact about me: I love a lot of Superman villains, but of all of them, my absolute favorite is Mr. Mxyzptlk. He's a mischief-making, chaos-loving, harmless and harmful menace from the 5th dimension, who obeys no laws of the dimensions below. The origin of legends, past and present, of genies, leprechauns, fey, and imps that tease men with ill-fated wishes. An all-powerful being disguised as a man dressed in a funny little hat.

Mr. Mxyzptlk is the Robin Goodfellow of Superman's world. He appears to amuse himself, no matter the cost to the Man of Steel's day. Usually, you can send him back via making him say his own name backwards, but that's just one of the rules to Mxy's games. And make no mistake, that's what they are: games. Mr. Mxyzptlk has played on the side of angels and devils, and he really only cares about his own amusement. And his relationship with Superman, varied as it can be, helps to fuel his morality.

I could bring up the character's live-action appearances (which are notable in their own right), but those are mostly afraid to really go for it. The closest to the original character would be Michael J. Pollard's version in Superboy, a mostly forgotten series from the late'80s, and a version that actually wears the comic book outfit. There's also the Supergirl version, which was notable, and played by Peter Gadiot and Thomas Lemmon; and there's the version played by Howie Mandel (yes, really) in Lois and Clark: The Adventures of Superman in the '90s, which is a more evil but passable version of the character. Oh, and the Smallville version? Yeah, absolutely doesn't count. If you want a true adaptation for Mxy, you gotta go animated.

The most iconic adaptation of this character was portrayed by the late, great Gilbert Gottfried in Superman: The Animated Series. Now, I say the most iconic, but that's probably a bit biased on my part. In my opinion, this is the most fun and accurate version we've seen of the character, taking from his original design for inspiration. An annoying imp that appears every three months, his debut episode in the series, Mxyzpixillated, is one of my favorite episodes of the series, and goes balls-to-the-wall wacky, as you should with Mxyzptlk.

The character had only a few more appearances in the series after his first, but Gottfried's performance was so memorable, he was brought back for multiple incarnations, including the video game DC Universe Online, and the more recent animated series Justice League Action, which would be one of Gottfried's last performances, and therefore his last appearance as the character. He'll be sorely missed for a number of reasons, but the voice he gave to the imp is never going to leave me.

Which brings me to the version of the character we see in MAWS. And yeah, this is obviously a VERY different version of the character, appearance-wise. Outside of the orange and purple color scheme and one other exception, this version has no design similarities with any version of Mxyzptlk, and is obviously very anime-inspired, as is the entire series. I mean, for Chrissakes, the title of the episode is a reference to Ouran High School Host Club. They knew what they were doing.

We meet Mxyzptlk in the middle of a heist, and he already shows his power and prowess by tricking Clark immediately. Amongst a bunch of fantastic DCU references, and a lot of multiverse talk, we eventually stumble upon his actual goal: the reclamation of an ancient artifact stolen from him by the League of Lois Lanes. And that artifact is...his hat. THE hat. And lemme tell ya, I was overjoyed to see that stupid little bowler.

Once he gets it, we get a glimpse of true Mxyzptlk power, as he goes full chaos lord on us. He's eventually defeated through trickery with portals, and NOT through the backwards name gambit. And even then, he's not actually defeated, and returns in the end to annoy his new target: Lois Lane. Yeah. He's haunting LOIS, not Clark. And honestly, I'm...very intrigued.

This Mxyzptlk is, honestly, a faithful version of the character, straight-up. Sure, there are elements missing, and the outfit is completely different, but he also sort of looks like you'd expect an imp or genie to look. Like Alan Moore said in Whatever Happened to the Man of Steel?, why should an extradimensional imp look like a little man in a suit and funny little bowler? I think this works, honestly.

I'm also excited to see him in the future of the series, and see what they do with the character as a result. Mxyzptlk is, as I said earlier, one of my favorites, whether he helps or hurts the Man of Tomorrow. And if I had one complaint, it's that I want him to go wackier. Like, CRAZY. Watch his appearances in Superman: The Animated Series if you haven't, and you'll see what I mean. The potential is quite literally unlimited when it comes to the fifth dimension imp.

But if that's the case...what would I do with Mxyzptlk in my DCCU?

Mr. Mxyzptlk in My DCCU

I would do...not much more than Easter eggs at first. Look, I love Mxyzptlk, but having him as a character in a film or film series is extremely tricky. But instead, Mxyzptlk is both a seen and unseen force in my DCCU, hovering around Superman's world without actually interfering in it directly. Not exactly his bag, I know, but it's a good way to get him to work in a film series. Essentially, I'm turning him into a background character in the first and second films, to be noticed by only the most observant. Disguised as other characters, maybe making odd gestures every now and then as if to manipulate things around him. The ultimate Easter egg character, basically. Until, possibly the very end of the second, or even the third film in the franchise.

Fast forward to the second film's post-credit scene.

A poker game is being played, but we're table level. All we see are the hands and the cards, which get increasingly stranger as the game goes on. Three voices are speaking, and we get the immediate idea that these people are watching our heroes. Eventually, a fourth voice juts in, and we also find out that a fifth one of them has been invited, but chose not to attend. Finally, we pan up, and we see...some dude.

This guy, whoever they are, should've been a face we've seen in the first and second films, usually hanging around the Daily Planet, but also around Metropolis. In fact, they should be visible in every conflict or battle seen in the films thus far. As we look at the others, we should see similar figures that've appeared in Batman, Wonder Woman, and Flash films that've come put by this point. All extras, and all watching our heroes. In fact, it'd be great if the Flash-focused person hasn't appeared yet, because the Flash's film releases after this one.

Finally, as we pan back around to the Superman-focused character, who is smoking a cigar, the conversation turns to what's coming. Mxyzptlk is aware of what's coming for Superman, but the rest refer to "the first Crisis". Mxyzptlk sort of brushes it off, even as they're saying things that hint at the first big even film to come in the DCCU. And these should be vague yet intriguing clues to this event. But Mxyzptlk insists that his guy'll be prepared, and that he has a lot of money riding on that outcome. With that, the mysterious figure looks directly at the camera.

Yeah, realizing that we're peering in on the game, he probably berates the nerds in the audience for knowing who he is without it being said (possibly by turning into a more comic-accurate version of himself) , then confirms that he'll be back in the next one, but not as the big threat. Maybe he'll be there to help, maybe not; depends on his mood that day. After a few more snarky remarks, he gives us a look and tells us to buzz off. We may even get a glimpse at the other imps in the room, those being Bat-Mite, Wondermite, and Mopee. And with that, he snaps his fingers, and the film ends officially.

Yeah, I basically pulled an Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania to bring in Mxyzptlk. And, since that scene is one of the best of the film, I don't think that's a problem! In the next film, we know what Mxyzptlk's identity looks like, and he may even give us a wave from the background in his first appearance in the next film. He won't interfere directly, but in the last post-credits scene of this trilogy, he'll finally get caught by Superman. Over time, Superman's had some experience with magic users, probably via Wonder Woman. And magic, in my universe, has a distinctive smell of some kind.

Knowing that Mxyzptlk's been watching him throughout the films, Clark finally confronts him on it, and asks what he wants. And Mxyzptlk actually replies and shows himself, explaining that the battles to come are pretty intense. He won't help or harm, but he just wanted to give a heads-up, mostly because it's fun. With that and a bit more conversation, Mxyzptlk leaves having given this ominous warning.

Does he return? Maybe during a Crisis on Infinite Earths movie, maybe in the Darkseid-based Justice League film to come, who knows? This version of the character is basically a Watcher, maybe throwing in some fun chaos here and there. It's sort of hard to add Mxyzptlk into a film series, because he's not a plotter. He's an all-powerful one-off character who, were he to be introduced as a genuine threat to the films, could just kill Superman immediately. It wouldn't make sense. So, make him neutrally bent, and keep him as a fun Easter egg character.

That take may be disappointing to some, but...like, c'mon, guys, he's a pretty big gun. Having him as the ultimate threat of a film also wouldn't make it very fun, because we don't want to see him get killed, but he also can't really win. It'd just be unsatisfying. I like the idea of making him this greater, scarier presence, while also making all of the imps these all-powerful observant beings that watch over our plane with fascination and/or reverence. And maybe, just maybe, we can squeeze some mischief in there somewhere.

Any other ideas on how you would introduce Mr. Mxyzptlk to a cinematic universe (if you should at all)? Reblog! Comment! I'm extremely curious, frankly. This was one of, like, three ideas I had, but the one I thought worked best.

And if you liked this, check out my other Superman essays here!

[redesertcinema]

JOLTED IMAGES

I've been reading over and over again the book by Pavle Levi Jolted Images and I've been watching the film Blow-Up (1966) thinking about how Antonioni makes us look at images and what he does to activate us as viewers.

The term jolted came from Yugoslavian director Dušan Makavejev who said ''To jolt art, no matter what the outcome. The art is so playful, colorful and human. Like any abandoned human message, which, by being a message, cannot fade, even if no one listens to it. Spoken, so what''.

Also, I liked his experiment with Compressed Cinema which he did in his filmmaking classes and later tried at Harvard University in 1978. with fragments of Ingmar Bergman's films with the idea: is it possible to construct or reconstruct a film that Bergman never made? Inspired by that, I made a video essay with a few compressed clips from Blow-Up.

[tinkabelle24]

I tapped on this film essay out of love for Sam Raimi's Spider-Man; I left with a reinvigorated passion for storytelling. Thank you 🥹❤️

@miss-andromeda @android-cap-007 @happymoonangel

[rickchung]

Nerdstalgic x "The Moment We Got Tired of Wes Anderson".

Wes Anderson is a director with very specific tastes. [...] But as time went on, his symmetrical framing, limited palate, and quirky characters all started to feel part of a formula.

[littlesistersti]

When you did your finals on a Markiplier production

Your local film student had just finished a semester of Critical Study of Film. Yes, I know the name sounds generic. Prof said that on the first day and it will change. We discussed all sorts of things in class like control societies in The Truman Show and the heterotopia in Squid Game, as well as the abject in almost everything since that is prof's specialty. To be fair, I would talk about the abject in every film I watched for hours too.

For our final, my group and I did a presentation and essay on Interactive Films. Of course, I covered A Heist with Markiplier. I want to share with you guys and @markiplier himself (hopefully he sees this) the project. I will update prof's grading later.

Presentation: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1hfAtxTIZuO-HIYOLnrHG7sTMJL0Owp1pcWefw4IjTg4/edit?usp=sharing

Essay: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Ik4zcPX7fw9xbpKH2-n_t75wg2R21HN4CH_mxwkndbw/edit?usp=sharing

Let me know if the link doesn't work.

ps. forgot to mention each of our essays were supposed to be ~ 2.5k words so it will be a long read but it's worth it

[notsocheezy]

V-Day - Got Off to a Bad Start

The other day was my first post-op appointment with my surgeon, and everything seems to be going mostly okay. There are various areas with wounds opening up and bleeding, but that's normal - so there isn't anything exceptionally wrong with my vagina!

I am, however, still in constant low-level pain, which she noticed when I flinched and squirmed during the exam. I've been prescribed tramadol to take the sharp edge off. Which should help me increase my dilator size. That being the last piece of the puzzle that I'm missing, I suppose I'm on my way out of the abyss.

In fact, today I managed the second dilator! It feels very weird.

Still, it's been a little over three weeks since V-Day, and much of that was absolute misery. Which got me thinking about how I didn't get off on the right foot with my former genitalia either. I happen to have released a YouTube video about that very topic (as well as infant circumcision in general) almost a year ago. And why not plug it, right? Hardly two-dozen people have even seen it and I'm spreading myself wide for the Tumblr public anyway.

Without further ado, here's Original Skin (Or: How I Learned to Start Worrying and Hate the Phallus)

[ultraviolentstargirl]

Bones And All 2022, Luca Guadagnino

I knew i was going to love this the cast is perfect and i really love this director. It was very creepy and pretty gory which worked well as it wasn’t a jumpscare horror and had a more coming of age film feel. The types of film where there isn’t an intense plot, personally i like a lot more than action focused films, we felt we knew Maren and Lee very well especially with Maren listening to what she was like as a child. The costume and setting was one of my favourite aspects of this film, it really felt like it was shot in the 80s, something i love about this director the scenery feels so real and raw, the opposite of ‘iphone face’. I really liked the romance it gave a comforting sense of hope within the backdrop of the gore, which there wasn’t too much or too little of. The ending was expected as i had heard things on social media but it still felt gut wrenching and i was emotional, the last lines from Lee are one of my favourite lines in the film, very metaphorical, took away the horror of what was happening and felt like a love confession.

[agirlnamedbone]

"Did I really dream the film before I saw it? The pragmatic answer is that I must have unwittingly caught a glimpse of The Night of the Hunter as a child in the 70s. We didn't have a colour telly until 1981 (for Charles and Diana's wedding, no less), so this black-and-white film, released most unfashionably during the new age of 50s Technicolor, perhaps hit a key part of my subconscious.

I know films can induce deja vu, but is it just an illusion or can we find a narrative familiar because it is so skilfully portrayed, so fundamental to our psyche, and so profoundly scares and comforts us? The Night of the Hunter still haunts me, and to this day I am not sure if I pursued it in the normal way, or if on some deeper, unknown level – like the forces of good and evil it evokes – it has been stalking me all along."

--Peter Kimpton, My Favorite Film: The Night of the Hunter at The Guardian

[al1v3-p03ts-s0ci3ty]

Dead Poets Society: An Essay I Wrote Immediately After I Was Done With The Film Because It Changed My Life.

Letterboxd: https://boxd.it/5gEE0p

Where do I even begin. This movie changed my brain chemistry.

(I wrote this immediately after watching the film and it's taken me a couple hours to write, it's 3am now for reference and I finished this film roughly around 10pm)

MAJOR SPOILERS AHEAD!!! TW. SUICIDE, HOMOPHOBIA, ABUSE

I will be covering the plot, the themes, relationships, and obviously I can't really talk about Dead Poets Society without talking about the ending.

The first half of the film was a cute coming if age story of a group of boys who enjoy literature, poetry and the theatre. It's such a cute watch. They develop crushes, they write, they learn, it captures the school experience. We learn about their friend group, but more specifically the characters Todd, Neil and Knox.

The second half of the movie, or more specifically, the last 30 minutes, had me in tears. Bawling. It's devastating. It's so so much more devastating than I thought it would be having known the ending before watching the film. It's dragged out, making it a lot more realistic than it would've been if the last couple scenes weren't included.The performances are incredible, and the way the characters deal with loss is outstanding.

Overall, this has become one of my favourite films. The story, the acting, the writing and the atmosphere is just amazing. The only other film or piece of media that I can recommend to you if you enjoyed this film is The Perks Of Being A Wallflower. Trust me, you'll see the resemblances.

Their english teacher, Mr. Keating, helps then to develop their writing skills in peculiar ways. Ripping out pages of their poetry books to show them how poetry can't be defined by a single scale, playing sports and walking laps to teach them about how difficult it is to maintain a singular form when it comes to writing. Robin Williams performance was spectacular. His character is incredibly memorable as Mr. Keating.

This movie teaches many things throughout it's run, love, ambition, passion and more specific things too, such as the limits that one can express themselves in a toxic family, the positives that come with having a support group and (in my opinion, the most important one) what life could look like without toxic masculinity and the importance of freedom of self expression. I won't beat around the bush, there are homophobic elements in the film too, especially revolving around not only the relationship between Neil and Todd but also the character or Mr. Keating.

We see multiple relationships within the film, the one between (as stated previously) Neil and Todd, Mr. Keating and his students, Neil and his parents, the principle aka. Mr. Nolan and Mr. Keating's students. All of these relationships are important. I'll write about them in small sections, starting with Neil and Todd and continuing in order.

Neil (Robert Sean Leonard) and Todd (Ethan Hawke). Where do I even begin. Their relationship is so pure and bright, they're so close and they're just so so sweet and kind to eachother. They're roommates throughout the movie and their close friends, and they have so many sweet moments together. My personal favourite scene of them (but also of the entire movie) is when Neil finds Todd sitting alone with a new desk set that's still in its case, he's alone on this sort of arch/tunnel in the dark at night. He tells Neil that it's his birthday and that his parents got him a desk set, in fact, it's the same desk set that they got him the year before. In his attempt to comfort Todd, Neil compliments his desk set, he even compliments how aerodynamic it is before mimicking throwing it off this balcony area. Todd finds this amusing and so he throws it. The flying desk set. It's a really cute scene that they have with eachother and it really shows how close they're becoming throughout their time together. This kind of relationship is so so important in a movie about young men. To show that they can be close with eachother without being picked on or harassed. There are gay hints in their relationship, and for a film that came out in the late 80s I can imagine that they wouldn't want to have a gay main character in their movie. However, for the time it is quite a progressive film. The way their loving and caring relationship contrasts with the relationship that Neil has with his parents is great storytelling on it's own.

Mr. Keating is such an important character. When the students have their first class with him, they're expecting to have a strict teacher, much like the other ones in the film. But they don't. Mr. Keating teaches the boys not only about poetry, but about love and passion and most importantly, self expression. He's such a supportive character. He supports Neil when he wants to persue his passions and become and actor and join the play. He's supportive of the boys' poetry. He supports them all throughout the film, he's a role model, he treats them as equals, he's an adult that these boys trust. That's exactly what they need to thrive as students, a teacher figure that they can trust and that respects them and treats them like equals. You'd be surprised at how rare those kinds of adults are.

Neil and his parents. This relationship can be seen in other places in the movie, as well as with the principle and the students of Mr. Keating's class. They are controlling and they hold Neil back from pursuing his dreams. They want him to become a doctor and go to Harvard, whereas Neil wants to become an actor and perform. They are the season for his suicide. The night he died, Neil's father tells him that he's going to taken out of Welton Academy and sent to military school. A quote from the Neil, "But that's ten more years. Father, that's a lifetime!" His parents are willing to waste their sons life just so that they can sleep at night knowing that he's financially stable even though he's unhappy. A much deeper reason for this could be trailed back to what I mentioned earlier about the importance of self expression. His parents, or more specifically, his father, is holding him back from expressing himself. No wonder why he acts so different in class than he does with his parents. They don't approve of his choice to follow his dreams. This is the decision they force on Neil that will end up killing him.

The ending of the movie really got to me.

Neil's suicide is dragged out painfully throughout the ending. It hurts to watch, not because it's bad, because it's amazing, but because of how realistic they portray the suicide. I was honestly expecting the film to ending of the movie to be quick. Neil's parents would find his body and the credits would roll. I was so so wrong. We hear the screams of Neil's mother after finding her sons corpse on the floor of their home, we hear her cry, scream. It's so horrible to listen to let alone watch. We see the reaction of his friends finding out about his passing. Charlie wakes Todd up to the news, tears rolling down his face. Two straightforward words "Neil's dead." Todd's reaction is one that I don't think I'll ever be able to forget.

Warning for (emetophobia//fear of vomit)

The boys are in the snow, walking, admiring their surroundings. Maybe they're trying to distract themselves. "It's so beautiful." Todd says, before he starts to gag and vomit in the snow. It's horrible to watch. It's so so horrible. (To note, at this point in the movie I'm violently sobbing.) The rest of the boys try their hardest to comfort him, they really do, but that doesn't stop Todd from accusing Neil's dad of killing him. Todd truly believes that had Neil's father not picked him up that night after the play, Neil wouldn't have done it. It's devastating to watch. They were so close and they loved eachother dearly, and now Todd has to deal with that loss. The boys try to calm him down, Todd retaliates by running down the snowy hill, stumbling, falling and making his way to the dock.

Mr. Keating loses his job. He's accused of being at fault for Neil's suicide. Had he not given Neil the idea to stay in the play, Neil wouldn't have been so torn up about having to leave, therefore Neil would still be alive. This is obviously wrong, but it also shows the lengths that the school is willing to go through to explain the sudden death of one of their students. Why investigate the neglectful parents when we can fire the likely gay teacher that we didn't like (because he's likely gay and complicates out entire way of education) and just be done with it and get the press out of our face? I guess it's just easier to blame the only supporting adult in the entire film rather than simply progress as people and change. Some students are being expelled for being "involved" with what happened to Neil, and by "involved" I mean simply being supportive.

The last scene broke my heart, yet, made me feel united with the Dead Poets Society. Their new teacher demands that someone reads the beginning of their poetry book, however, earlier in the movie Mr. Keating tells everyone to rip out the entire first chapter of their book. Mr.Keating walks in on his while on his way to collect his things so that he can leave. It's a cute scene, unspoken phrases between the class and their past teacher. Everyone in the room knows, except for the only other authority figure. As Keating's leaving the class, Todd announces that "They made everybody sign it!" Implying that the kids in his class had something to do with his firing, but they werw made ti and they didn't have a choice. Just when Keating is about to leave and their principle is trying to discipline him, Todd stands on his desk and yells "O Captain! My Captain!" Referencing an earlier scene in the film when Mr. Keating tells the class to either refer to him as "Mr. Keating" or "O Captain! My Captain!" But also the scene where Mr. Keating insists that they all stand on their desks to gain some perspective on what they were reading. It's a cute reference. It made me smile. Some other students follow Todd and stand on their desks too. This is when my smile turned into an ugly sob because I realised that this gesture, as beautiful as it is, isn't enough for Mr. Keating to get his job back, it's not enough to bring Neil back and it's not enough to heal these boys of the pain they suffered from after their closest friend passed away.

Overall. It's an amazing watch. I highly highly recommend this film, but I wouldn't recommend watching it if your in a low place mentally, it's just not a good mix.

Here's a video I recommend watching about this film: