#gary oldman's pin says | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

sregan · 13 days ago

Text

Nos feratu, ton feratu - Eggers' vampyr, 'woke horror', and the shadow of the Deathbird

Spoilers ahead for Nosferatu, Dracula, The Burial, The Vampyre, The Oldest View, The Rolling Giant.

"To the bed the left unsaid Crawl in from outside my window Hands red and cold as the dead A pity they're not pretty like they used to be" - The Birthday Massacre, 'Pins And needles'

The folkloric Nosferatu is a Romanian monster whose name means, roughly, 'Insufferable' (from Latin 'ne+suferit), though a minority view is that it comes instead from the Greek 'nosophoros' - 'disease-bearing'. This turns out to be important.

'Nosferatu (2024)' is the latest entry in the filmography of director Robert Eggers ('The VVitch: A New England Folktale', 'The Lighthouse', 'The Norseman'. A remake of the 1922 F.W. Murnau film 'Nosferatu: A Symphony of Horror', Eggers' effort also stirs in elements from the 1979 Herzog remake 'Nosferatu the Vampyre'. This has the effect of bringing the plot closer to Bram Stoker's 'Dracula', of which the 1922 version was an unauthorised adaptation, and which was almost lost to history after a lawsuit from Stoker's widow compelled Murnau to destroy all reels.

We should note here a telling point: 'Nosferatu (1922)' is said to 'star' Max Schreck as the titular vampire. 'Nosferatu (1979)' 'stars' Klaus Kinski. A similar consensus is likely to emerge on the 2024 version 'starring' Bill Skarsgård (though a few reviewers prefer to place Nicholas Hoult, the real estate agent menaced by Skarsgård, in top billing). This is in-line with the many, many adaptations of 'Dracula'. We speak of 'the Lugosi version', 'the Christopher Lee version', 'the Gary Oldman version'. Orlok and Dracula are understood to be the stars of their respective films in a way I'm not sure is universally true of horror (thought as I say this, Robert Englund and Tony Todd come to mind).

As one might expect from an adaptation of an adaptation of Dracula, the plot follows broadly the same beats - Hoult's Thomas Hutter travels to Transylvania to meet a wealthy European nobleman who wishes to buy land in his own city (Wisburg rather than London, in-line with Murnau's localisation). He finds himself menaced and held prisoner by his increasingly supernatural-seeming host and eventually escapes, even as the vampiric noble makes his own way to his city. There he finds his friends and family attacked one by the monster, eventually uniting with other like-minded individuals to launch an attack on the monster's new home.

The devil, however, is in the details, and 'Nosferatu (2024)' ends up quite a different beast to either 'Dracula' or even its predecessor. Murnau infamously contributed a major part of the modern vampire mythos by his hurried denouement in 1922; rather than being caught up with while fleeing back to his native land and killed by simultaneous throat-cutting and heart-piercing with knives (as per Dracula the book) or staked in the coffin in his new headquarters (frequently in Dracula adaptations), Orlok, the titular Nosferatu, is killed by the sun; instead of a final showdown between Hutter and Orlok, his wife Ellen feigns weakness and sends away her protector to lure him in, knowing he will not be able to resist feeding on her blood a little too long as morning approaches.

The title card explaining this is one I have always found immensely evocative: "...and the truth bore witness to the miracle: at that very moment the Great Death came to an end, and the shadow of the deathbird was gone... as if obliterated by the triumphant rays of the living sun". It's a quote I've sought to use in my long-standing project Zorian Saga.

The beginning of the 1922 film makes a somewhat odd explanation of why Orlok, a being identified throughout the film with the plague rat, should be called a 'deathbird': 'Nosferatu! Does this name not sound like the deathbird calling your name at midnight? Beware you never say it, for then the pictures of life will fade to shadows, haunting dreams will climb forth from your heart and feed on your blood.' Let's go with this for now, but Murnau clearly had something else in mind by this card which we'll discuss later.

Eggers' Nosferatu goes with this ending for its titular vampire, and I reflected while watching it that, as an original production today claiming to be a loose adaptation of Dracula, it would most likely be considered - excuse the croak like the deathbird in the trees - 'woke'. The female lead wins the day, and this is even telegraphed immediately after the male hero swears he will accomplish vengeance - a male-protector victory - even if it means his death. And at this he fails; despite rushing home when he realises where Orlok must be, his young wife dies in the process of saving him and her city. He survives; she dies. Put a pin in that. I even think Eggers has Dafoe's von Franz (a version of Professor Bulwer, himself a take-off of the novel's Van Helsing utter the words 'She's the key'. Cue the usual suspects; except that doesn't quite seem to have happened; the deathbird seems to have flown under the radar.

Was, then, Murnau's 1922 production a 'woke' Dracula, 'updated for our times' (the Roaring Twenties)? Arguably 1922 gives its female deuteragonist even more agency as she discovers the book (in this version taken by Hutter from the Transylvanian village) and decides on her own to use herself as bait. In 2024, von Franz urgently discusses the matter with Lily-Rose Depp's Ellen - falling short of outright ordering her to sacrifice herself, but pleading with her that Orlok may be proof against their stakes and that the men are bound on a wild goose chase.

A striking change - in 1922, Orlok fades cleanly if implausibly away in a very early SFX shot, leaving nothing more than singed carpet. In 2024, he remains as a horrible shrivelled mass in the room - an unacknowledged lump just in frame throughout the denouement. We get the sense less that the sun burned him to ashes and more that it has dessicated him or reduced him to what he would have been without his un-life; a bag of bones. In the final scene where Hutter says goodbye to his wife, Orlok's remains are still lying on top of her. The score and framing doesn't try to tease that he may shockingly revive - the tension is gone - so I can only read this decision by Eggers as saying something about the Pyrrhic nature of the victory and the permanent marring nature of evil.

1922's Ellen is redeemed by her action, her body whole and seemingly unmarked. 2024's Ellen seems almost damned, half-nude and covered by the monster that is presented as not merely feeding on her blood but preying on her sexually. This, frankly, doesn't seem like a 'woke' decision by Eggers. One could easily read it as something very unpalatable indeed (more on that later).

In fact, with the possible exception of the doctor's assistant who appears in one scene, I believe all women onscreen die, even the children. Is this 'woke'? Nor is Emma Corrin's Anna Harding (who occupies the place of the novel's Lucy Westenra) converted into a vampire. We only find Aaron Taylor-Johnson's Friedrich Harding curled up lifelessly with her corpse after breaking into her crypt and it's mentioned he died of plague, which sores we previously saw on him.

And instead of the 'triumphant rays of the living sun' quote and an image of the castle of horrors crumbled to ruin, 2024 ends with Dafoe merely repeating the quote from the book: "And so the maiden fair did offer up her love unto the beast, and with him lay, in close embrace until the first cock crow. Her willing sacrifice thus broke the curse, and freed them from the plague of Nosferatu." It's not an uplifting ending by any means.

Redditors believe the framing of the shot of Ellen and Orlok united in death is deliberately evoking the 'Maiden and Death' motif from renaissance German art, which is foreshadowed when she relates dreams about marrying Death. Since the book comes from Knock's office and is an occult text, they theorise that Orlok always intended Ellen to offer herself to him as a 'trap', and to end his own immortal life in her arms. In this view, Orlok does win - he takes Hutter's wife from him, legally (more on that later) and then sexually, perhaps damning her soul to be with him forever.

Religion is an odd topic in 'Nosferatu'. In Bram Stoker's 'Dracula' and many of its adaptations, the holy is centrally important; prayers, crosses and consecrated wafers are all in the arsenal the vampire-hunters employ; consecrating his grave soil so he can no longer rest in it, and warding him away with symbols of Christianity, which appear to physically hurt him. In Eggers 'Nosferatu', invocations of God are not effective - he makes a painful point of having the children recite the Lord's Prayer before they are slain by Orlok. Von Franz's incantations over Ellen's seizing body contain demon names from the Goetia rather than Christian prayer (I heard Asmodai), but it's not entirely clear these are doing anything either. Orlok breezes past crosses and wafers are never used (though these are by far the least employed in adaptation), though fire is used to purge his rat-infested hideout.

From this we might conclude that Orlok is something other than a creature of Abrahamic folklore, despite the various portentous descriptions we are given of him - worse than the Devil, Death itself. By not having the characters raise the issue I felt Eggers almost wants it both ways - Victorian sensibilities when we are to believe the protagonists have never heard of a vampire; but also to tell a different and more modern kind of story that disregards the framework in which they would conceptualise such events (I also felt this crept in with regard to Ellen's corset, where Eggers is making a point about women's agency but from a decidedly modern perspective).

Arguably, however, the 1922 'Nosferatu', which makes the ‘Living Sun’ the final vanquisher of evil, already did this. Moreover, the argument has been made that 'Dracula' itself was the first 'techno-thriller', medicalising the supernatural with modern professionals (doctors and lawyers) in the lead role rather than priests. Blood transfusions are tried to save Lucy Westenra; Dracula's influence is presented as a disease; cutting-edge technology like telephones and train timetables are used to locate the source; and ultimately it's two blades (including an exotic kukri knife) rather than the intervention of God that destroys the Count.

This causes me to reflect on whether Dracula as it might be envisaged as a truly faithful adaptation - liberated from its framework as an epistolary novel - is even 'horror' or (God help us) 'action-adventure'.

Nosferatu was not for me a 'scary' film - there were no moments when I felt disorientated or uncanny, as though my location in the theatre was itself at risk, despite attempts by Eggers to do this with unsettling close-ups and - sigh - jumpscare flashes of Orlok’s features or (Ellen?)’s face contorted or vomitjng blood. It did, however, leave me questioning the values it was attempting to convey, which may be a deliberate effort to create discussion.

Perhaps the most unsettling moment for me was an ad before the movie - the flashing words appearing in order 'There Is Still Time' - perhaps evocative of the phrase in 2024's 'I Saw The TV Glow' - briefly brought on mild disassociation. Sadly the concluding part of the phase was 'to get snacks from the foyer'.

Hutter's experience in the vampire's castle was well-framed to create unease; Orlok is never in focus or at the center of the frame while Hutter is presented as in some kind of a terror-trance - the 'waking nightmare' described by the villagers. We don’t grasp what makes him afraid but feel that he loses time.

Skarsgård's Orlok is not 'creepy' in the same way as Max Schreck's seminal performance - riding closer to the rim of 'undead nobleman' in faded finery rather than 'slimy creature'. The mustache and hank of limp forelook is accurate to book Dracula - indeed, perhaps the most visually accurate Dracula ever put to screen - which is an odd choice given Orlok has always been hairless, pointed-eared and rat-toothed. It also seemed to deliberately evoke a certain other mustachioed and combed-over figure in history, which we'll get to later.

Part of this is Schreck's silence (of course not diagetic but a limitation of the medium). I found Skarsgård's booming voice vaguely comical. Dspite it being commonplace in Dracula and Nosferatu adaptations (after Lugosi for whom the accent was real!), the idea that the vampire has a thick Hungarian accent goes against Dracula the book, where the Count is specifically said to have cultivated an 'accentless' (read: upper-class British) English accent. Christopher Lee is perhaps the most authentic voice of Dracula, despite having relatively few lines.

'Nosferatu (2022)' is a very dark film - literally. There's a stylistic choice to evoke black and white but in the cinema it felt flat and muddy in some shots. The original 'Nosferatu' is not dark - rather, it is starkly lit with deep contrasts and day-for-night shots.

Orlok's breathing is a character in itself; the idea being that he is undead and must laboriously draw breath to make sound; advertises his presence either literally or when background noise or another character's breath suggests it. Some people evidently disliked this and thought it made him sound like Darth Vader.

Skarsgård's makeup is impressive; ghoulish without being too obviously decayed which would weaken him too much. His face is mostly intact (thought his nose has a bump I think intended to suggest slippage) but the back of his head has areas of exposed bone and maggots, as though the areas that were touching the soil have decayed more during his sleep.

His use of Romanian as a Sauron-esque Black Speech was slightly uncomfortable, and something I haven't seen discussed by reviewers ("Was this 'woke'?" asks Marc Anthony). I feel the whole whispering-at-a-distance thing has also become cliché.

His motivation is - unless we buy the theory above where he supposedly planned the events of the final act - a little murky. He claims to want to consume the whole world but seems only really to want Ellen, and indeed, it was her psychic (?) call that awoke him from slumber ('It's the Girl Who Is The Key To Everything' again, a chuddish YouTuber might mutter). We might feel here the lower stakes of past 'Dracula' and 'Nosferatu' stories rubbing up here against the escalating stakes of modern horror. The vampire must not be merely a threat to the protagonist and his loved ones but a snowballing disaster that must be stopped.

In all versions of 'Nosferatu', Orlok is associated with a spreading plague, something unique to this 'line' of development and not present in the novel. With 2022's Orlok there's no risk of conversion into a vampire; victims die of physical injuries or plague. It's suggested at one point that all victims suffer plague except Hutter who was spared by the gypsies' prayers (the only effective religion in the film). Did Knock say he hoped to be turned into a vampire ("I should have been the prince of rats"?). It doesn't seem like he was as he is impaled easily when von Franz says he fears Orlok is proof against stakes.

I don't think Orlok visibly de-ages as he feed which is also a deliberate choice; in the book Stoker says his hair becomes darker as he feeds, showing he is growing in power, but says he remains repugnant looking no matter how young he becomes. Coppola's 'Bram's Stoker's Dracula' most clearly has Oldman (!) de-age after getting some new blood and a new lease on unlife. This Orlok remains a putrid animated corpse throughout and it's a bit unclear what he does with the blood; does it fuel his shadow powers? Does he even need to feed or is it more of a flex on the living?

2024 Orlok has a raft of powers - his mind control in particular seems much greater than, e.g. Legosi's Dracula; there's no contest of wills, rather when you get near him you’re in a dreamlike state. He can’t teleport - we see this when Thomas escapes the crypt, locking him inside, but can project his shadow (which may be a visual representation of telekinesis) to open doors and command others. This power may be what he uses to communciate remotely with Ellen (as shown by his silhouette appearing in curtains when he's not physically there). He can also possess people at a distance - possibly? I think that when Ellen comes onto Thomas it's actually Orlok in control; I was a little bit unsure about this as she's the only person he does it with. It also doesn't seem like he can shapeshift; he has three wolves (who appear to combine the wolves in the forest and the three wives of Dracula) but they are clearly 'familiars' distinct from him.

He doesn't have multiple coffins, a smart move by book Dracula; it's hinted that Orlok would have been invulnerable to stakes - but didn’t destroying the coffin beat him if he has no way to rest? Von Franz is deliberately vague on whether destroying his grave soil will beat him. He can't teleport (we see this in the crypt scene) so he can't get back to Transylvania unless just 'transported in a chest' works. The tension created in the final scene with Ellen's sacrifice suggests no - Hutter and co didn't stop him by destroying his coffin; Orlok doesn't need to sleep in grave dirt.

Which begs the question - is 2022 Orlok even really a vampire? He doesn't seem to *need* blood (although his death where the sun seemingly forces him to regurgitate the blood he has swallowed might hint that he does), he has no vampiric weaknesses other than the sun, and he is called "the undead plague corpse". This, however, is not a nosferatu but something else - a neuntoter! The neuntoter was specifically a plague vampire and could kill without even leaving his coffin, spreading an exponentially growing plague that made him a threat to eveyone in the community.

Traditionally the Nosferatu was very much an original folkloric vampyre, which surprisingly did not necessarily have fangs but used a dagger to pierce its victim's skin and suck blood from the wound. It's possible Murnau and Eggers are both basing their interpretation on the contested 'nosophoros' etymology.

The deathbird, meanwhile, nods back to a much, much older blood-sucking monster, the Greco-Roman strix or striges, which give their name to the later and more recognisable strigoi. The strixes were harpy-like monsters with human faces who would sup blood from sleeping victims, and whose name simply means an owl; the bird known in folklore as the death bird and whose humanlike shriek foretells death. Indeed, some early vampyres do not bite their victim but call out their name to kill them, banshee-like, which is clearly a residue of beliefs about the striges and owl superstitions.

Book Dracula, is more associated with wolves than bats, something forgotten in subsequent adaptations. In fact, at least one Romanian term for vampire, the Varacolaci, means 'wolf's fur' and is also the term for werewolf. Book Dracula is said to have hairy palms and a unibrow - not even Eggers leans quite this far into hirsuitism. We've discussed how 1922 and 1979 Nosferatu instead make Orlok associated with rats. 2022 has the wolves as mentioned and makes the rats almost more of a byproduct of Orlok than his namesake; I believe this is the only adaptation where his coffin-sleep is naked and surrounded by plague-rats.

What then makes the 'vampire' in modern horror? Many have read into Stoker the idea that Dracula represents threatening changing sexual mores and specifically the creeping threat of syphilis, which Stoker himself may have had. The promiscuous 'bad woman' Lucy dies, the virtuous maiden Mina survives (a horror formula that would last well into the 1990s and the rampages of Freddy Krueger and Jason Vorhees). For Eggers Orlok is something different - perhaps a groomer, certainly a powerful man who abuses his position to get what he wants (the reading of vampire as capitalist sucking his workers dry is also now long established). But it's interesting to see that in Egger's conception the taint of the vampire still renders women unfit for life - and this time there are no survivors.

Horror has long located the ‘other’ in the marginalised, weak or deformed, and even the feminine or effeminate; it reflects what people feared. Some of this is very understandable - people are afraid of sickness and deformity on a base, instinctual level, so the walking dead combine fears of death and disease. It's striking then that many modern adaptations lean away from this, presenting the vampire as desirable, even enviable.

Surprisingly however, this tendency has solid roots in the genre - the very first modern vampire novella, 'The Vampyre' by John William Polidori, presents Count Ruthven (whose name, unnoticed by critics, appears to be a pun on rot+vene, 'Red Vein' in German) as an attractive lothario whose ruinous attentions cause scandal in early 19th century England. It's also, noteably, like 'Nosferatu', a take-off of an earlier work, 'The Burial', a fragment of a story by none other than Lord Byron. 'The Burial' sees a young British noble travelling Europe on the contemporary Grand Tour with another charming noble, Augustus, who becomes sick and dies, his body turning black almost instantly. Apparently Byron intended Augustus to re-appear but never finished the story or identified him conclusively as a vampire. Polidori cribs his entire first act from The Burial and the character of Ruthven is clearly an amalgamation of Augustus and Byron himself, reflecting his disillusionment with the great man (he would go on to 'cast' Byron as Satan himself in his theological epic poem 'The Fall Of The Angels'). Ruthven, like a classic vampyre, exsanguinates his victims with a strange knife, and some have connected Harker's kukri to the dagger Aubrey acquires from Ruthven, showing he is falling under the vampire's power compared to Quincey Morris's more honest, Western bowie knife.

Before the release of 'Nosferatu (2022)' Eggers indicated he wanted to truly restore the vampire as something to be afraid of, and his rotting-meat-smelling, brutal Orlok - who bears more than a passing resemblance to a certain fascist dictator who is once again in the news for his perceived influence on moden politics - certainly shows an intent in this direction. But as always, never underestimate the capacity of fandom to 'ship' even an abuser with his victim, and of course there have already been fics and artwork by fans preferring to see Ellen with the monstrous Orlok than her committed husband. And it can't be argued that Eggers doesn't to some extent play into this, with the night-time 'courting' scenes where Orlok appears to Ellen demanding her submission framed to create a frisson of tension despite her angry refusals ('he's so tall', Twitter shippers whitter).

Orlok can be and almost certainly will be read as bisexual; his feeding on Thomas over several nights is framed as a date-rape like experience; Thomas loses track of time, with the naked, fresh-from-the-coffin Orlok lying over his body to feed. After this he psychically tells Ellen 'Your husband is lost to you'. I think he also feeds on Thomas for three days and nights then gives his wife the same amount of time to submit to him. Again, this isn’t new - the BBC Dracula foregrounded the question of whether Thomas’s experience with Dracula was sexual, although creator Steven Moffat would only admit to his Dracula being 'bihomicidal’.

This ambiguity, however, can even be read back into 'The Vampyre', where a seemingly dying Ruthven swears Aubrey to reveal nothing about the events of their European travels together for a year and a day (a scandalous note thee), which Ruthven then exploits to seduce Aubrey's sister and feed on his wife. You can see, I hope, the legacy of Polidori in Stoker's plot 80 years later! This promise takes on a supernatural compulsion and Aubrey finds he cannot break it.

This leads us to a little-explored angle of vampire lore. 'The Vampyre' is in some ways also a legal thriller, exploring the consequences of being bound to silence by a powerful man, and sits in that category of Edwardian and Victorian fiction that is fascinated by the idea of binding contracts, legal trickery, and inheritance; a new invisible power which was becoming preeminent in society, and by which even foreigners could exercise spooky 'influence' over your actions and possessions.

And this is reflected in subsequent vampire fiction; Harker's contract gives Dracula a foothold in Britain through the medium of legitimately purchased English land. Orlok tricks Hutter into signing a contract that, unknown to him, gives Orlok power over his wife. Even the vampire's strengths and weaknesses are legal in nature - you must invite me in; she must give herself to me of he own free will (never mind the coercion implied by killing her friends and family), I must sleep in the soil I was buried in. There are clear rules and limitations, which are a key part of horror.

The old saw is that a criminal with a gun is not a suitable 'horror' monster, not because he's human, but because he's too powerful - if he crooks his finger, you die. He doesn't have to sleep in his grave dirt, crosses don't impress him, garlic (probably) doesn't repel him. To make him scary you have to create limitations - but perhaps more crucially, the rules can't be entirely known.

A good example is The Oldest View, a YouTube found-horror film by Kane Pixels, and particularly its third installment The Rolling Giant. The titular Giant is a lumbering art project, found in an explicably subterranean mall. It's not clear what it does to you if it catches you, but the rules are at first clearly established; it moves when you aren't looking at it, and it's a big physical thing with wheels; it can't fit on the escalators throughout the complex. Until it's revealed that no, you, and the nameless protagonist, are just making assumptions about the situation - it can absolutely move when you're looking at it, and it can breeze up escalators in ways that seems impossible. The shock at the rules being broken is the source of the horror.

With that in mind, how would I go about a vampire movie? What's left to say? What makes us afraid? What made us afraid when Byron wrote 'The Burial' and Polidori wrote 'The Vampyre'? I think the answer is - the rules weren't known. Vampires were not familiar to their audience and were something out of their experience; a threatening breaking of the rules of life and death. Over time we've grown to understand the rules of the vampire and creators like Murnau have added more.

So, what's needed? Something that takes us back to the origins of the vampire and makes them less comprehensible, not more. With that I give you:

Simon Regan's 'Deathbird'.

We open with the story of 'The Burial'. Our hero, a young British noble, is travelling Europe on the Grand Tour and meets a kindly old man who travels with him. They are waylaid by bandits who call the old man a vampire and kill him. Before dying the old man swears the protagonist not to speak of anything that has happened for a year and a day.

Back home, our protagonist weds and enjoys the high life. He is invited to a social event at (Carfax Abbey?). A new European noble has moved in and hosts terrific, Great Gatsby-esque parties with unlimited wealth, and takes an immediate liking to our hero's sister.

Our hero finds himself unable to tell anyone about his experiences and suspicion that Ruthven is a strigoi, a 'deathbird', and experiences various horrifying events including the death of his wife.

This is all framed like nightmare sequences - nothing about the strigoi is entirely 'real', and his true form is a series of overlapping, wing-like shadows that cover everything around him. Ruthven is engaged to marry his sister on the day before his vow expires and our hero suffers a stroke.

He finally recovers and is able to reveal the identity of Ruthven but too late - he has already killed his sister. Our hero and his allies now travel back to Turkey to track down Ruthven, now at the height of his power.

In a shocking moment, Ruthven emerges victorious and even our hero's final act of self-sacrifice, trapping himself in the manse with Ruthven and burning it down, is in vain.

Ruthven's final act is to spare our hero by dripping his own blood into his mouth, turning him into a vampire before leaving him in the same place he found the old man.

We finish with an entire recitation of Robert Graves' 'Goliath and David'. It's a brutal ending that mirrors 'The Great Gatsby'. If that's too dark, have the hero kill Ruthven but be left a vampire himself, and finish instead with "l'humaine sagesse était tout entière dans ces deux mots: attendre et espérer!" - the final line of 'The Count Of Monte Cristo', another clearly Polidori-inspired novel given Dumas overtly references Ruthven therein.

In his noble form, Ruthven is young and handsome, however I think it's only a disguise; when he unfolds his 'wings', which are shown as dark shadows wrapped around his body, what's inside is little more than a skeleton (not sure about this; perhaps there's literally nothing inside the wings). He can move the wings to turn into a 'bat', 'mist', or a 'dog', and slips over the ground like a shadow cast by an invisible light. Possibly he does need to alight at Robin Hood Bay, or we hear of a shipwreck there.

My initial idea which I think is way too 'Fight Club', is that when they exhume the body in Turkey it is that of the protagonist Aubrey, who realises that he is a projection of the Deathbird and not a real person. This really does drive the concept a long way into sci-fi and at that point I think we have to blend in 'A Ghost Story (2017)', with the main character waiting in the same place until history starts again and he is able to kill Ruthven the second time around.

So blending all these together:

Aubrey is a rich young noble on Grand Tour. Travelling in Eastern Europe he meets an old man who gives his name as Augustus. He is an amiable companion though there seems to be something 'off' about him. [The Burial]

They are chased by gypsies and Aubrey assumes they are trying to rob him. However, when they are cornered they say they are here for the old man, who is a vampire. Aubrey speaks up for Augustus and tries to save him but the old man is injured before they can escape and slowly sickens. [The Burial, The Vampyre]

They reach an old ruined house and the old man says to let him rest as he is dying. He compels Aubrey to swear not to reveal the circumstances of his death. After he dies, shadows peel back from his body to reveal a blackened corpse. Aubrey is horrified but buries the body as best he can. [The Burial]

Some time has passed. We're reintroduced to Aubrey and his young wife Ianthe (does he tell Augustus he is engaged?). He is struggling to re-adjust to work in a real estate firm. (Do we re-hash the land purchase plot?) [Dracula]

New neighbour in Carfax Abbey; European noble. Aubrey receives invite. Lavish, futuristic party akin to 'Great Gatsby' movie. [The Vampyre, The Great Gatsby]

They meet Count Ruthven (pronounced rutt-vane) who hints he knows Aubrey. At the end of the party he tells him 'Remember your vow', shocking him. [The Vampyre, The Great Gatsby, The Count of Monte Cristo] [I think he literally says something like 'Can't change the past? Of course you can', in a Gatsby reference, which alludes to the ricorso theory mentioned below]

Strange and unsettling events - colleagues killed to facilitate his promotion, his wife becomes sick. He discovers Ruthven is ruining aristocrats' lives. [The Vampyre, The Count of Monte Cristo]

Ruthven is courting his sister Myna (geddit). He tries to warn her but finds he physically cannot. She becomes concerned about his sanity. [Dracula]

More murders. Ianthe is killed (?). Ruthven now seems to view him as an enemy. Announced he will marry Myna one day before his vow expires. [The Vampyre]

He consults a vampire hunter who convinces the doctor tending to Ianthe (possibly dies after this). Strigoi; deathbirds, not truly physical beings. [Dracula]

Unable to convey the identity of the vampire, he rushes to the wedding, suffering a stroke by doing so. [The Vampyre]

When he recovers, he is able to relate his story to the vampire hunter, but it's too late - his sister is dead and Ruthven has fled the country. [The Vampyre]

The three men (noble, doctor, lawyer) must - kill Ianthe who has turned into a vampire? - then depart to the Continent. [Dracula] - probably just become a ghoul-like creature

When they reach the ruin where Augustus was buried it is now an inexplicable manse. Entering they are subjected to more illusions and horrors. [Phantom Blood, Stardust Crusaders]

Confronting Ruthven he reveals none of their plans work. He has no weaknesses, as far as he is aware, and does not even know why he became a strigoi ("I was neither exceptionally wicked nor exceptionally virtuous"). He doesn't even need to drink blood, he just does it because he's bored. [Phantom Blood]

The doctor and vampire hunter are killed (one of their number is teleported inside a crypt when they stake it). Aubrey finally blocks the entrance and sets the manse on fire, grappling with Ruthven and pulling them both off a balcony into the fire. [Phantom Blood]

Both men survive; Aubrey horribly burned; Ruthven none the worse off. Ruthven tells Aubrey he's made an awful mess but that he will repay 'that favour', and drips black blood from his arm into Aubrey's mouth, converting him into a deathbird. [30 Days of Night]

Having lost everything Aubrey has no desire to move. He waits in the ruin of the house after Ruthven leaves. The house disappears into dust and sand and then is overtaken by a futuristic city, which in turn crumbles, and finally, he is left beside the ancient ruin he saw at the start. [A Ghost Story]

Looking up, he sees two travellers approaching; it's, impossibly, Aubrey and 'Augustus'. As Augustus dies, Aubrey consumes him, and it seems as though, in some unclear way, Aubrey is now Ruthven. He warns his younger self: "For the love of God - flee this place and never return, for there are no more stories to be told here nor sights to see." [Original]

We close with the younger Aubrey reading his wife 'Goliath and David'. She frowns and says "It's a sad poem, and ends badly[I think this is from Lewis Carroll*]. But look! The sun's coming up." [Original]

*It's from 'Sylvie and Bruno Concluded': "It begins miserably, and it ends miserablier. I think I shall cry. Sylvie, please lend me your handkerchief"

How do we differ from other vampire stories?

Strigoi can move around freely at daytime, though it seems like their shadow powers are greatest at night (cf. 'Dracula').

Strigoi have no vampiric weaknesses; their physical body is an illusion and they cannot be staked.

All superstitions about vampires turn out to be false; the gypsies at the start are incorrect to think the old man could be killed, he only feigned death.

Strigoi feed on blood but do not require (?) it. If you instead drink their blood (realising this doesn't sync with shadow-being) you become one of them

I think possibly he does require consent, which is why he tricks the protagonist into swearing to him, or at least some of his powers require you to make contract with hi

Deathbird is deliberately confusing to make you second-guess the genre tropes. I don't think we ever use the term 'vampire', it's 'strigoi', and he's a bird not a bat

Possibly we do need to alter the start so the hero 'saves' the old man with his own blood when he cries out for water, then at the end Ruthven returns the favour. In the Burial, the protagonist knows Augustus Darvell already and he makes him swear to conceal the manner of his death. Another take would be that the young noble joins in with the vampire hunt at the start, unearthing and impaling a body which to his horror is that of his travel companion. Then after returning to England, Ruthven 'haunts' him.

Remember that in The Vampyre, being fed on by a vampire causes consumption.

Also - an important point. I was unsure how to integrate the dagger from 'The Vampyre' but I think I know how. Augustus gifts the dagger to Aubrey, and then we see Ruthven owns a very similar dagger. When a victim is exsanguinated with a dagger, Aubrey is suspected. At some point one of the 'two' daggers is lost or confiscated by police (probably Aubrey's). At the end, when he turns Aubrey, Ruthven gives him 'his' dagger, which Aubrey then uses to kill and absorb Augustus in the next cycle. The point being that 'Ruthven's' dagger probably also comes from a previous cycle. At some point the characters discuss the ricorsos or cycles of Giambattista Vico and wonder if this isn't a form of reincarnation; all else being the same 'we' live the same lives in each cycle, for good or ill. Except, of course, that the cycles can't be identical, the sun brightens and dims and will one day burn out, the mountains wear down. If a man could live from one cycle to the next he could nudge everyone onto a more positive course. It's hinted that for all his bloodthirstiness this is what Ruthven may be doing, and it may well be that every incarnation of Ruthven is a fusion of the last one with Aubrey; meaning there may be no Augustus/Ruthven at all.

To make explicit what we're trying to do here - this is going back to the very start of the vampire genre; back to when the rules weren't known and the 'vampyre' was something alien and threatening to the reader. The rules about the strigoi/strix are never made clear and there may not be any rules other than the flagrant violation of the normal order of life and death. Just as The Vampyre blended modern ideas of hypnosis and criminal investigation and Dracula was the first techno-thriller, Deathbird stirs in sci-fi ideas about history repeating, time-travel and paradox. And the villain wins, which means that in any future horror movie the villain might also win, leaving you with a terror that goes beyond the film itself, bringing back the true fear of loss; even if the very last scene holds out hope that 'we' might be reunited with our loved ones in a future ricorso.

I should also note that the strigoi also somewhat resembles the kitsune in Falling As They Might, as a sort of reality-restructuring presence that can appear human.

Some sketches on the Deathbird's design. The main image I had is this blackened, nearly skeletal corpse rising from the waist up out of a black 'flower' of wing-like shapes, sort of like an anti-Buddha in a dead lotus flower (which is a cool angle given that the Deathbird stays alive and 'attached' to the world throughout the ages and cycles of reincarnation, denying itself and others release). The other has the wings outstretched similar to a biblical cherub, with some wings infolded to cover parts of the corpse-like being within but the 'head' being a single wing folded like a paper crane. This could even be the movie poster and main image - a partially-obscured skeleton enfolded by black paper origami.

Another idea has the Deathbird partially manifested, so the legs and lower torso look normal and clothed but the waist upwards is a tangle of moving black leaf-shaped 'wings', through which a skeletal form can be dimly glimpsed, but which as they move can be observed not to really be there. A big issue here is the Gorcha/Schreck vampire look is hard to take seriously, while an animated skeleton is also not very credible and also too far from the vampire idea.

Another idea is literally an owl-monster but I think this looks a bit lame. Possibly, in line with 'I Love You But I've Chosen Darkness' video for 'The Owl', at some point it takes the form of a giant owl's face, looking at Aubrey in the darkness. Another idea is that the 'true' form of the Deathbird is a nude skeletal form (think Orlok at the end of Eggers' 'Nosferatu') whose face and shoulders are always covered by a black translucent cloth, and who is possibly surrounded by the 'wings'. I say 'true' as I think we need to reinforce that there's not a physical corpse in there; any 'form' the Deathbird takes is being 'projected' into the space between the wings

Explicating the 'time travel' - it isn't, actually. Rather, the Deathbird world obeys the 'ricorso' theory of Giambattista Vico (though actually referring to Nietzsche's Eternal Recurrence). History keeps repeating with the same people and events, and the only people who are free to change things are immortals, who can live long enough to see the next cycle.

#dracula #nosferatu #kanepixels #theoldestview #therollinggiant

0 notes

themattress · 3 years ago

Text

Batman Characters in Live-Action

Here I list various core Batman characters and their live-action actors, and then determine who I think is objectively the best at embodying the essence of the character from the comics.

Bruce Wayne / Batman: Adam West Michael Keaton Val Kilmer George Clooney Christian Bale Ben Affleck Warren Christie David Mazouz Iain Glen Robert Pattinson

And the winner is....

OK, Michael Keaton had the best costume, and Christian Bale was excellent at embodying Bruce Wayne as he traditionally has been throughout the comics’ run while also being the biggest, most badass physical powerhouse of all the live-action Batmans. But Robert Pattinson’s Batman not only acts the closest to how I feel Batman is best suited toward acting in all regards (as a crime-fighter, as a detective, as an ally, as a hero, etc.) but it’s important to keep in mind that his Bruce is still young and still growing. Matt Reeves and Robert Pattinson have both gone on the record to say the lack of Bruce Wayne as a public businessman / philanthropist / playboy figure is fully intentional, as this version of the character is still figuring himself out as both Bruce and Batman, and he makes significant progress in both identities by the end of his debut movie. Which means he will grow further into the Bruce / Batman we all know and love from the comics, and for that reason, he is the best live-action depiction.

Alfred Pennyworth: Alan Napier Michael Gough Ian Abercrombie Michael Caine Jeremy Irons Sean Pertwee Jack Bannon Douglas Hodge Andy Serkis

And the winner is...

I like most of the live-action Alfreds, but when I have to distill the essence of the character it all comes down to loyal, faithful service, practiced without hesitation or second thoughts. Alfred may not always agree with what Bruce is doing, but he will always stand by him regardless and be the best caretaker and father figure to him that he can be. And honestly, when the same actor sticks in the role even when “Master Bruce” goes through three different actors, and when his unflappable gentlemanly persona endures even as the tone of each movie he’s in changes wildly, it’s hard not to call that as anything but the ideal Alfred.

James Gordon: Neil Hamilton Pat Hingle Gary Oldman J.K. Simmons Ben McKenzie Jeffrey Wright

And the winner is...

While Jeffrey Wright clocks in at a close second, I still think Gary Oldman nailed Gordon in a way that’s almost impossible to measure up to. Every facet of his personality, the strengths and the weaknesses, as portrayed in the comics is on display in Oldman’s version, and he bears the most striking physical resemblance to the comic character out of all the actors.

Dick Grayson / Robin / Nightwing: Burt Ward Chris O'Donnell Joseph Gordon-Levitt Brenton Thwaites

And the winner is...

Holy obvious choice, Batman! But seriously, this remains the only live-action version of Robin we have that makes a convincing BOY Wonder, and not some guy in his late 20s or early 30s playing a “boy”. Also, I objectively kind of love his voice. It makes him really fun and likable.

Barbara Gordon / Batgirl / Oracle: Yvonne Craig Alicia Silverstone Dina Meyer Savannah Welch Leslie Grace

And the winner is...

Birds of Prey was not a good series, at all. However, it struck gold with its casting of Barbara Gordon, since Dina Meyer perfectly embodies the journey her comic counterpart underwent - as a civilian, as Batgirl, and as Oracle. Small wonder she’s considered a sacred cow by fans.

Lucius Fox: Morgan Freeman Chris Chalk Domonique Adam Simon Manyonda

And the winner is...

It’s fucking Morgan Freeman, guys. Perfect casting is perfect.

The Joker: Cesar Romero Jack Nicholson Roger Stoneburner Heath Ledger Jared Leto Cameron Monaghan Joaquin Phoenix Nathan Dashwood Barry Keoghan

And the winner is...

The Joker is such a chaotic character who has undergone so many changes throughout the comics’ run that it’s incredibly hard to pin down the essence of the character. But this is exactly what Heath Ledger’s depiction managed to do. He’s funny yet terrifying, brilliant yet insane, loud and colorful yet sneaky and subtle, arrogant yet self-deprecating, being motivated solely to spread chaos yet also feeling the need to justify that chaos to the rest of the world, doesn’t like to fail yet also finds it hilarious if he does, hates Batman yet loves him, and has an unlimited amount of origin stories in his own head that he’ll always sincerely believe to be true whenever he recalls them. He’s simply....the Joker, plain and simple.

Selina Kyle / Catwoman: Julie Newmar Lee Meriwether Eartha Kitt Michelle Pfeiffer Anne Hathaway Camren Bicondova Lili Simmons Zoë Kravitz

And the winner is...

She may never be called “Catwoman” in the film, but Anne Hathaway’s Selina Kyle best represents her traditional depiction from the comics - a smart, skilled and seductive thief with a heart of...bronze, I guess, who provides a challenge, temptation and reflection to Batman. Many adaptations struggle at making Catwoman either just a villain or just an anti-hero, but this one managed to get both roles down over the course of just two and a half hours.

Oswald Cobblepot / The Penguin: Burgess Meredith Danny DeVito Robin Lord Taylor Colin Farrell

And the winner is...

When you get down to it, the Penguin is a social outcast turned master criminal who reflects both the bitterness of being a social outcast and the desire to still be accepted into society. DeVito’s monstrous version of the character reflected no sincere desire to be part of society, and unless we learn more about him and his backstory in his spin-off series Farrell’s mafioso appears to be doing quite well for himself. This leaves Meredith and Taylor as the more faithful renditions of the character, and I feel Meredith is basically the same as where Taylor ends his run - the full-fledged Penguin - so he gets the nod. Plus, that amazing voice of his!

Edward Nygma / The Riddler: Frank Gorshin John Astin Jim Carrey Cory Michael Smith Paul Dano

And the winner is...

This is one winner that has no chance of being supplanted, ever. Why? Because Frank Gorshin virtually created the Riddler. Before he was cast in the role, the character was just a D-List foe who had appeared twice early in the comics’ run before vanishing and then ended up having the good luck of making a return appearance at the same time the TV show entered production. Gorshin is the one who elevated the Riddler to superstar status, and it’s not hard to see why - he might be the only villain on the show to be genuinely intimidating in addition to gleefully over-the-top campy; he sells being a mad genius like nobody’s business.

Harvey Dent / Two-Face: Billy Dee Williams Tommy Lee Jones Aaron Eckhart Nicholas D'Agosto

And the winner is...

Williams and D’Agosto never got to be Two-Face so there was a sense of pointlessness to their Harvey Dents. Tommy Lee Jones never got to be Harvey Dent and.....actually, come to think of it, he never got to be Two-Face either, I have no idea what the fuck that was but it certainly wasn’t Two-Face. And this, of course, means that Aaron Eckhart wins by default.

Jonathan Crane / The Scarecrow: Cillian Murphy Charlie Tahan David W. Thompson Vincent Kartheiser

And the winner is...

Sadly, we have yet to get a satisfactory Scarecrow in live-action, so Jonathan Crane is the only standard we have to go by. And in that regard, Cillian Murphy did the best job at portraying the smarmy psychopath who uses fear as a cover for his own inner cowardice.

Victor Fries / Mr. Freeze: George Sanders Otto Preminger Eli Wallach Arnold Schwarzenegger Nathan Darrow

And the winner is...

We also have yet to get a satisfactory live-action Mr. Freeze that lives up to the definitive redefining the character underwent in Batman the Animated Series, so George Sanders it is.

Pamela Isley / Poison Ivy: Uma Thurman Claire Foley Maggie Geha Peyton List Bridget Regan

And the winner is...

I’m disappointed we never got to see Peyton List get a full wardrobe change solidifying her transformation into Poison Ivy, because in terms of looks, writing and performance her take nails the essence of the comics character the most: a mentally ill environmental extremist who has lost most of her humanity to plants, and yet that humanity is never fully extinguished thus the hope it can be reclaimed remains. None of the other versions really come close.

Jervis Tetch / The Mad Hatter: David Wayne Benedict Samuel

And the winner is...

David Wayne was fun but not an accurate depiction of the Mad Hatter, who at his core is a small man who wants to feel big through controlling other people by force. Benedict Samuel’s version showed that perfectly with his disturbing sister complex, and how much further he spiraled out of control after losing her. I especially love how he starts out unshaven and with long hair, but by the end has shaved and cut his hair to look like the traditional Mad Hatter.

Lazlo Valentin / Professor Pyg: Michael Cerveris Rob Nagel

And the winner is...

No contest. Nagel’s take is forgettable, whereas Cerveris is both humorous and horrifying. That fleshy rubber mask of his is also much more appropriate than Nagel’s generic one.

Bane: Robert Swenson Tom Hardy Shane West

And the winner is...

Bane is supposed to be super smart in addition to being super strong, and to date Tom Hardy’s portrayal is the only one to grasp that. Yes, his voice is ridiculous, but it’s also memorable to the point of iconic status, which is already more than you can say about Swenson’s mindless brute or West’s try-hard edginess. Tom Hardy wins this one easily.

Ra's Al Ghul: Liam Neeson Matthew Nable Alexander Siddig

And the winner is...

Liam Neeson is great, but he has been one-upped hard. Not only is Alexander Siddig the only Ra’s to have remotely the correct nationality, but his appearance, voice and presence is just spot-on to how the immortal Demon’s Head has been depicted in the comics since his creation. He also does a better job at being the Greater Scope Villain than Neeson’s version, and both him and Neeson are leagues ahead of Nable’s lame-ass, inconsequential version.

Talia Al Ghul: Marion Coitllard Lexa Doig

And the winner is...

Her father may have been a spectacular dud, but Arrow’s rendition of Talia does justice to the ever-conflicted character from the comics, certainly moreso than Marion Coitllard’s take.

Harley Quinn: Mia Sara Margot Robbie

And the winner is...

I dislike that Margot Robbie’s version takes after the modern trend in the comics to make Harley Quinn into DC’s own female version of Deadpool, but nobody can deny the energy, passion and humor that Robbie puts into her portrayal, which still hits closer to the mark compared to whatever the fuck Mia Sara’s “diabolical mastermind” version was doing.

Carmine Falcone: Tom Wilkinson John Doman John Turturro / Mark Strong

And the winner is...

Now, I fucking love John Turturro’s version of the character. But in terms of fealty to the comics, then John Doman wins out for his menacing yet dignified and complicated portrayal.

Sal Maroni: Dennis Paladino Eric Roberts David Zayas Clancy Brown

And the winner is...

I don’t find any of these Maronis particularly intimidating, but at least Robert’s got charisma.

Victor Zsasz: Tim Booth Anthony Carrigan Alex Morf Chris Messina

And the winner is...

What is going on with Zsasz in live-action adaptations? They’re all mob hitmen rather than deranged serial killers! Is Zsasz somehow too inappropriate to adapt correctly? Why is his villainy where the line is drawn? In any case, Carrigan’s version is the only one to form an actual character in place of what’s been excised, and an entertaining one at that, so he wins.

#DC Comics #Batman #Analysis #Opinion #Comparison

10 notes · View notes

joker1315 · 4 years ago

Text

Tag masterlist

This is a pinned post, it will help you find what you are looking for. (Please let me know if a link doesn’t work.)

Check out my new sideblog: https://joker1315s-whump-sideblog.tumblr.com/

The Blacklist - Broadchurch - The Boys - Doctor Who - The Expanse - Fleabag - Good Omens - Gotham - The Great Race - Hannibal - Harry Potter - The Hobbit/Lord of the Rings - The Hollow Crown - How to Train Your Dragon - James Bond - Jurassic Park - Lucifer - Marvel - Monsters Inc. - Monty Python - Mulan - The Neverending Story - Once Upon a Time - Penny Dreadful - Pirates of the Caribbean - Preacher - Prodigal Son - Robin Hood - Rocky Horror Picture Show - Der Schuh des Manitu - Sherlock - Star Trek - Star Wars - Supernatural - Twin Peaks - War Horse - The Witcher - Winnie the Pooh - X-Men

Actors:

Alan Rickman - Andrew Scott - Benedict Cumberbatch - Billie Piper - Bill Nighy - Brendan Fraser - Buster Keaton - Catherine Tate - Charlie Chaplin - Chris Evans - Chris Hemsworth - Chris Pine - Christopher Eccleston - Christopher Lee - Colin Firth - Colin O’Donoghue - Damian Lewis - Daniel Brühl - Daniel Radcliffe - Danny Kaye - David Dastmalchian - David Tennant - DeForest Kelley - Dominic Cooper - Emilie de Ravin - Emma Thompson - Emma Watson - Ewan McGregor - Gary Oldman - Gwyneth Paltrow - Harrison Ford - Hayley Atwell - Heath Ledger - Helena Bonham Carter - Helen McCrory - Hugh Dancy - Hugh Jackman - Hugh Laurie - Ian McKellen - Jackie Earle Haley - James McAvoy - James Spader - Jamie Lee Curtis - Jared Padalecki - Jason Isaacs - Jennifer Lawrence - Jensen Ackles - Jeremy Renner - Joey Batey - John Barrowman - John Simm - John Hurt - Johnny Depp - Joseph Gilgun - Karen Gillan - Karl Urban - Keira Knightley - Lee Pace - Leonard Nimoy - Mads Mikkelsen - Mark Pellegrino - Mark Ruffalo - Martin Freeman - Matt Smith - Michael Fassbender - Michael Gambon - Michael Sheen - Misha Collins - Nathan Fillion - Orlando Bloom - Patrick Stewart - Paul Bettany - Peter Capaldi - Phoebe Waller Bridge - Rachel Weisz - Robert Carlyle - Robert Downey Jr - Robin Lord Taylor - Robin Williams - Ruth Negga - Samuel L Jackson - Simon Pegg - Stephen Fry - Taron Edgerton - Tim Curry - Tim Roth - Tom Ellis - Tom Hiddleston - Tom Holland - Tom Selleck - Viggo Mortensen - William Shatner - Zachary Quinto

Music:

The Beatles - Brian May - Elton John - Freddie Mercury - George Ezra - George Harrison - John Lennon - Jake Bugg - Mika - Paul McCartney - Queen - Ringo Starr

You’re looking for animals?

You’re looking for whumpy stuff or shirtless men?

Random stuff I find entertaining - Art - Quotes - Stories - Nature - History - Masterposts - Pokemon - Food - Cool clothes - Cool furniture - German Stuff - Stuff about books - Stuff about movies - Stuff about music - Ask games - Puns, jokes and funny stuff - Quizes - About tumblr

Here you can find my posts and here you can find my gifs sorted after the movie/show there from. Here you can find all my tags.

You didn’t find what you are looking for? That’s a pity. Klick here if you want to complain, suggest something or just say hi.

45 notes · View notes

uboat53 · 4 years ago

Text

The Greatest Movie Scene

This is a spiel about the greatest scene I have ever seen in a movie. It is not about the greatest scene that's ever been in a movie, I haven't seen every movie so that's not a fair statement, nor is it about someone else's greatest movie scene. This is about the greatest scene I have ever seen in a movie, which includes all of the personal background and baggage that I bring to the movie plus the particular circumstances in which I saw it. Clear? Great.

The greatest scene is from the movie Batman: The Dark Knight, the one with Christian Bale. If you haven't seen it yet, stop reading this and go watch it. It is a movie that really benefits from being seen fresh without spoilers, so don't do that to yourself. If you read past this, accept that you will be spoiled on key plot details of the movie.

Now, with a movie like this one, with a cast that includes Morgan Freeman, Michael Kaine, Gary Oldman, Aaron Eckhardt, Heath Ledger, and where Christian Bale himself, the star of the movie, can essentially be an afterthought, one might imagine that I'd be talking about one of their fantastic performances. And one would be wrong.

So let's set the scene. We come near the end of the movie, the third act. The Joker, who has spent nearly two hours of movie time tormenting the heroes and tearing the city apart with incredibly innovative and terrifying schemes, has set three terrible plans in motion, all of which are occurring simultaneously. First, he and his gang have taken a lot of doctors and nurses hostage in a skyscraper that's still under construction. Second, he's placed explosives in two huge ferries that are being used to evacuate people from the city and is threatening to blow up both ferries unless someone on one ferry presses the detonator to blow up the other. Finally, he's driven the city's white knight prosecutor insane and has encouraged him to exact his revenge on the police officers who led to his disfigurement, and that prosecutor has taken the family of the city's top policeman hostage.

For our scene we're going to focus on the second plan, the one with the ferries.

Now our two ferries couldn't be more different. One of them is full of families, lots of women, children, and men who are no longer young. The other one is full of the most hardened criminals from the city's prison. Each is full of explosives and each one has a detonator on board that will destroy the other ferry if activated. Both have been told that they have until midnight to blow up the other ferry (fifteen minutes away!) or both ferries will be blown up.

Now many movies would focus on the execution of the other two plans, they're far more action oriented. Batman has a ton of great fight scenes in the partially completed skyscraper, tangling with disguised thugs and the police in turn, and the prosecutor (Two-Face!) is threatening the policeman's family with a loaded gun to their faces, but the real heart of this sequences is the scene on the ferries.

On the prison ferry, the warden has the detonator and is protected by two prison guards armed with shotguns. The guards are young and frightened, both of the prisoners who are increasingly insistent that the warden should activate the detonator and of the ticking clock which is slowly approaching midnight.

On the family ferry, frightened people debate with the captain of the ferry and national guardsmen on board who eventually decide to put it to a vote. Amidst a sinking feeling of dread, the people on board the ferry write their vote on pieces of paper which are slowly, all too slowly, collected by the guardsmen in their helmets.

Seconds tick by and the tension builds. Frightened faces flash in front of the screen, sometimes reacting to the arguments for or against using their detonators and sometimes simply blank with dread. Tension builds and builds. The family ferry finishes their vote, it's a landslide in favor of using the detonator. The captain takes it out, his hand on the key that will explode the other ferry. There are only three minutes left. He pauses for a moment. "What are you waiting for?" an old woman demands, "Do it." "We're still here," he says nervously, "That means they haven't killed us either."

Meanwhile, on the prison ferry, there is utter bedlam. Prisoners are on their feet, screaming and shouting in the faces of the terrified guards, only kept back by bared shotguns. At the back of the crowd a man stands up and walks forward. He is huge, a massive African-American man with a shaved head, covered in tattoos and scars. Calmly, he walks forward, the crowd parting before him and going silent, until he stands face to face with the warden, looming over him.

"You don't want to die, but you don't know how to take a life," he says in a threatening growl, "Give it to me; these men would kill you and take it anyway. Give it to me. You can tell them I took it by force. Give it to me and I'll do what you shoulda did ten minutes ago."

Nervously, hands shaking, the warden pushes the detonator into the handcuffed hands of this huge prisoner. The expression on the warden's face is pained; the prisoner is right, he wants desperately to live but cannot bring himself press the trigger. He hasn't killed the people on the other ferry directly, but in that moment he has sealed their fate.

The prisoner holds the detonator, looks at it for a moment, and then tosses it out the window into the water.

That is the single greatest momoment of the movie and, for my preferences, the single greatest moment in any movie I've ever seen. The raw tension of the scene, the conflict between pure morality and a desperate desire for survival, the anticipation of one outcome, and the suddenness by which another is achieved.

That is the pivotal moment of the movie, the moment when the tension is broken. And not like tension breaks in other movies where there's a gradual drawdown and sense of relief, this tension snapped like a dry twig and left behind only deepening feeling of dread, acceptance, and a certain feeling of pride and accomplishment. The fear on the people's faces as they chose or were forced to accept that they would die in order not kill was palpable, all the more so as we'd been witness to their struggle. The decision of the filmmaker to make us spend the entire fifteen minutes with these people, worrying and debating, trying to save both their lives and their souls as Batman fought his way through a vertical construction site, drew us into their struggle and forced us to empathize with their fate. There was no way to save both their lives and their souls and they had chosen, even the ones who we may have assumed were the most soulless among them, to save their souls.

But it's not just the tension that's the reason why this scene is so great, not by itself. The reason why that scene, that moment when the detonator flies out the window, is the greatest I've ever seen is that it's the moment when the Joker is defeated. Batman hasn't punched him in the face yet; in fact, at that moment, he has Batman pinned, forcing him to watch the culmination of his schemes, but in that moment he has lost.

You see, the thing that becomes clear from the rest of the movie is that the Joker isn't trying to kill people or destroy the city. That's far too simple for him. He threatens the life of a man not by pointing a gun at him, but by threatening to blow up a hospital if he isn't killed. He tries to break his enemies not by injuring or killing them, but by setting them up so that they must choose which of two choices they value most, only to discover that they were the reverse of what they thought they were. The Joker isn't trying to destroy Gotham, he's trying to force Gotham to destroy itself.

In that moment the people of Gotham, some of them at least, decide that they won't do it. They won't play his game. He may kill them, he may rampage ans scheme and cause his mayhem, but they won't be a part of it. Not because they are perfect and not because they are without fear, but because they are human.

And in that moment it is they, the ordinary people, who become the heroes of the movie. Not the caped crusader or the police, not the extremely talented actors who take lead billing on the marquee, but the regular people who are most often just relegated to the background of superhero movies, forced to simply react to or accept whatever the result of the conflict between the hero and the villain is.

That's why that moment in Batman: The Dark Knight is the greatest scene in any movie I've ever seen. It has stuck with me since the moment I saw it, at a midnight showing in the summer of 2008 with some of my roommates while we were doing summer work in our college town. No movie I've seen before or since has stuck in my head the way that one did, coming back to trigger more and more thoughts and contemplations on the many, many topics that it brought up, many of which are still salient to the world we live in today, and no scene to me has better illustrated the greatest potential of human nature.

If you're still with me, thanks for reading. This has been going through my head for years now and it's good to write it all out. I hope you enjoyed and, if you haven't seen the movie yet, go see it!

#movies #batman #the dark knight #movie scenes #philosophizing #movie review #scene review

4 notes · View notes

bisoucy · 6 years ago

Text

Hollywood is always ALWAYS gonna reward abusers/pedophiles/rapists etc last year they gave Gary oldman, an abuser, a big award while simultaneously saying times up while having mandatory wear black policy and then with this year while wearing their times up pins and ribbons they awarded a pedophile best picture, you can’t ask for change and then expect it to happen while awarding the people that are the problem stop nominating these people and their movies

#ask to tag

2 notes · View notes

bisluthq · 3 years ago

Note

I do think the cupcake part is important. I have to say that I personally don’t hate Gary Oldman, I don’t think what he did was okay at all but from what I have seen of him now he seems like a nice man. I am not his fan, but I can’t say I wouldn’t get along with him if I worked with him. I am not going to unstan Jack for that. But I also did kind of side eye him a bit, this guy called himself a 10/10 feminist so like it’s okay to call him out a bit and we did, but yeah, I am not going to cancel him and I can’t say I would act differently. My biggest issue with Jack was actually the Ronaldo stuff, and it did bother me that he wore a Times Up pin to the baftas and then is out here supporting him (who from what I remember admitted to sexually assaulting that woman and then backtracked). But again, we called him out on it 🤷🏻‍♀️ if I had tried to defend Jack and I had defended Ronaldo to do that, then Nat would’ve probably gotten pissed off but we all said “this isn’t great…” and moved on.

(Want to add that he was asked how much of a feminist he is on a scale from one to ten and he said ten. I think the way I phrased that could be misleading. I don’t think he’s saying he’s the best feminist but that he agrees with… women having rights, I guess?)

This is the thing. Like don’t defend indefensible shit. It’s that’s simple.

Taylor isn’t a normal human being who therefore has flaws.

#nat talks wise ass anons

0 notes

invieres · 7 years ago

Text

in the year 2018 I would love for the rpc to collectively b(a/i)n their fave trash.

Blake Lively

Lively recently said that "Woody Allen is empowering to women," despite the fact that Woody Allen has been accused of molesting his adopted daughter, Dylan Farrow. His son, Ronan Farrow, even wrote a piece in the Hollywood Reporter about how he believes Dylan, and that he's disappointed that stars continue to work with his father. She also defended Woody Allen when a joke was made at the Cannes Film Festival that insinuated he should be convicted for rape in the United States.

Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds were married at the slave plantation Boone Hall, which is right outside of Charleston, South Carolina. It's a plantation where slave cabins are still standing.

Continually uses transphobic slurs. Although may have finally learned from it.

Kate Winslet

"Woody Allen is an incredible director," she continued. "So is Roman Polanski. I had an extraordinary working experience with both of those men, and that’s the truth." // The way Harvey Weinstein has treated these vulnerable, talented young women is NOT the way women should ever EVER deem to be acceptable or commonplace in ANY workplace.“I have no doubt that for these women this time has been, and continues to be extremely traumatic. I fully embrace and salute their profound courage, and I unequivocally support this level of very necessary exposure of someone who has behaved in reprehensible and disgusting ways. Notably after he was terminated from his studio and could no longer offer her roles.

Kate Winslet has spoken out about the ongoing conversation surrounding the pay gap in Hollywood, calling it “vulgar”. “I’m quite surprised by these conversations to be honest, simply because it seems quite a strange thing to be discussing out in the open like that. I am a very lucky woman and I’m quite happy with how things are ticking along.”

The British actress, has admitted that she often mocks people who become a slave to their diets often on bizarre fads. "I'm just like, 'Yeah, you're right, you look gigantic, you need to lay off those bits of boiled chicken you've been eating because have you seen your a**e?' And they're the size of a pin.

Kristen Stewart

Blames ��bad acting’ on co-stars "I'm not the type of actor who can perform without wearing a mirror on my face. Everyone knows that you're better with other actors who are really present, who you are having the same experience with, but I am made or broken on it. If I'm working with someone who I'm not vibing with, or who I have to fake anything with, then it's sad for me and it's bad

Hypocritically victimised herself in response to her betrayal of another woman (tbf she was young and engaged in an affair with someone in a position of power over her- however this behaviour has allegedly been repeated multiple times with multiple partners)

“I was like, ‘What do you think? We don’t know any of these people involved. I can personalize situations, which would be very wrong.’ At the end of the day, Jesse and I talked about this. If we were persecuted for the amount of shit that’s been said about us that’s not true, our lives would be over,” Stewart says. “The experience of making the movie was so outside of that, it was fruitful for the two of us to go on with it.”Eisenberg says he doesn’t recall the conversation..’ on working with Woody Allen despite being aware of sexual abuse allegations

On gender equality, “Instead of sitting around and complaining about that, do something,” she said. “Go write something, go do something.”“And that’s easy to say,” she continued. “Like, f–k, it’s hard to get movies made. It’s a huge luxury. Who gets to just make movies? But that subject is just so prevalently everywhere right now, and it’s boring.”

Apologised after backlash for comparing being photographed by paparazzi to rape in Elle UK (Source unavailable). "The photos are so…I feel like I'm looking at someone being raped.".

Actress Kristen Stewart has lashed out at her former teachers, insisting they "failed" to support her while she was away from class on acting jobs.

I lit had to stop because I’m so fed up. I’ve especially seen Blake requested so often recently as an FC change and I’m DONE with it.

Here are further trashbags you can simply google and find the reasons why within about two seconds.

Ben Affleck / Casey Affleck sexual assault

Colin Firth supports Woody Allen

Dominic Sherwood Homophobia

Emma Stone Woody Allen, whitewashing

Gary Oldman Domestic Abuse

Henry Cavill/ Matthew Gray Gubler (consistently dating teenage girls still in school and easily influenced, despite being in their 30s. Henry Cavill allegedly asked girlfriend to leave school before dumping her. Sources can be found on ONTD somewhere.)

Ian Somerhalder There genuinely isn’t enough room

Jared Padalecki rape jokes, abusive behaviour, bigotry

Martin Freeman Racism, homophobia, classism, general asshole.

Matt Bomer this one takes some investigating but suffice to say potentially complicit or at least knowledgeable of Bryan Singer/Kevin Spacey predator parties

Matt Damon support & employment of known sexual predators, “You know, there’s a difference between, you know, patting someone on the butt and rape or child molestation, right?” he told Peter Travers of ABC. “Both of those behaviors need to be confronted and eradicated without question, but they shouldn’t be conflated, right?” He added that society was in a “watershed moment” and said it was “wonderful that women are feeling empowered to tell their stories and it’s totally necessary”. But he said: “We live in this culture of outrage and injury, that we’re going to have to correct enough to kind of go, ‘Wait a minute. None of us came here perfect.’”

Milo Ventimiglia verbally and mentally abusive/ physically intimidating (witnessed) allegedly physically abusive to Alexis Bledel, girlfriend at the time. Dated teenager Hayden Panettiere when 29, was allegedly mentally abusive and controlling.

Misha Collins homophobia, bigotry, transphobia

Natalie Dormer Not her job to defend GOT, then defends GOT rape scenes, misogyny, belittles those affected by it. Starring role in a film trivialising and romanticising high suicide rates in Aokigahara Forest, Japan *complicit in whitewashing*. (alternatively does some very good work for children’s charities)

Scarlett Johansson Woody Allen, Roman Polanski, whitewashing

Tom Hardy Physical Abuse, Intimidation

#i know how problematic it is that the cited sources are for women #so i'm going to edit at some point #it is def intentional that they're your white faves tho

4 notes · View notes

diasporadreams · 7 years ago

Note

seeing domestic abuser gary oldman saying that "things need to change and it's about time they did" or something like that was all kinds of infuriating. so many fucking hypocrites were wearing that time's up pin.

i swear to god.. that whole night just made me so angry! how dare these men step out there one night and say they care abt women and then go back to being abusers/supporters of abusers the next day? it well and truly baffles me n i have 0 tolerance for any of them. makes me sick to see their faces actually

#Anonymous

1 note · View note

narcisbolgor-blog · 7 years ago

Text

Was James Francos Oscar Snub Due to His Sexual-Misconduct Allegations?

Less than two weeks ago, the Los Angeles Times published an investigation in which five women accused James Franco of inappropriate or sexually exploitative behavior, leading many to believe that the prolific actor would be the next powerful Hollywood player in the #MeToo movement whose career would fall in atonement for his actions.

Was Francos Oscar snub this morning the first punishment?

The Times investigation coincided with the prime of Francos campaign for what had seemed to be a sure-thing Best Actor nomination for The Disaster Artist, in which he stars as Tommy Wiseau, the notorious director and star of The Room, widely believed to be the worst film ever made. (In a meta twist, Franco also directs the film.)

In fact, Franco was delivering an acceptance speech at the Golden Globes for Best Actor in a Comedy when a series of tweets went viral that criticized the actor for wearing a Times Up pin to the ceremony in support of victims of sexual abuse and harassment. Cute #TIMESUP pin James Franco. Remember the time you pushed my head down in a car towards your exposed penis & that other time you told my friend to come to your hotel when she was 17? After you had already been caught doing that to a different 17 year old? read a tweet from one accuser.

(In response to the allegations, Franco has said: I have my own side of this story, but I believe in, you know, these people that have been underrepresented getting their stories out enough that I will, you know, hold back things that I could say just because I believe in it that much. And if I have to take a knock because Im not going to, you know, try and, you know, actively refute things, then I will, because I believe in it that much.)

At a time when repercussions for men accused of misconduct have come with a sharp swinging axe, it would be logical to assume the allegations torpedoed the stars Oscar chances.

In fact, voters affinity for Denzel Washington, whose nomination came as one of the biggest shocks Tuesday morning, may even be the biggest factor of all.

The truth is that its impossible to tell how, if at all, the allegations and Francos response affected Oscar voters and his nomination, let alone make a judgment as to whether his exclusion in the Best Actor category could be viewed as the Academy condemning his behavior at all.

When Tiffany Haddish and Andy Serkis announced that Timothee Chalamet, Daniel Day-Lewis, Daniel Kaluuya, Gary Oldman, and Denzel Washington were the Best Actor contenders and not Franco, most pundits were shocked because the reasoning is more likely due to voters not warming up to his Disaster Artist performancenot because of any reaction to the allegations against him.

In fact, voters affinity for Denzel Washington, whose nomination came as one of the biggest shocks Tuesday morning, may even be the biggest factor of all.

When the Los Angeles Times story broke on January 11, voters had already been submitting their Oscar ballots for nearly a full week; voting began on January 5. When the story published, less than 48 hours remained before voting closed.

Who knows how many voters fill out their ballots early and how many wait until the last minute. But its highly likely that enough had submitted their choices and sealed his fate before the Times story broke.

Anecdotally, there were many voters who had already put Franco on their ballots, and regretted it.

According to the Los Angeles Times, a number of voters have expressed Franco remorse and wish they could have changed their votes in light of the new information. Yet, as The New York Times reported, another contingent of voters met the allegations with a shrug, feeling they were small potatoes, especially compared with the alleged misdeeds of, say, Harvey Weinstein, to name just one.

Plus there are those quick to point out that whispers of Francos unsavory behavior had been somewhat of an open secret, especially after a public controversy in which he was caught trying to arrange a hookup with a 17-year-old through Instagram DMs. It seems as if every awards body has already been willing to look past all that.

There are also those who were frustrated that the allegations against Franco are being sloppily aggregated under the banner of sexual misconducttheres a reason the Times headline includes the labored phrase inappropriate or sexually exploitative behaviorand therefore equated to the sexual abuse and assault other men are accused of, when the specifics of the allegations refer more to an abuse of power on set.

Of course, it is impossible to gauge how many down-to-the-wire voters there really were. It is likely that those 11th hour voters took the reports into account, not to mention how a nomination for Franco would play against the broader conversations that are currently being had in the industry.

One of the tenets of the Times Up movement is to put an end to a pattern of behavior that leaves women feeling preyed on, unsafe, and pressured by power dynamics on set. These are awful allegations, including one anecdote in which Franco removed a vagina guard while performing an oral sex scene with a young female costar. An industry purportedly emboldened to rectify decades of such brazen and boorish behavior would surely color their voting given that information.

Regardless of the reasoning for Francos snub, the Academy saved itself from an uncomfortable situationthe one the Critics Choice Awards, at which Franco won another Best Actor in a Comedy trophy, and the Screen Actors Guild Awards, where he was a nominee, found themselves in, with voting taking place before the allegations were made public.

Yet because of its visibility and influence, there is more intense scrutiny on the actions and decisions of the Academy, and the message those actions and decisions send.

A pall followed last years awards season when Casey Affleck kept picking up trophies even as past sexual harassment allegations made against the actor dominated conversation throughout his campaign, with Afflecks eventual victory at the Oscars deemed a cringe-inducing condoning or dismissal. The Academy would obviously have liked to avoid a similar narrative this year. (Already, it finds itself in the awkward position of whether to invite the actor to present at the ceremony, as is tradition with all the previous years winners.)

The Academy also took a historical stand following the Harvey Weinstein allegations and expelled him from the organization, the first time it has ever kicked out a member because of their personal behavior. (The only other time had been because a voter broke Academy rules about sharing screeners.) The decisiveness and power of that stand is no doubt tempered when an actor accused of sexual misbehavior is a nominee that very same year.

It resurfaces what was a loud critique, or at least hesitation, surrounding the Weinstein move: what is the line? There is an ever-growing number of members being exposed by the #MeToo movement who have engaged in sexual misconduct, abused their power, or were complicit in fostering an unsafe industry.

At the time, some cautioned against the slippery slope of litigating personal behavior, and others pointed to the hypocrisy of booting Weinstein while the likes of Roman Polanski, Bill Cosby, and Mel Gibson were still in. With so many other men implicated to various degreesformer winners Kevin Spacey, Dustin Hoffman, and Paul Haggis among themwhat happens now?

Its a complicated conversation with no simple conclusion. Francos exclusion from the Best Actor category might be owed to the allegations against him or they may be owed to the Academys taste; the Oscars are notorious for scoffing at comedy, after all, and Francos performance is purely that. But for many, it brings with it a sense of poetic justice at a time in Hollywood when justice and reparations are on the tip of everyones tongue.

More From this publisher : HERE ; This post was curated using : TrendingTraffic

=> *********************************************** Read More Here: Was James Francos Oscar Snub Due to His Sexual-Misconduct Allegations? ************************************ =>

Was James Francos Oscar Snub Due to His Sexual-Misconduct Allegations? was originally posted by 11 VA Viral News

#11 VA Viral News

0 notes

fashiontrendin-blog · 7 years ago

Text

Hollywood Barely Snubbed Ryan Seacrest, Because Of Course

https://fashion-trendin.com/hollywood-barely-snubbed-ryan-seacrest-because-of-course/

Hollywood Barely Snubbed Ryan Seacrest, Because Of Course

Ryan Seacrest, nary a Time’s Up pin to be found on his navy tuxedo, opened his 2018 Oscars red carpet coverage with a telling line: “It promises to be a very special evening.”

Despite the sexual misconduct allegations leveled against him earlier this week by former personal stylist Suzie Hardy, everything was business as usual for Seacrest on Sunday. While his female co-host Giuliana Rancic set up at the nearby Hollywood Roosevelt Hotel, Seacrest parked on the red carpet ― no stage or special booth to prop him up, though. It was just him, a mic and enough celebrity traffic to sustain him for a few hours.

In fact, despite the Me Too mood of other awards shows this season, more than a few celebrities made their way over to Seacrest for a quick chat on Sunday. There was something eerie about watching women like Diane Warren, Allison Janney, Taraji P. Henson and Tiffany Haddish talk to Seacrest as if the recent reports just didn’t exist. No one talked about the Me Too or Time’s Up movements; no one questioned the ubiquitous TV personality.

Casey Affleck faced backlash for the sexual harassment allegations against him. As did Aziz Ansari and James Franco and Jeremy Piven. (The list goes on and on.) So why, or more so how, did Seacrest earn a pass?

On Monday, Hardy told Variety that Seacrest sexually harassed and assaulted her over the course of seven years. According to Hardy, Seacrest subjected her to many unwanted sexual advances, which allegedly included groping her vagina, grinding his erect penis on her and slapping her buttocks. She said she reported his behavior to E! News’ human resources executives in 2013 and was terminated shortly after.

“As proud as I am and as strong as a woman as I am, as smart as I am and as much work as I’ve done with therapists, it really affected me,” Hardy told Variety.

Seacrest vehemently denied the claims, which first surfaced last fall. In a statement on Tuesday, the “Live with Kelly & Ryan” and “American Idol” host said, “Yesterday, Variety published a salacious story that revealed the specific claims against me for the first time ― even though an independent third-party investigator found insufficient evidence to support the claims. Much to my dismay, Variety didn’t speak with me or bother to speak with other credible witnesses or even ask for any of the evidence that was obtained during the investigation when offered, all of which clearly challenged the veracity of the claims made against me.”

Seacrest added that Hardy repeatedly offered to step back her claims if he paid her “millions of dollars,” which he refused to do.

“I have worked extremely hard to achieve my success and I don’t take my opportunities for granted,” he concluded. “I don’t want to accuse anyone of not telling the truth but in this case, I have no choice but to again deny the claims against me, remind people that I was recused of any wrongdoing, and put the matter to rest.”

When asked if she felt Seacrest should still attend the Oscars, Me Too movement founder Tarana Burke told Variety, “We shouldn’t have to make those choices of, ‘Do we or don’t we?’ This is not about his guilt or innocence. It’s about there being an accusation that’s alive, and until they sort [it] out, it’s really on E! News and shouldn’t be on us. … It will let us know where they stand in terms of how respectful E! News is of this issue ― and of women.”

But both E! and ABC backed their prized possession, keeping Seacrest on the air even though murmurs were swirling from New York to Los Angeles. Should he still host the red carpet? Will celebrities stop to talk to him? Will he address the allegations on live TV?

He did show up; a few major celebrities did stop for him; and he didn’t address the scandal on “Live,” nor did he use his time on the E! red carpet to say a word about it. He swears he’s innocent, and it seems some people in Hollywood believe him. There were many ― both women and men ― who let him ask about their gowns, jewels and tuxedos, and smiled when he complimented their respective Oscar-nominated projects.

Interestingly enough, though, once the bigger stars started arriving to the event, Rancic and her E! red carpet cohorts, like Kristin Dos Santos, Brad Goreski and Josh Horowitz, started enjoying a bit more live screen time. Producers seamlessly jumped between Rancic and Seacrest ― perhaps to avoid airing any awkward moments as E! struggled to get bigger names and supporters of Time’s Up. The network reportedly instated a live 30-second delay to, most likely, rescue Seacrest from any unwanted, public controversy.

Awkwardness made its way into the broadcast anyway. Some comments from pre-show passersby were positive, while others were confusing, and it all made for less-than-stellar red carpet content from the typically newsworthy E!.

“Baby Driver” star Eiza Gonzalez delivered some intriguing parting words when she ended her interview with Seacrest by telling him, “Be good.” (Sure, it could’ve been a choice goodbye phrase, but either way, it was heard.) Taraji P. Henson also threw in her two cents when talking about the amazing success of her friend Mary J. Blige, telling Seacrest, “The universe has a way of taking care of the good people, you know what I mean?” She gave him a smile and some side-eye. Was it a show of support or a slight? It’s anyone’s guess.

Others continued to praise Seacrest, including double-nominee Blige, who told him she “loves” him and acknowledged his chemistry with Kelly Ripa on “Live With Kelly & Ryan.” (Ripa also popped by to tell her pal how “great” he was doing.) Seacrest also thanked Whoopi Goldberg for stopping as she smiled and said, “You know!”

Holy shit Taraji just put a curse on Ryan Seacrest 😂 pic.twitter.com/GSknn3NozF

— Sara Jean Hughes (@sarajeanhughes) March 5, 2018

ABC, who aired the live award show and their own red carpet pre-show, spoke with many A-listers and Time’s Up supporters ― those who Seacrest and co. couldn’t wrangle.

Saoirse Ronan, Viola Davis, Mira Sorvino, Ashley Judd, Kumail Nanjiani and Emily V. Gordon, Lin-Manuel Miranda, Greta Gerwig, Gary Oldman, Mahershala Ali and Sandra Bullock, to name a few, chatted with the varied hosts, who asked not only about their films but Time’s Up and the current state of Hollywood.

After failing to get any more stars to stop and talk, Seacrest headed to the Roosevelt and joined Rancic for some sad fashion discussion, which included a comment about the lack of green dresses and the prevalence of the shade of “nude.”

Yet even though the Jennifer Lawrence and Laura Dern types didn’t stop for an interview with Seacrest, he still managed to do pretty well, all things considering. His first hour and change of coverage was solid enough, showing that both Hollywood and the world are torn on whether or not to believe him or his alleged victim.

One reason Seacrest, a fixture in live TV and an established producer worth over $380 million, might have earned his spot on the carpet is because he is a part of the machine that runs Hollywood. He’s a boss himself, a power player in the ranks, a bigger success than most at the Oscars and a friend of many a celebrity. Seacrest gets a pass because he’s used to handing out the tickets.

Me Too momentum seemed to building in awards season. Remember the Golden Globes? Black gowns and suits covered the carpet, and Time’s Up pins were prominently displayed as stars spoke at length about the powerful movement while standing beside impassioned activists. The tenor of discussion on the Oscars red carpet, or lack thereof, is telling. Was the movement another passing phase for Hollywood? Why did hosts and celebrities alike neglect to think discussions about sexism, pay disparity and harassment in the industry were appropriate for the night?

Unlike the pre-show, the live Oscars show addressed the impact and importance of Time’s Up with a powerful segment highlighting the trailblazers, which Harvey Weinstein accusers Ashley Judd, Annabella Sciorra and Salma Hayek introduced. Those sound bites are what we needed to hear from start to finish.

If only Laura Dern had made her way down the carpet to Seacrest and confronted him with a tough question. Maybe this would have been a different story. Unfortunately, male power prevails.

http://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

0 notes