#film essay

[johannestevans]

Raped and Ruined: Themes of Sexual Assault and Reproductive Coercion in Alien (1979)

Exploring underlying anxieties around sexual assault, loss of bodily autonomy, and forced impregnation in Alien (1979) - a film where fear of rape and forced birth is applied to every character, not just female characters oversexualised to titillate the viewer.

A facehugger in Alien (1979). Via IMDb.

From Merriam-Webster:

Rape: unlawful sexual activity and usually sexual intercourse carried out forcibly or under threat of injury against a person’s will or with a person who is beneath a certain age or incapable of valid consent because of mental illness, mental deficiency, intoxication, unconsciousness, or deception

Sexual assault: illegal sexual contact that usually involves force upon a person without consent or is inflicted upon a person who is incapable of giving consent (as because of age or physical or mental incapacity) or who places the assailant (such as a doctor) in a position of trust or authority

After a short preface, in this piece, I’m going to watch through Alien (1979) and do a close reading of the text, exploring and analysing themes of and including:

Rape and Sexual Assault

Reproductive Coercion

Pregnancy and Reproduction

Loss of Bodily and Personal Autonomy

The Body as a Resource — in regards to Labour and as a Worker, but also as a physical trading resource — in a society that desires profit

If any of these might be upsetting for you or you don’t feel as if you can stomach them at the moment, it might be a good idea to bookmark this piece and come back to it at another time.

This piece is going to go through the film Alien (1979) and talk in-depth about particular scenes in chronological order, with quotes from the script and screencaps throughout, so there will be spoilers for the whole of the film.

Read in full here!

[racsow]

Here lies my full thoughts on the Electric State movie adaptation released earlier this month. I knew it was going to be bad, but this is almost impressively so.

Mild spoilers for both the book and the movie, though the book isn't overly plot reliant and the movie is eminently predictable within five minutes of watching

Let me begin by saying the fucking up of the film's source material is a feat not easily accomplished. Simon Stålenhag is a brilliant artist and writer. His illustrated novels are at once sinister and sentimental. They deal with childhood wonder and the broken promises of the real world; with humanity as society and individual. They are about love and loss and the blurring of those lines in retrospect. All this is depicted in some of the most gorgeous, haunting art I have ever seen. He has written five books. I recommend them all.

The Electric State book is his third work, and to me, his most compelling. That stands for both the art and the actual prose. While Stålenhag's visual pieces are undoubtedly what he is most known for, I've found myself enjoying his written word more and more, even in translated English. The book speaks to abandonment, to the disenfranchised, to the consequences of unchecked consumerism and mindless entertainment.

Speak of the devil...

It would almost be funny (if it weren’t so depressing) that Netflix took such a story and ground it into the Marvel-blockbuster mold, eviscerated any remaining shred of ethos or emotion, and drowned it in Hollywood prestige. Electric State, the movie, is a 320 million dollar shit taken directly on its source material, and I mean that in multiple ways.

PLOT

The first and most egregious transgression was the butchery of the story. The two iterations are related only in the most basic terms; Michelle, a young orphan, goes on a journey to find her long lost brother. Stålenhag's themes of childhood disillusionment, the cataclysmic effects of rampant consumerism, of a society that turns to mindless stimulation instead of dealing with their problems, and the world that attitude creates? Gone.

I struggle to comprehend the boneheadedness of whoever rewrote the plot for the movie. I understand that if you’re trying to make a movie as widely comprehensible as possible, the mysterious worldbuilding of Stalenhag is not compatible (perhaps something we should have thought of before, hmm?). He explains very little about the state of the world, except for how it affects our characters.

But there is concrete worldbuilding if you can infer it. I can only conclude that the writers simply didn’t. Instead, they gutted the entire plot in favor of a bland Robot Revolution Blade Runner schtick that has been done to death and back. And don't even ask if they did a compelling twist on it... because you know they didn't.

The plot details are so catastrophically assbackwards that my gorge becomes bouyant thinking about them. They are also so plentiful I would never finish this post. Instead, I am going over the central aspects of Stålenhag's work that Netflix fucked over.

WHITEWASHING THE MILITARY

In the film, Michelle is an orphan because her family died in a car accident. This is actively sanitizing her origin in the books, removing not only complexity but also Stålenhag’s criticism of the military industrial complex. In the book, Michelle's mother was in the US Air Force, and served as a neurocaster pilot during a global war where the technology was first used. As a side effect of the experimental tech, she (and hundreds of other pilots) developed an addiction to a chemical called neurine. The army fired her without compensation or help for the affliction they gave her, and she eventually died of an overdose, leaving Michelle and her brother orphans. They stayed with their grandfather until he, too, died of chemical exposure from his job assembling war drones, at which point the siblings were forcibly split up by CPS, and Michelle was sent far away to be fostered, while her brother was kidnapped and experimented on by the government. I struggle to conceive of what the purpose of removing this backstory could possibly be, apart from relieving the story of its commentary in order to be more digestible. Because that's what art should aspire to be, after all.

WHITEWASHING CONSUMERISM

The dystopia we see in Stålenhag’s book is not a typical nuclear wasteland. It is generally still as functional as it ever was. It is simply that consumerism has progressed faster than in our world. People have checked out with neural headsets that drown their brain in formless pleasure while the world slowly decays around them. Cities are silent. Gargantuan corporate machines lie in ruins. There is no “Robot Revolution,” no “Electric State” as they claimed in the movie. The war was one fought by world powers that left their countries devastated, and capitalism swallowed up the remains.

The neurocaster headsets were kept in the film, but became a cheap “phone bad” metaphor, again scrapping a far more interesting concept. In the book, it becomes something else; something far stranger and more silent. The eeriness of the apocalypse Michelle travels through is that it’s full of people. They’re just not doing anything. Humankind has checked out, sending their minds to be entertained in gigantic server farms in the Rockies. And slowly, a hivemind emerges from this neural coitus occurring on a planetary scale; a kind of ur-sapience that is entirely beyond human minds...yet fundamentally human. Hordes of people move silently through the dark, their headsets connected to strange new machine gods in the night. The people are notably smiling, at peace. Perhaps it’s better this way is a thought that comes to mind, after going with Michelle through the cruelty of the world before.

WHITEWASHING QUEER RELATIONSHIPS

One of the rare few things I see people enjoying about this movie is the implied relationship between Chris Pratt and his male robot companion. And I am all for more representation! If representation was the goal, however, what's baffling is that they entirely removed a far more integral queer relationship: that being of the protagonist, Michelle!

In the book, a large portion of Michelle's reflections goes to her first romantic partner: another girl named Amanda met in foster care. Amanda and Michelle's connection is one of the few moments Michelle remembers feeling safe and happy after her family was torn away from her. She has a few months where life seems tolerable. They are each other's refuge against the world. And then Amanda breaks up with her, after it is implied she was forced to undergo conversion therapy by her father, an abusive priest. This is the moment that made Michelle who she is in the present day, a huge turning point for her character, and it's just... erased in the film. Interesting that they removed a clear, central, complex queer relationship to replace it with a barely mentioned implication between secondary characters. This is a deliberate and fucking cowardly change. They straightwashed the protagonist, removing core events and character aspects so that bigots in the audience won't be challenged.

DEFENSE & FINAL THOUGHTS

There is sparing defense of this movie; most equate to “it’s not great, but it’s just fun! Can’t a movie just be fun?” And I say, absolutely. Simple fun is not a sin. Entertainment is not a sin. If this were the latest Marvel movie, I would not be writing this.

I am pissed because Netflix specifically adapted a work whose entire message is the dangers of mindless entertainment; of formless pleasure, and absolutely especially mindless entertainment peddled by powerful corporations!! It is about the lethal flaws and base cruelties of humanity; blind greed and misery; and fighting for love in the face of it all. The movie ignores all of that; assassinates the characters and completely bastardizes the story and themes. It at best utterly stupid, and at worst malicious.

I hold no delusion that the Russo brothers actually cared about being true to the vision of the artist. They fundamentally did not understand the book, and admitted as much themselves! This is a direct quote: "We just looked at the images, and the story that he unfolds in the graphic novel. It is very opaque. It’s kind of hard to understand it. You get it in glimpses." Dear lord, its almost as if... as if... It's being subtle with its storytelling! God almighty, make it stop! The board is going into conniptions!

There’s also the fact they used AI for voice acting work, or that they've stated that generative AI is "inevitable" in creative industries, or that they neglected to even mention Stålenhag in trailers until public backlash. Simply put, Netflix and the Russo brothers don't give a shit about respecting, elevating or adapting art. They don't give a shit about creating something that makes the heart resonate or breaks the brain out of its mold. They don't care about voyaging into the burning core of the soul, about evoking things too difficult or powerful to describe outright. They aren’t interested in saying anything at all.

What is even the point of all this? There's a simple answer. It’s in the promotional articles surrounding the release of the film (the ones before it came out). They vary, but there’s one fact you cannot avoid:

The Electric State is one of the most expensive movies ever made. It is the most expensive Netflix movie ever made. That is what headlines latch onto, because there is nothing else this movie can flaunt to justify its existence. Three hundred and twenty million goddamn dollars.

There is a world where money equals passion. A world where it equals skill, pathos, and most of all, where it equals good art. It is a world inhabited solely by streaming service CEOs and Disney execs, and is therefore to be avoided like an outhouse with a wasp hive down the hole.

The Electric State is a wonderful book. It is resonant, it is beautiful, it is dreadful and melancholic. It speaks to the dark, heavy seabed of the soul. It drips with fog and fear, whispers about monsters of our own making and sends you spiralling into the dark with only the dimming ember of love to tell you where or what you are. It is a haunting dirge for humanity.

The Electric State is a repugnant movie. The blind idiot forces of greed which Stålenhag decried have stripped his story bare, ran it through algorithmic filters and focus testing until what is left is a pallid mass-market blockbuster wearing the flayed skin of an artist's passionate work. It is notable only in that it is symbolic of the "art industry," (a phrase I find near antithetical), one where stories are marketed on their prestige, their price tag, where content is dully manufactured according to standard, packaged and shipped out to be half-watched at two times speed. Because this is not about art, about stories, about people. For them, it never was.

[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!

[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.

[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.

[azulejai]

Ainda Estou Aqui (2024)

Ainda Estou Aqui, filme baseado no livro homônimo — e na vida — de Marcelo Rubens Paiva — e sua família —, narra como a vida de uma mulher comum muda drasticamente após o desaparecimento de seu marido, capturado pelo regime militar brasileiro.

Assim como no filme, os eventos descritos no mesmo aconteceram de forma inesperada — mas não totalmente. Há aquele pensamento de despreocupação pessoal de que, sim, poderia estar acontecendo com alguém — e, sim, repreendemos todas estas ações e queremos liberdade —, mas jamais aconteceria com algum de nós. Até que acontece.

“ONDE ESTÁ RUBENS?”. Esta é uma pergunta que Eunice, personagem de Fernanda Torres, tenta descobrir ao mesmo tempo que tenta manter seu seio familiar estável. De uma hora pra outra, as risadas, mergulhos, danças e birras de uma grande família comum, viram de cabeça pra baixo e são feitas de refém pelas algemas da repressão militar.

Em momentos — se não todos — a crueldade dos agentes dos quartéis do DOPS era exposta, assim como, seus malabarismos para ofuscar informações da sociedade também eram constantemente contrariados pela imprensa livre. Os terroristas, que acumulavam pilhas de nomes, ditos pelo DOPS, não passavam de uma montagem de um Estado de Segurança Nacional no qual o terror era uma das formas de dominação política.

Esta foi uma história real.

[roenters]

Wrote an essay for Meet Joe Black as my review cause it was a very very good film. I'll link it on letterbox too but he's it in full. If you haven't watched it don't read it cause this has SPOILERS

I think this film is slow to get going but the small details at the start are taken through right to the end and so I can make allowances for it, although personally the voice in Bill's head didn't grab me until it started ramping up due to it being a bit same-y to begin with. However, splicing it in with the section in the coffee shop makes the beginning of the film much more enjoyable. That section allowed for the man we originally meet to be built up and for us to understand him and sympathise with him more. He is a young man that's starting a new life, a fresh one - much like Death himself (and that could possibly even be an indicator as to why Death chose to commandeer his body for the short term) and is a lovely human being, you can understand why Susan liked him. I think the fact they allowed them to get to know each other was necessary in order to make the eventual ending to have more meaning and allow for his death in the first place. Tension was built exquisitely to the point where it was painful when they were looking back at each other continuously at just the wrong times and to end it with him getting hit by a car truly is spectacular, although him bouncing around during that death scene was rather amusing.

Moving on to Death's appearance, I like how the light in the windows made the encounter much more ethereal and supernatural as opposed to just a young boy in a suit turning up at the door, the setting gave it much more meaning. The mix of assertion and hesitation around who he was was also interesting and it was quite nice to see that Death did have all the cards from the get-go despite being new to the human experience. His development throughout the film is very interesting, showing his expertise and intelligence through his word choice and calmly-spoken manner when discussing things he understands such as the afterlife juxtaposed with his lack of knowledge in human nature and customs, hence the brilliant necessity for Bill. He's characterised in a way where it is obvious and natural to the viewer that he is not of our realm of existence, and yet can connect with us through simple things like a favourite food and developing relationships. It was nice to see as well how he went from copying Bill and those around him as he was more unsure at the beginning to Bill copying him and going with his lead in the end when getting back at Drew, showing his new understanding of the human identity. The clarity of where he picked things up from is also important and made expertly accessible to the viewer i.e. Death picking up the phrase 'death and taxes' from Drew, just to use it against him with his little stint as an IRS worker. This is also mirrored when Bill throws Death's words back at him to describe love, showing he himself has learnt things from Death to on this journey and like Death is experienced in the afterlife, he is experienced in what it means to be human and what it means to love. You can also see Death's clear misunderstanding of the subject whenever he loses his calm nature when discussing it, showing his lack of understanding in certain areas and his head-sure sense of self impeding all logic, reason and advice from others.

I like how the interaction in the coffee shop is taken right through to the end, ending up as an indicator to who is inhabiting the body and allowing Susan to understand what has gone on despite never actually being told. In my opinion, she knew. I also like the direct allusion from Death when he says goodbye to her that it will be okay, obviously foreshadowing his returning of the body. It's nice to see despite originally intending to be a holiday and not knowing what to expect, Death developed a lot of empathy and wanted to leave Susan in good stead, understanding what the loss of both her father and partner would do to her.

I also think it was quite good that they kept with them going to the afterlife in the end. Of course, there were multiple allusions to them potentially throwing away the deal all together and the audience was able to hold onto hope that the experience would make Death rethink his decision, but I think the fact that they kept with it helps with the overall theme of the finality of it all and being happy with the mark you have made on the world - be it with your family, friends or your work. Additionally, the open-ended nature of Death is very good in my opinion. He never truly discloses who he is to anyone, not even Bill as he of course tells him he wouldn't be able to fathom the true extent of his existence. It definitely helps to mirror societal beliefs today and keep the subject up for debate, showing three deaths in the film - the car crash that is what one might think of a death to look like but was in fact, not fatal; the older lady's death that was a mercy to take away her pain and showed the wise nature of those older than us (also showing different culture's views on death and it was even better that they did not dispute these beliefs - they are each as valid as any other in Death's book) and of course Death's own passing to the other side with Bill in the end - a death we do not see but is what one may imagine, a peaceful walk into oblivion with hints from Death at a better place in the hereafter.

On a similar note, I really value portrayals of Death where they try and get on a similar level to those they are taking to the other side, It shows an understanding of how terrifying the experience must be and a compassion for the work and their duty. I think using the older lady was an excellent way to execute it here. First of all, of course, the accent. Allowing himself to speak in her accent back to her to make her more comfortable was excellent and the way it happened so naturally was a brilliant way to show how caring Death truly is. As well as this, his hesitance to end her life the first time round presents his own value in human life and that he doesn't want to end it before its time. However, most of all, I believe the fact the exchange benefitted both parties was what made it so impactful. The fact that he saw her pain and that she had reached the point in her life where she didn't need any more and so granted her that wish was beautiful. And that she could teach him that life has ups and downs and that he should treasure that he had a good experience in the short time he was on the planet was a heartwarming (tear-jerking) watch. It allowed for the clear switch in his mindset - all the while still having some bumps in the road before it was resolved - and for him to treasure even more what he had found.

Sound and light was obviously used quite effectively here too, and that's to say there is often a lack of it. I think the quietness surrounding the characters in many scenes allows for them to be more impactful, emphasizing the emotions on screen by allowing you as the viewer to feel them alongside. I think the silence also was able to highlight both Death's lack of understanding, imposing nature and air of calm around him, contrasted with the loud, fast-paced music when we get to scenes like the party that hold a lot of emotional tension.

In my opinion, the length of the film was warranted because otherwise you would not have had the full experience of watching the last few days of a man's life. Seeing what he treasured most and allowing it all to be wrapped up was touching and gave the film much more impact and time to develop characters and the many plot lines it contains. All in all, it was a very good watch indeed.

[thecinechewpapers]

// WONG KAR-WAI

He does not direct time. He seduces it.

Wong Kar-Wai doesn’t make films. He writes letters the camera never sends.

His work is postcards from a heartbeat you forgot to return.

Each frame arrives late, smudged with perfume, wrapped in plastic rain, and held together with longing.

He is the poet laureate of delay.

The minister of missed chances.

The architect of smoky hallways, half-turned glances, and monologues that hum under your skin.

When others tried to conquer cinema, he made it ache.

When others chased plot, he chased rhythm.

His stories don’t move forward—they drift, loop, pause, like dancers who never touch but still sweat.

ONE FILM TO CHEW:

In the Mood for Love (2000)

It’s not just a love story—it’s a séance.

Silences stretch like wet silk. Rain is a character. A noodle is a ritual. The wall is a wound.

Watch it late. Watch it alone. Watch it again, just to miss what you didn’t miss the first time.

[ FLAVOR INDEX ]

TASTE: Black tea, lipstick, unspoken apologies

TEXTURE: Damp velvet, cigarette burn, memory foam

SOUND: A whisper through wallpaper. Nat King Cole from another room.

COLOR: Plum red, gold dust, static green

AFTERTASTE: Time lost. Time looped. Time dressed in silk and never looking back.

CINÈCHEW

// WRAPPED IN PLUM SILK & STATIC BY THE INVISIBLE LOLLIPOP CO.

[rickchung]

Patrick Tomasso x "How Did They Film Presence Like That?"

Shot entirely [by Steven Soderbergh] on the Sony a9 III mirrorless camera, this psychological horror movie puts you in the POV of a ghost, silently observing a family in their new home -and discovering they’re not alone.

[cloysauce]

Harbin: A silent tempest underneath the snow

Beneath its sweeping landscapes and stirring orchestral score, Harbin tells a surprisingly straightforward story. The Korean Independence Army is on a mission to eliminate an oppressor at any cost, even their own lives.

(spoilers herein)

The narrative unfolds with a matter-of-fact tone: it opens with a man crossing a frozen river, then cuts to a tense debate among independence fighters in a safehouse. Their leader had made a controversial decision, sparing enemy soldiers in accordance with international law—a choice that would soon cost comrades their lives.

This leader soon arrives, burdened by a personal vow to kill the “old wolf.” In a stark gesture, he cuts a piece of his finger to seal the promise. These moments are presented without embellishment: no lingering shots, no dramatic zoom-ins, no sentimentality. Just raw, restrained storytelling.

The battle scenes are similarly stripped of heroism. Ahn Jung-geun’s crossing of the Tumen River is filmed from a distance, emphasizing his insignificance against the vast, indifferent landscape. The film’s visual language is quiet and contemplative: wide scenic shots replace close-ups, and dialogue often gives way to music performed by one of the world’s best orchestras to heighten tension.

Watching it on television for the first time, I couldn't be fully immersed. What surprised me most was the film’s brisk pace when several have dismissed it for its slowness and dullness. The journey from desert heat back to icy terrain felt almost too quick. I found myself wishing it were longer, though I suspect the runtime was tailored for the broader audiences.

Hyun Bin’s understated performance

Hyun Bin with Lee Dong-wook (top) and Yoo Jae-myung (bottom)

Hyun Bin likely won’t win acting awards for this role, because of the nature of this movie, which refuses to be sentimental, which refuses to be passionate, which refuses to be emotive. He portrays a man more known as dead than alive. Also, despite being a top-biller, Harbin is hardly the story of Ahn Jung-geun, any more than it is about a collective of fighters, ordinary people thrust into extraordinary circumstances. One common critique I’ve seen online is that the characters all look alike. But I feel this is intentional to emphasize their shared humanity and anonymity. Everyone is cold, shrouded in darkness and melancholy, hunched over in deep thought, gnawed by survivor's guilt, fear, and grief.

Ahn Jung-geun doesn’t adopt his iconic short haircut until later in the film, as he marches toward martyrdom in heavy breaths. The film doesn’t highlight his intellect or charisma. Instead, it presents him as a shell-shocked man with a resolve hardened by suffering and loss. There are no grandstanding speeches, no memorable punchlines, no star moments. Even the assassination scene is subdued, captured by a drone shot—a choice the director made for a surprisingly sentimental reason, despite the film’s overall dryness and sobriety. The final monologue, for all its fiery intent, was spoken into the void, creating a fourth wall effect as if hoping to be heard throughout the echoes of time. This has proven to be effective as one of the audience-favorite scenes.

Hyun Bin and Director Woo Min-ho

A risk worth taking?

Harbin defies the conventions of historical epics. There are no bombastic expositions or melodramatic flourishes. This is a film that vehemently refuses to flatter. I found myself instinctively searching for that boom moment. But this isn’t a film about heroes born and trained to fight, rather a ragged group of people who had to learn it by tooth and nail. It’s a movie styled more as an indie than a blockbuster which puts it in a funny spot as a 30-billion-won movie. Harbin is a somber movie that had to be promoted loudly for box-office takings even though the material seems inappropriate for such flashiness.

Jo Woo-jin steals the scene for his harrowing performance as Kim Sang-hyeon

While I wish it had shown more to advance its message, Harbin takes bold artistic risks, showcasing what the industry can achieve beyond formulaic storytelling, especially poignant given the timing of its release during Korea’s cinematic crisis and its current historical era.

For Hyun Bin’s filmography, it’s a milestone if just for the sheer mettle and commitment to play a man to whom memorials and monuments are built. He devoted himself fully to portraying a man who had become more symbol than human. He surrendered his star power to serve the director’s vision, becoming a vessel to show the beating heart of a man in a losing fight but relentless in hopes of a better tomorrow.

Second time’s the charm

I watched the movie again on Netflix Korea (yay VPN), and it resonated even more deeply the second time, now I'm not worked up on "What's gonna happen? What's next?" Understanding the narrative direction helped me catch some subtleties I missed before. I also noticed how the musical themes wove suspense throughout the film and paid more attention on the shot compositions, the interplay of light and shadows, unfortunately still constrained in a smaller screen. Oddly enough, watching it on a phone in the dark felt more immersive than on a mid-sized TV.

So much of Harbin lies in what’s unsaid, in the spaces between lines. Its brevity makes it hard to grasp the director’s intent on a first viewing. But by spending a couple more hours in its world through a rewatch, I could endeavor to catch a whiff of the power whispered within the film.

[fushsiaelectrica]

Why The Brain that Wouldn't Die (1962) Is secretly a feminist film

I don’t think The Brain That Wouldn’t Die was intentionally meant to have a feminist message. It was meant to be just another B movie written in an era with many serious biases against women. But it’s the character arch of the titular Brain, Jan. (Or Jan in the Pan as she’s more commonly known.) As well as some well-placed story elements and character choices that give this film a distinct feminist feel. Allowing us to interpret it as such all these decades later.  

For starters, I think the entire concept of a woman's brain alone living on without a body subtly represented how little women were valued for anything outside of their bodies in the 20th century. They were either sex objects or baby-makers. Not only is it stressed over and over how much of monster she is now that she’s just a head.  

“Like all quantities horror has its ultimate, and I am that.” The Brain that wouldn’t die (1962) 

But when her doctor fiancee goes to find her a new body. We see how he lures over the forms of still-living woman like he's shopping for a new car. An example of the male gaze taken to the highest possible extreme. Most of his would-be victims consist of showgirls, beauty pageant contestants, and models.  

He doesn’t care who these women are, and he doesn’t really want Jan back.

He just wants to frankenstein together his version of the “perfect woman”. A quiet, domestic housewife’s brain with a seductress's body.  

But the woman who wanted nothing more than to be his wife is gone. She didn’t die in the crash. She died when she realized she was completely trapped by a man who she thought loved her. (Which eventually might have happened either way) 

Jan is being kept alive against her will. She is horrified with what he’s turned her into and possibly in an insane amount of pain. She wants to die, then repeats it over and over, but her plea falls on deaf ears. He’s a controlling monster who has ignored her will in favor of his own. Once she realizes this there’s a shift in her personality. She goes from terrified and pleading to enraged and vengeful! 

“He had no right to bring me back to this.” The Brain that wouldn’t die (1962) 

She has nobody. So she uses the only thing she has left to fight back, her mind. Her true source of power, quite literally at this point. There’s some kind of creature that’s been locked in the basement with her. An amalgamation of the doctor’s mad experiences with flesh and tissue. Think Reanimator 2 meets Frankenstein. Being hooked up to the same rejuvenation formula has given her a psychic link to the mindless creature allowing her to control it. 

She bides her time with the creature while also trying to manipulate the doctor’s assistant. Trying to get him to turn on the doctor and see him for the monster he is. 

“Him keeping me alive has given me a power he didn’t count on.”  The Brain that wouldn’t die (1962) 

But what I believe truly makes this a feminist piece is how the women always save each other. 

The first woman the doctor goes after is a stripper at a nightclub. She was eager to go with him until a second stripper got between them trying to steal him away. This might have been an act of catty pettiness on the surface. They even end up in a cliche catfight but the woman unknowingly saved her coworker from a murderer.  

His second one is an old former intern. It’s as inappropriate as it sounds. She’s about to drive off with him when another friend of hers walks by and asks to come with her. Another potential witness, putting a kink in his plans and she didn’t even know it.   

His final victim is, perhaps, the most tragic. Doris is an art model whose body is supposedly perfect. But half her face is badly scarred from some horrible assault. She says she hates all men because of it. It’s only when he offers to fix her scar for free that she goes with him. Granted her turnaround time still feels a bit rushed.  

But imagine how much it must have taken for her to learn to trust again. Only for him to drug her. The amount of trauma she must have had to deal with afterward is unimaginable.  

Anyway, it’s when Doris is on the operating table that Jan finally makes her move with the creature! She commands it not only to attack the doctor, but save his would-be victim! The lab catches on fire and she commands it to carry her far away to safety. 

She doesn’t see her as some seductive rival or some sexual deviant getting what’s coming to her like they usually play it in these kinds of films. She sees her as another one of his victims. It might be too late for Jan, but Doris she can save! 

None of the women are shown as deserving of this terrible fate for their promiscuity. 

All the women, no matter who they are and even if they don’t realize it, work together to protect each other. A telling example of how vital it is for women to stick together in a world full of potentially deceptive, dangerous, and controlling men. 

In short, this is a movie about a woman held prisoner by a man. Who uses her mind to take back her power and save another woman from being murdered by her captor. 

They might not have meant it to be. But to me, that’s a pretty solid feminist empowerment flick. Who knows, maybe it was just a happy little accident, or maybe the writers really were aware of what they were doing. It free on a ton of platforms so give it a watch and see what you think for yourself!  

@rhetthammersmith

[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.

[charlesfstewart]

Ranking the Original Cast Star Trek Films

Image courtesy of Wikipedia

Last Thanksgiving, I nearly got into a physical altercation with my father in a wal-mart in rural Virginia. Now you may wonder what would cause my father and I to come to blows, and I will tell you, he got an attitude about Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. He had some crackpot opinion about how “it sucked” and it should not be included in the National Film Registry. 

While I was a very determined Star Wars fan, I got sucked into the world of Trek in high school after JJ Abrams made his first Star Trek film. I had never actually seen all of the original cast films, and so after rewatching Wrath of Khan, and returning to my home, I set out to go where many have gone before, and recap the six films the “Original Series” cast made…

Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979, Robert Wise)

Image courtesy of Memory Alpha

When I first saw that Alan Dean Foster, legendary science-fiction and fantasy author, developed the story for this, I kinda got excited. I had read and heard that this was a “slow” movie, more 2001 than Star Wars. However, to paraphrase ReviewoftheWeek, my disappointment was immeasurable and my day was certainly ruined.

You can go read the wikipedia entry and read the plot summary, I’m not here to do that. What really bothers me about this film, is that ostensibly, it’s a Star Trek movie right, the Enterprise should be moving and grooving, right? NO! The audience spends a good 30 minutes waiting for the ship to leave the spacedock and for the movie to start - and then you have another 100 minutes to go!

Watching this film now is wild, because one of the main characters, Willard Decker, is played by none other than noted sex creep Stephen Collins! While no one is at fault for casting this guy in 1977, there’s just this awful pall cast over the film by having Collins in it.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982, Nicholas Meyer)

Image courtesy of Keith Pille

This is the only film that I had seen in its entirety before embarking on this series, and on rewatch, it ages like a fine wine. There are times where production and scheduling issues actually make a film better - this is a great example. Ricardo Montalbán, who returns to play Khan Noonien Singh, was tied to filming Fantasy Island during the day, which required the production to shoot his scenes during his free time. As a consequence of this, Kirk and Khan never meet face-to-face, only enhancing the dramatic tension between both characters.

Despite its age, the special effects do hold up, especially with the Ceti Eels and the ship exteriors, especially when Khan and Kirk finally face off as commanders. It’s really a satisfying watch, even if you’re unfamiliar with the world of Trek.

Star Trek III: The Search for Spock (1984, Leonard Nimoy)

Image courtesy of The Guardian

The Search for Spock is the first Trek film to be directed by a cast member - since in the story, Spock is sort of occupied (spoiler - being dead), it freed up time behind the camera for Nimoy. What starts to happen here though, is a move away from the cinematic elements of the silver screen, and these films start to feel more like extended episodes of The Original Series.

In my Letterboxd review, I even mention how even Christopher Lloyd can’t save the film, they’re just stretching out the script for this. The concept of the story almost seems mandatory after the end of the previous film - unfortunately back then, you couldn’t just go “somehow, Palpatine returned,” you had to actually come up with a story reason for why a character returns from the dead, especially after what Spock does at the end of Wrath of Khan.

I feel like early fan backlash to Spock’s death forced Paramount and the Trek crew to figure out how to bring Spock back, and have it do justice. Huh. Interesting. Didn’t know you had to do that.

Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (1986, Leonard Nimoy)

Image courtesy of Alternate Ending

Everyone else calls this film “The One With The Whales,” which is pretty accurate. The whales are kind of critical to the plot, however it’s become a punchline since its release. Again, I repeat my concerns about how this film again feels like an extended TV episode. The comedy beats of “Starfleet-Crew-in-20th-Century-earth” feel tired after watching the Deep Space Nine episode like “Little Green Men” (s4e8) where the Ferengi Quark and Nog are transported to 20th-century Earth, and the dramatic elements aren’t there like in the Deep Space Nine episodes “Past Tense (Part 1 & 2)” (s3e11-12) where Captain Ben Sisko and Dr. Bashir accidentally kick off an important moment in history. 

While it’s the most successful Original series film at the box office (making $133 million worldwide on a $21 million budget is pretty impressive), it really leaves a lot to be desired.

Star Trek V: The Final Frontier (1989, William Shatner)

Man this sucks. Image courtesy of CBR

The most pompous, arrogant, self-important, sanctimonious thing I’ve seen. Oh, Spock has a half-brother? Ok, somewhat interesting. Oh, he knows about this mysterious entity at the center of the universe? Yeah, it doesn't seem half-baked at all. 

Spoilers for a 36-year old movie, but Spock’s brother Sybock takes the Enterprise crew to basically meet God. Seriously. They meet “God” and then kill it. While that’s pretty rad, it doesn't feel very “Star Trek” and raises all sorts of questions about who and what the entity was, and what Sybock’s motivations were the entire time.

Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country (1991, Nicholas Meyer)

Image courtesy of American Cinematographer

Shocked by the critical and financial response to the previous film, Paramount made the safe choice by hiring Nicholas Meyer, director of The Wrath of Khan. What’s clever about this film is that it leans into the analogue created by The Original Series, in which Starfleet represents the US and its NATO allies, and the Klingons represent the USSR and its allies. After the fall of the Berlin Wall and the dissolution of the Soviet state, it made perfect sense to port this over to the Star Trek universe.

The conflict is only enhanced and aggravated by Kirk and his dislike of Klingons, leading to a fantastic scene on-board the Enterprise between the representatives of Starfleet and the Klingon Empire. Christopher Plummer provides an excellent antagonist for the film, however, it’s really undermined by the exclusion of one shot where Spock realizes what’s happened, and unravels the conspiracy at play. It’s a frustrating snag in an otherwise incredible film, and a wonderful send-off for the Original Series cast.

Final Thoughts

How I feel reading the news. Image courtesy of ScreenRant

The six films that feature the Star Trek Original Series cast is an enjoyable, but frustrating watch. You can tell that some folks didn’t want to be there, or see where corners are cut. Nicholas Meyer’s films really do a great job of highlighting the strengths of the cast and creating some incredible stories. Unfortunately, the other films get in the way of this, and things like “The One With the Whales” and “The One All About Reviving Spock” distract from what could be a pretty great run of films.

[typewriterrambles]

Wish Filmic Essay

When you think of Disney you feel a sense of joy and nostalgia due to the animated movies that played a part in your childhood. Last year Disney celebrated its one-hundred-year anniversary, one hundred years of creating some of the most beloved and iconic animated movies in the world. To celebrate this anniversary, they decided to release a new movie, “Wish”. “Wish” was released in November 2023 and came onto streaming services in April 2024. It was directed by Chris Buck, who also worked on Frozen and Tarzan, and Fawn Veerasunthorn, who worked on Zootopia and Moana. Although both directors had success with previous Disney films, the same cannot be said for their latest work “Wish”. The movie release did not go as expected, what was meant to be a fun nostalgic Disney movie ended up being an anti-climactic failure. Disney tried to create a modern version of the old Disney movies people love, but it did not work out well. The plot of “Wish” felt shallow and incomplete, lacking the magic found in Disney movies. The characters received the same fate, they lack depth and character development. The animators attempted to mix the old Disney style with more modern animation which resulted in the movie feeling incomplete and disconnected. In addition, the music fell flat, the songs were boring and almost emotionless compared to other songs from Disney. Although Wis had the potential to be a cute heartwarming Disney movie, it was boring and forgettable.

For the movie “Wish” animators attempted to combine the aesthetic of old hand drawn 2D animation with the modern 3D animation style. This was done as a tribute to the original Disney animation style. The background of the film has more of a classic hand drawn feeling to it, emulating the old watercolour style of earlier Disney films, especially with the cottages and castles in the background. However, the colours of the background are dull which does make the background seem boring when compared to the bright array of colours usually associated with Disney. Even though the background and objects have more of a 2D animation style, the characters in the film are in 3D, the modern Disney animation style. The concept of blending the watercolour style and 3D animation could make for an interesting and magical look to the movie. However, this did not have the desired look or outcome. The combination of the animation styles made the movie feel unfinished. In addition, having the background be 2D and the foreground characters 3D made the two worlds feel disconnected, which effects the immersiveness of the movie and makes it harder to connect to the characters and storyline. Disney attempted this combination to create a nostalgic feeling with a modern twist, however, if creating a sense of nostalgia was the objective this would have been better achieved by going back to the original animation style for this movie only. It would have brought in a lot more interest as 2D animation is no longer common making it stand out more and it plays on people’s nostalgia by recreating the feeling off movies from their childhoods.

The characters in “Wish” lack depth, they feel one dimensional making it harder to connect with them. In addition, the characters in the movie lack development, they stay the same throughout most of the movie. The antagonist is one of the best parts of the film, they drive the plot and challenge the protagonist. Disney is known for its amazing villains, unfortunately Magnifico, who is voiced by Chris Pines, is not one of them. The story starts with him being a hero, an amazing sorcerer who founded Rosas and grants people’s wishes because he understands how important they are and how hard they are to achieve. So, he collects everyone’s wishes and randomly grants these wishes at wish ceremonies. However, very soon into the movie he is revealed as the villain when he reveals he will not grant everyone’s wishes only the ones he deems worthy. He is revealed as a narcissistic and egotistical ruler who does not care about his people, but not much is done with this information. The twist happens way too quickly with almost no build up and motivation he simply does this because he can. There is no villain arc or backstory that justifies why he acts the way he does, which adds to the rushed feeling of the movie. His actions are somewhat understandable, some of the wishes are vague and could have very negative consequences as you do not know how they will play out, so it makes sense that he is more cautious. Unfortunately, the protagonist Asha seems to have received the same fate as Magnifico. Asha is portrayed as a very optimistic teenage girl, who cares way too much, and is quirky in an attempt to make her relatable, as seen in the scene where she gets nervous and starts playing with her cheeks and talking weird. Like Magnifico Asha does not have any arc or character development, she starts and ends the movie in the same place. She does not learn a lesson or grow throughout the movie she simply goes from admiring Magnifico and loving wishes to hating Magnifico and giving everyone the ability to fulfil their own wishes. The lack of development of the main character and the lack of motivation for the villain and his actions impacted the plot of the movie.

Moreover, the side characters in the movie seem to receive the same treatment as the main character, having simple personalities and being flat characters. Asha’s family plays a role in motivating her such as her mother and father. Her mother supports her and her father, who died, taught her about the stars which is why she wants to be the king’s apprentice and makes a wish on a star, these action further and play important roles in the plot. Asha’s grandfather’s role is to start the movie, he is turning one hundred and has not received his wish and all she wants to do is have his wish granted which is why she asks Magnifico, and he says no, this is how we find out he is a villain. Her family serves as motivation for her goal in the movie, saving everyone’s wishes. Then there are Asha’s friends whose personalities are just references to the seven dwarves. Dahlia is the leader of the group and Asha often turns to her for advice and help, she represents Doc. Safi sneezes a lot due to allergies he represents Sneezy. Dario is a sweet character but not the brightest, having eaten a cookie Safi sneezed on, he represents Dopey. Hal is not there a lot but when she is she is often happy and upbeat, representing Happy. Simon is often sleepy, making him Sleepy, due to him giving Magnifico his wish, his friends even call him boring. Bazeema is shy and timid having her own place to hide away, she represents Bashful. Then there is Gabo who is often seen bring Asha down and looking for the negatives in every situation, he represents grumpy. Asha has a group of friends who are simply there to help her and have personalities that can be described in one word, having all seven of them there were not very necessary to the plot. Dahlia was necessary as she aids Asha in calming down in the beginning and helps her sneak into Magnifico’s study and distracting him. The other necessary character was Simon as he turns Asha in to get his wish granted which helped further the plot. Aside from Dahlia and Simon the other friends were not needed for the plot. Then there was Magnifico’s wife Queen Amaya, she was portrayed as an important character as she acts as Magnifico’s conscious persuading him to not use dark magic. She does this because she loves him, then suddenly she turns on him instead of trying to help her husband who she loved, then took over his kingdom once he was defeated. They make it seem like they were a close couple, and she was always supporting him, her suddenly turning on him did not really make much sense. Then there is the non-human character, Asha’s pet goat Valentino because every Disney Princess needs her animal side kick. In the beginning he is a regular goat who constantly tries to communicate with her but cannot talk, but after the star comes Valentino is able to talk. Once he can he becomes the funny talking animal sidekick, however, a lot of his jokes feel forced so although there were some bad ones, he did have some comedic value to the movie. In addition, to Valentino there is Star, a sentient star that Asha wishes on then crashes to earth to help her get her wish. Star is a cute little star, who is very happy and just wants to grant people’s wishes. He is magical and often uses his magic in fun mischievous ways, like making the animals in the forest sing or the dancing chickens in the castle. Star is a very important character in the movie as he is the personified version of Asha’s wish, and his magic is crucial in defeating Magnifico. Unlike many of the other characters his importance is shown from his arrival and in Magnifico’s obsession with getting to Star. Although some characters were not necessary to the plot, the movie did have a lot of diversity, all the characters looked very different from each other. They had a variety of weights, heights and ethnicities in the movie even giving Asha braids which has never been done on an animated Disney character before. Although the characters did have their shortcomings, they still had a part to play in the plot of the movie and were well designed by the animators.

The plot of “Wish” screams Disney. Disney’s most common themes are dreams, wishes and making those wishes and dreams come true. Besides Mickey Mouse the thing most associated with Disney is wishing on stars and this movie focuses on that. The movie focuses on Asha a 17-year-old girl who wants to become the King Magnifico’s apprentice and for her grandfather’s wish to be granted. However, after the interview she realises Magnifico is not as good as he seems as he is not going to grant all the wishes. This sends her on a mission to save the wishes, so she makes a wish on the star feeling helpless and a star comes down to help her, and by the end they succeed and grant everyone’s wishes. The plot of the movie feels kind of shallow, which is due to the lack of character development and arcs for both the protagonist and the antagonist. It also feels very straight forward the villain reveals himself almost immediately they set out to stop him and then they do by banding together and using the power of their own wishes to stop him. The story feels very familiar, but it was not done in a new or interesting way. The plot feels boring and predictable with no plot twists or much emotion in the story even when Simon betrays her it does not have much impact because like Asha’s other friends it feels as though they have no real character development, or much personality so there is no connection to them. The movie does emphasize the importance of wishes which is on brand for Disney as characters become different after they give their wishes to Magnifico, such as Simon who becomes boring and sleepy after giving up his wish. However, the movie has no clear message is what it was trying to portray it simply was about wishes, it would have made sense if the movie message was to not give up on your dreams or the importance of wishes which is the message Disney has always portrayed such as with Tangled where Rapunzel risked everything for her dream which shows you should do whatever it takes to make your dream come true or that you need to take risks to make your dreams come true. In the end “Wish” had a predictable storyline and lacked the magic of a Disney movie which is why so many people were disappointed by the movie.

Disney movies are typically musicals and many of their songs are still incredibly popular today. The music in “Wish” did not have the typical Disney feel to them, they felt less emotional and a bit boring making the songs forgettable. Despite having amazing voices on the cast such as Ariana Debose who has been on Broadway and in Stephen Spielberg’s West Side Story. Ariana has an incredibly powerful voice, but it seems as though her voice has been toned down for the music in the film not utilising her ability, using her powerful voice could have resulted in the songs having similar success to the song “Let it go” from Frozen sung by Idina Menzel, who has also sung on Broadway. The toning down of her voice could play a role in the songs feeling as though there is barely any emotion in the music. In addition, it seems as though they tried to create music similar to Lin Manuel Miranda’s style without the help of Lin, so the music did not have the desired effect. It resulted in the songs feeling incomplete and the words feeling slightly off even though there is no issue with the lyrics. This can be seen in the first song “Welcome to Rosas” which feels like a bad copy of “The Family Madrigal” written by Lin Manuel for Encanto. The feel of the song and the idea of explaining the backstory of Rosas to a group of people while they follow Asha around, feels very similar to when Mirabel told the story of her family and their history to kids of the village. In addition, the songs also feel lacklustre such as Magnifico’s villain song. Villain songs tend to popular among Disney fan’s such as “Be prepared”, “Poor unfortunate souls” and “Friends on the other side”, villain songs are typically over the top and reveal the villain’s diabolic side and their evil plans. With Magnifico’s song the dramatic build up is there, as he finally loses control and chooses to give in to the dark magic, however the song was anticlimactic. The instrumental felt too soft and not dramatic enough for a villain song, the words and story telling of the song also feel a bit boring and does not really capture your attention or draw you in like it is supposed to. Even Asha’s protagonist song which is supposed to be her moment of empowerment and motivation to get the wishes back, it feels boring, and the wording isn’t the greatest, but it is better than most of the other music in the movie. The music overall was not the greatest and did not add much to the plot, ultimately, they were not very memorable.

In the movie it is evident that Disney placed a lot of emphasis on the role of nostalgia in the film. This can be seen in references throughout the film. “Wish” starts with a storybook and the main character Asha narrating and explaining the story of how Rosas came to be. This is done to mimic the start of other Disney films such as Snow White, Sleeping Beauty or Sword in the Stone, the storybook opening was very common amongst early Disney animations and is associated with Disney hence creating that nostalgia feeling as it reminds you of the old Disney movies. Another major reference is Asha’s seven friends’ personalities being similar to the personalities of the seven dwarves. In addition to their similar personalities, all of her friends’ names start with the same letter as the dwarf they represent, Safi and Sneezy, Simon and Sleepy, Hal and Happy, Bazeema and Bashful, Gabo and Grumpy, Dario and Dopey and Dahlia and Doc. Their colour pallets even match the colours worn by the seven dwarves. In addition to this there are many other references littered throughout the film, some referencing other Disney characters or movies, this is done through jokes, clothing choices, or objects. Magnifico makes a lot of these references as seen when he is talking about the wishes as the wishes reference The Little Mermaid, Peter Pan and Mary Poppins, he makes a joke about “poppin’” the bubble, he also makes a joke about Neverland, and says the line “Mirrors, mirrors on the wall”, once again referencing Snow White. In addition, Magnifico’s magic is green, this is a common colour associated with older Disney villains, for example, Maleficent, Ursula and Dr Facilier’s magic, the evil queen’s poison apple and the smoke Scar walks through. In the forest scene once, the animals can talk the deer refers to the bear as John, like Little John from Robin Hood, and the bear refers to the deer as Bambi. There are also references in the clothes, in the background there is a boy dressed as Peter Pan talking to a girl who resembles Wendy. Asha also wears a cloak resembling the Fairy Godmother from Cinderella. However, it feels as though there was more focus on these easter eggs and references than on the actual important elements of the film as there were hundreds of references that played no important part in the film or furthering the plot. As fun as the references were having that many was unnecessary.

Disney’s “Wish” did not live up to its potential. The storyline felt incomplete and rushed, with the characters lacking development and the necessary story arcs. The music was not up to the expectations of Disney feeling like poor copies of Lin Manuel Miranda’s songs and lacking depth and emotion. In theory “Wish” could have been an incredible movie as the necessary elements were there, they just did not utilise them correctly. This resulted in Disney creating one of their most disappointing films, because the film was released for their one hundredth anniversary you would think that more time would’ve been spent perfecting the movie to properly honour the hundreds of amazing movies Disney has created.