#i can’t believe that this is just the standard for modern movies

[fivetrench]

Venom: The Last Dance was such a joke. Short falling plot, horrible writing, redundant action scenes, and probably the most disrespectful death I’ve ever seen given to a main character. If your story ends with one of the lead protagonists getting dissolved in acid and also exploding, you’ve done something seriously wrong. The movie literally ended with a flashback montage playing over Memories by Maroon 5, so I think that tells you everything you need to know about the film.

[lucentloo]

First Kiss

Summary: You’ve never truly thought the perfect first kissed existed after a drunken one night stand had stolen every innocence you have ever had, but Remus is here to prove what a first kiss should really be like.

Remus Lupin x Fem!reader

Wc: 1143

Content Warnings: Modern au, fem!reader, swearing, drunk sex (in the past, only mentioned not described fully), kissing, pinning, friends to lovers, Sirius and James are supportive, Lily as best friend, Peter here but not here, low standards, if I’ve missed any please let me know!

a/n: Hello lovely’s! This is Fic number three now and I can’t say my writings getting better but the more you interact the more confidence I get! I’m sorry it’s been a long time since my last Fic but life’s been hectic and I’m a slow writer so that’s on me. Either way I hope you enjoy this little Remus story today and have a wonderful weekend/week! Also not proof read so sorry for any mistakes!

When you were little you would imagine your first kiss as magical and romantic, something you would remember forever. Instead your innocence was tainted by a drunken night full of affectionless touches and meaningless words. Little you thought a prince would sweep you off your feet and steal the air from your lungs. And although the air was taken from you that night, it wasn’t quite as enjoyable as you thought.

After that one night you stopped expecting the love you read in your books or the touches you saw in the movies. Every relationship you indulged in only reinforced the obnoxiously low standards you had set for yourself. Your friends, more specifically Lily, encouraged you to find better men, to set a better standard, but you refused. You didn’t think you could find any better than you already have.

That was until you met Remus.

Him and his friends had opened a music store right next to your bookstore, and that helped boost both of your stores' activity. The boys invited you out to coffee to kinda get to know each other a bit more and you were immediately besotted with Remus. His calm nature, chocolate eyes, and even the scar on his upper lip that he got from a guy named Sniffilous, though you don't believe that that was his actual name. Remus was effortlessly kind and brilliant and knew when a joke had gone too far. He was unlike any guy you’ve met. 

You started hanging out with him more often than the rest of your friends and got extremely close. Close enough that people have begun to speculate that there was something more brewing between us. You desperately want there to be. Every time his hand grazes yours and when he whispers a joke in your ears so that only you can hear, you feel special. Like you’re worth something more than a quick fuck.

One Saturday when you were hanging out with Remus at your bookstore you asked him what his most embarrassing story was, just out of curiosity. 

Remus was fiddling with a pen when he answered. “I believe my most embarrassing story was when I believed a story my mother once told me all the way until I was fourteen.” He says quietly, not trying to break the comfortable silence around us. 

You lean forwards on your elbows that were situated on your desk. You were previously rifling through documents and files trying to find the book you were missing. “What was the story?” You ask, genuinely intrigued.

Remus hummed and rose to stand next to me and sit on my desk. “My mother once believed that there was a magical world, full of wizards and witches, and they had a whole society. She made me believe that one day I would get accepted into a school for the young witches and wizards and that I would learn every spell in the book. I only stopped believing that when I thought a teacher was a disguised troll and I got sent home. I still cringe thinking about those ten years of my life.” When Remus finishes with the story he scrunches his perfectly adorable nose so cutely that you give a little giggle. 

“Now you.” Remus gestures to me with his head.

“Me?” You ask confused.  

“Yeah, you,” He says again, “what’s your most embarrassing story?” He asks it in such an innocently mischievous way that you can’t help but chuckle and think about it. 

“I think my most embarrassing story would be my first kiss.” You blush as you answer, immediately regretting even mentioning it. However, you see the curiosity in his eyes and continue. “I was drunk and some guy who I was talking to that night brought me back to his apartment. I don’t think I have to say much more than that.” You are hard core blushing now and look back at your files. 

Remus however is looking your way with a furrowed brow and downturned lips. He hops off the desk and stands in front of you. “You're telling me that your first kiss was a drunken one night stand? That’s it?” He asks. You nod hesitantly, wondering why he looks so distraught.

“Oh baby,” He said softly and you felt your heart pick up its pace, his proximity suddenly making your knees weak. “That does not count as a first kiss.”

You look up  into his eyes that now burn with a small desire and start protesting. “But a first kiss is when you have your kiss for the first time, and I did. That counts as my first kiss-” Your cut off by soft lips gently pushing against yours. Your eyes widen in shock before a steady hand cups your cheek and you melt into the kiss. It wasn’t a quick in and out but it also wasn’t a long, heavy makeout sesh. Just a soft kiss on the lips and Remus was pulling away.

“That is a first kiss. It’s loving and soft and it was one you were fully aware of.” Remus cups the back of your neck and pulls it forwards to rest our foreheads together. “Your first kiss isn;t your first kiss until you say it is.” Remus speaks so softly you almost couldn’t hear him.

You smile slightly and lean in close again, your lips making contact with his once more. This time it goes on a little longer to the point where you grip his shoulders begging for more, noises escape your lips without your permission, and when you’re finally finished you pull away gasping for air. 

Remus has a beautiful smile on his face as he looks at you. He bends his head down enough to whisper in your ear. “I really like kissing you.” You giggle and bury your face into his chest. In the distance you hear cheers and clapping and as you lift your face you see two of Remus’ close friends, James and Sirius, appearing from behind the bookcases. Your cheeks burn a deep red as you hide your face into Remus’ chest once again. 

“How long have you two been here?” Remus asks with a small sigh.

Sirius laughs and pats him on the back. “Just long enough to see the show Moons, and quite the show it was!” He teases. James elbows him in the ribs but his smile is a carbon copy of Sirius’.

As the boys divulge into endless bickering and attempt  to embarrass your poor Remus even more, you bury yourself fully into his arms. You wonder what this will mean for the future. For your relationship, and although in any other scenario you would have been nervous all you can feel is excitement. 

You thought that this would be a very good first kiss to remember.

[johnwickb1tsch]

Vino Veritas - Part III

A Destination Wedding Frank x Fem!Reader Fic

Attending the wedding of your ex-fiancé gets slightly better when you meet someone having just as miserable a time as you... Warnings: Nothing too serious holy shit. Cursing. Broken engagement. Nihilism, existential bullshit, copious amounts of sarcasm. NSFW. Angst. Grump/sunshine trope. Loosely based on the movie but I'm not that smart. Or bitter. 😆 chapter map.

III. Just what the world needs, Another Fucking Sunset Wedding

It’s almost sweet. If you didn’t know any better, you’d think Frank had been waiting for you to catch the shuttle to the wedding venue, dallying in the lobby pretending to look at an atrocious modern art print while keeping one eye on the hallway.

“You look nice,” he grumbles, taking in your white A-line sundress printed with big red roses.

“Thanks,” you say, admiring his navy blue suit unabashedly, since he brought it up first. “You look very handsome.”

This makes him stand up a little straighter, clearly not sure how to take the compliment, but you dare to think, he liked it.

When the shuttle drops you off at the base of the vineyard you look up the steep hill planted with curling grape vines in their nice neat rows with a sense of dread.

“Fuck.”

“What?”

“I am not wearing the right shoes for this.”

He looks down at your platform heels. “It said in the itinerary you’d have to walk up a hill.”

“Ok, but what was I supposed to wear? Hiking boots? The unfair standards of women’s dress clothes don’t allow for that.”

He holds out a hand, albeit begrudgingly. “Come on. I’ll help you.”

“I swear, these shoes are actually usually the sensible option.”

“Sure they are. Wearing anything that elevates your feet four inches off the ground is a sensible option.”

You sigh, and take his hand, trying to ignore the thrill running through your bones as you feel the strength in his fingers and his arm, as he helps propel you up the incline.

“I can’t believe they don’t have…stairs, or something? Did the old people have to do this?”

“Presumably not.”

“Then what the fuck?”

“Quite.”

Men’s dress shoes aren’t exactly made for rough terrain either, and at one point you both almost slip, clutching each other in a bid not to tumble back down the hill. It’s…nice, you have to admit, to be held close by this man.

He looks at you with wide eyes, for a moment for all the world appearing as though he’s drowning, before that thunderous frown appears. “Fuck this.”

You yip with surprise as he sweeps you up into his arms, and marches determinedly the rest of the way up the hill. Before you can even think about taking it as a romantic gesture, he practically drops you back to your feet at the top, releasing you as though you’d burned him.

You sit together in the back, as usual, though Frank very pointedly crosses his arms and is careful to keep a respectable amount of distance between you.

That shouldn’t make you feel sad, but it does.

The excruciatingly drawn-out bullshit Reception

“I used to like this song,” you muse, watching the dancers on the floor with an odd mixture of wistfulness and distaste. Keith dips his new bride, and a mean little part of you really wishes he would drop her.

“Do you…want to dance?”

Frank could have knocked you over with a feather, after how he’d behaved earlier. It definitely colors your answer, the knee-jerk impulse to push him away too.

“I said I used to like it.”

“Fine.”

Then, of course, you feel bad. And maybe you feel…a sliver of hope, however stupid.

“Why, do you want to dance?”

“Of course I don’t want to dance. It’s moronic and ridiculous. No one wants to fucking dance.” There is more venom in this statement, than perhaps the situation calls for.

After a moment, a bit softer and with a hint of apology, he qualifies, “I just thought it might take your mind off things.”

If you looked miserable, it’s ironic that for once, Keith was not the cause of it.

Perhaps this should send you running in the opposite direction too.

“Do you want to take a walk?” you ask instead.

He looks pointedly down at your questionable footwear, but you point at the basket behind you bearing what are professed by a whimsically written sign: Walking Shoes. They’re some kind of slide on deal that will do in a pinch. Honestly you’re willing to go bare foot, if it gets you out of that tent.

The meandering and pointless Walk

“You know, I was actually diagnosed with PTSD after the whole Keith thing?”

Frank snorts at that, the farthest reaction from sympathy he can manage. “Rich people’s PTSD.”

“I’m not rich.”

“Fine. Privileged.”

That’s probably true. Goddammit.

“Well…am I not allowed to have problems?”

“Sure, just no one wants to hear about them. Anyone who doesn’t have to worry about food, housing, or getting shot by the police should just keep it to themselves.”

“That’s not very healthy.”

He shrugs. “It’s not just you. No one should care about my problems either.”

“What if I care?”

He snorts. “Then I will feel even sorrier for you than I already do.”

“Ok, fine. Maybe not me specifically. But what if…say, you find someone else you actually like. Isn’t it ok to talk about your problems with friends?”

“Isn’t that a terrible thing to do to someone you like? Making friends or a significant other listen to your problems for free, when you should be paying a shrink for it?”

“It’s just a thing people do who are close to each other. They talk.”

“People who aren’t close too, apparently.” He says all this with a surprising amount of cheer in his tone, either enjoying himself, or the walk, or the view…or maybe even your company.  

He changes the subject as you round a bend. “So, are you glad you came to this thing? You made your show of strength, you’ve got your closure now that the knot is tied and they’re legally bound to be miserable together, and you’ve fled the scene with his half-brother, whom he despises, which the family surely will gossip about. You could almost chalk it as a win, if you squint just right.”

You huff, breathing a little heavy as you walk up a hill on the ridge the path follows. It truly is beautiful in the backcountry of the vineyard, rolling mountains planted with nice neat rows of green vines.

He makes a good point, but strangely…you don’t feel satisfied. “I guess.”

“You guess?”

“I’m not sure how I feel,” you admit, pausing to incline your head up at him. He pauses too, looking down that straight nose at you, and he is standing very close. You fancy you sense him tense, as though about to take some great leap, and he looks at your mouth with something like consternation, when a god-awful yowling roar travels down the path at you.

You both turn to see a very big, very unhappy cat displaying its impressively large and sharp canines at you.

“What the fuck is that?”

“I think it’s a mountain lion.”

“What the fuck do we do?”

“I don’t know. We’re too far away, no one will hear us scream.”

“Is it a bobcat?”

“It’s not a fucking bobcat. Look at the tail.”

“You should run. It’s going to eat me anyway.”

“Why?”

“Because I’m smaller and slower.”

“I wouldn’t presume about the last part.”

It roars again, and you clutch at his arm.

Suddenly Frank charges the thing, making that god-awful hissing sound from earlier with his finger in his ear. They both sound like demons from hell, and with shock you watch as the predator backs away.

“Now, we run,” says Frank, grabbing your hand and booking it down the hill.

You run what feels like a long way. Your legs are burning, and the stupid little slide-ons are not made for athletic activity. And the thing about running downhill is…sometimes gravity gets the best of you. Like now, when you trip over a rock, and take Frank with you. Suddenly you are both tumbling down a steep grassy incline, locked together in a death roll.

“Fuck!”

“Fuck!”

“Fuck!”

“Fuck!”

When at last you come to a stop you are utterly stunned. “Y/n?”

You just lie there, unable to move.

“Y/n?”

Are you even alive?

Suddenly, Frank grabs your arm, hauling you around. “Ah!”

He looks…so worried, that if he hadn’t wrenched your back, you would have been touched.

“I’m fine! Jesus!”

“Ok. Sorry.”

You lie there for another moment looking up at him. He has grass in his hair; it’s endearing somehow, seeing this put-together grouch of a man just a little undone.

“You saved me,” you tease, sitting up beside him.

“I saved us.”

“Yeah right. It would have eaten me anyway. Why’d you save me?”

“Because I’m an idiot.”

“Oh, come on.”

“Just trying to spare myself the guilt.”

He reaches up to pluck grass out of your hair. His light touch gives you a thrill down your spine. Again, you are aware that you are very close, and his dark eyes have gone wide again, that slightly panicked look he gets. His gaze flicks to your mouth, then back to your eyes, and you are completely taken by surprise when he grabs the back of your head and pulls you swiftly into a hard kiss.

He retreats from it just as quickly, and now he does look like he’s seen a ghost. “Fuck. Sorry.”

“I—”

Before you can say anything he’s grabbed you again, and this kiss is less forceful, though maybe no less desperate. You’re able to reach up to cup his cheeks before he shoves you away again, this time hard enough that you topple back in the grass.

“Hey!”

“Sorry,” he pants again, looking for all the world like a horse that would like to bolt. “I don’t—it’s been a long time. Heat of the moment. Near death experience. Fuck. I’m sorry.”

“How long?” you ask, incredulous. Because, this man is so…so. Fucking. Good looking. How has he not been with anyone?

He scowls at the grass. “I don’t think I’ve felt real pleasure since 2006.”

This admission makes your eyes go wide. You sincerely hope he’s exaggerating, but then again, the way he behaves towards people…maybe he’s not.

“It’s just…” he mutters, more to himself than to you. “If it all sucks, then fuck it, but if it doesn’t? Then there’s so much pressure.”

A part of you wants to snark at him. Well well well, welcome to the human race at last. But another part of you…another part of you just wants to kiss him senseless and fuck him silly, and make him feel all the things you’ve both been missing out on because he’s been such a goddamned coward this whole time and you’re not much better.

 Maybe he reads the pity on your face, because he feels the need to defend, “Not that I haven’t been with anyone. Just…”

“You weren’t that into it?”

He looks away, glaring at the world again. “Yeah.”

“It’s been a while for me too,” you admit.

“Please don’t say it was Keith,” he snarks. “I’ll kill myself.”

You laugh. “No, your brother was incredibly, monumentally selfish in bed. I literally could have had better sex with a lamppost.”

He looks at you sideways. “That really shouldn’t make me as happy as it does.”

Your lips twist as you try not to smile. Frank, however, is back to frowning at the vineyards again. “We can’t have sex right now. I don’t have any protection. It would be irresponsible.”

You’re a little amused, that his brain has leapt immediately to sex, while you are sitting in the dry grass together. Apparently just kissing was not enough—or maybe he’s been thinking about it for a while. You’d be a liar, if you said you haven’t.

“What if I said you’re in luck?”

“I would say that’s highly improbable.”

You feel bold enough to cup his cheek, bringing his attention back to you. It doesn’t take much persuading this time, when you press your lips to his. He kisses you back, his fingers digging into your ribcage, and you’re not really sure who’s more desperate to feel alive after defying death at the claws of a tiger or whatever the fuck that thing had been.

“That’s not helping,” he pants when you part.

“Why? Are you actually into it?”

He pulls you closer with hands on your waist. “Pretty into it,” he admits begrudgingly. You smile against his mouth, suddenly feeling electrified from head to toe. The colors of the world around you seem brighter, somehow. You take him by surprise when suddenly you straddle his waist, perching on his legs and pushing him back down into the grass, your pretty skirts spread around you.

“What—”

You unbuckle his belt and undo his pants, freeing him to the desert air. “Oh…” When you bend over to lick his tip and take him into your mouth you get an even more emphatic, “Oh…”

“What about now?” you ask him as you withdraw with a pop.

He blinks, for the first time since you’ve met, speechless. At least, for a few long moments.

“I think I’d like to be inside you.”

“How’s your health?”

“Fair to middling, for a man my age.” You give him a look, and damn if he doesn’t soften for you, even if just for a fleeting second. “Clean,” he answers quietly. “You?”

“Clean. And fully armed with IUD.”

He blinks. “Like they use to blow up humvees in the Middle East?”

You laugh, throwing your head back, your curls bouncing around your shoulders. You haven’t had this much fun in a long time. “Like, an intrauterine-device?”

“That definitely makes more sense.”

“Well?”

You watch as he licks his fingers, reaching under your dress to push your panties aside and find your center. The saliva is appreciated but not necessary. You are drenched, and his big fingers rubbing your clit feel like magic. “Is all that for me?” He sounds genuinely surprised, like this was a gift from the universe he did not expect to receive. Usually it’s more inclined to deliver a kick to the balls.

“Who else would it be for? The lynx?” He snorts, and in a softer tone you confess, “I have been a wet little mess for you since…the moment we started arguing in the airport.” He blinks at this, dumbstruck for a moment, before kissing you with an edge of desperation you both feel keenly in your bones.

He guides you onto him with his big hands on your buttocks. That feels like magic too, his thick tip at your entrance sinking in. It’s your turn to say, “Oh,” with your head thrown back, his big cock sliding deeper and deeper inside you, until he’s filled you to the hilt. For a moment you just sit like that together, joined, wrapped up in each other’s arms. It’s wonderful.

You imagine how ridiculous you must look, to an outsider looking in. Two people tangled in the dirt, grass in your hair, dust all over your nice clothes. You giggle a little to yourself.

“Something funny?”

“Just…do you ever think about how silly humans look, doing the things we do?”

“All the time.”

You laugh joyously, but you feel him withdrawing from you, that subtle tension returned in his limbs. You realize he thinks you’re making fun of him. It’s like this man expects he’ll have to defend himself from the world at any given moment. Then, from what he’s told you about his life, you guess he has. You don’t let him get too far, pulling him closer. “But fuck it feels glorious. I don’t care. Fuck me, Frank. I need you.”

 You feel him relax, and maybe even surrender. He moves for you, and you with him, his thumb on your button and his mouth on your neck as you ride him out…it’s the fastest you’ve ever orgasmed, with another person involved, that shining pleasure ambushing you in the cradle of your hips and spreading outwards. It’s almost embarrassing, except he’s right behind you, holding you almost desperately with arms locked around your waist, his face buried in the bend of your neck. Neither of you are quiet about it, your yells echoing across the empty hills.

“Oh my god…” you pant, resting your forehead against his.

“Can’t say…I believe much in god,” he informs you, out of breath.

“Me neither,” you admit. “But that was fucking fantastic.”

“Yeah. That was pretty damn good.” He sounds so surprised about it.

He kisses you, more softly this time. There is a long moment of eye contact between you; it is vulnerable, and electric, and raw. He is the first to look away, almost flinchingly. Then he focuses on the business of disentangling yourselves.

“I’m afraid we’re about to make a huge mess.”

“You don’t have a handkerchief?”

“What am I, a nineteenth century dandy?”

“Okay, relax, Romeo. I’ve got it.”

You rather cleverly, if you don’t say so yourself, use the petticoat of your dress to avoid staining his trousers as you uncouple, in a way that won’t leave you an embarrassing mess when you return to the tent either.

“I like that dress even more now,” he quips, looking at you with something almost akin to tenderness as you right yourselves. He reaches up to pull another sprig of straw out of your hair with a smirk.

“Frank…” You’re not really sure what you want to say. There’s a pent up ball of something in your chest, and it kind of actually hurts, and you’re not sure you like it at all.

“No,” he answers resolutely, but he cranes his neck down to kiss you anyway. “Want to go back to my room?”

“Yes.”

TBC...

-----------------

ahhhhh I didn't have the courage to make it as awkward as the movie 🤣🤣🤣 but I feel like I need to make a note here bc i'm always writing wildly irresponsible sex practices: always use protection with a new partner. It's just a good idea. And ALWAYS use some kind of birth control, or you WILL get pregnant. mother nature is a bitch.

[olderthannetfic]

https://www.tumblr.com/olderthannetfic/749218521745145857/while-i-love-some-queergay-whatever

“Kissing on the forehead isn’t necessarily romantic” makes sense if we are talking about a work of media that is made in a time/place where that was a common thing between same gender platonic friends.

But are you, anon? Or are you talking about like, a piece of Western mass media from the past 50 years? Or are you talking about anime — because if anything, kissing is even more loaded in Japan than it is in the West, especially if there are other people around. (Lots of people in anime fandom love to use “but Japanese culture” arguments to no homo, but are banking on no one reading them actually knowing jack shit about Japanese culture — because it’s almost never true or based on any real Japanese cultural difference, there’s just making shit up. It assumes people will take for granted anything that frames Japan as “foreign and inscrutable and impossible for Westerners to understand” which is just Orientalism tbqh)

Just saying, because I almost never see this shit said about like, a novel from 1820 or something from a culture like, say, some Middle Eastern countries where men kissing other men platonically is a thing…. and almost always see it said about current media from a culture where kissing on the forehead would be seen as something you’d likely not do to a platonic friend of the same gender.

You can’t “impose your cultural norms” on something from the same culture as you lol, or something from another culture that has the same norm! And an (for example) American assuming that modern American media plays by the rules of modern American culture and seeing it through that lens, doesn’t necessarily mean that American is unaware that different norms exist in different cultures. But like… it just makes sense to analyze a current American show for American audiences set in America in the modern day through the cultural standards of 2020s America and not, say, Bangladesh or Namibia or 1850s America.

And on another note, if you were as much of a fan of “queer readings” as you claim to be, you’d know that they often have little to do with authorial intent. In fact, it’s often specifically about reclaiming media that didn’t have you in mind as the audience.

(Seriously, I really doubt you have read many of those queer readings, bc if this bothers you so much, the stuff queer studies academics and cultural critics see as “gay subtext” in old Hollywood movies — hell, the stuff that gay, bi and sympathetic-straight directors and actors and writers often very much INTENDED as gay subtext in those movies — would make your brain explode.)

Anyway, we’ve all been in fandoms where there’s a ship some people insist has a ton of subtext but it’s just two guys sharing a scene occasionally and they just WANT to believe it’s there when it isn’t, and it can be annoying sure if there are so many people insisting this that it’s inescapable and becoming fanon that affects the fic about the ships you like, or if they’re pushy and sanctimonious about it. (My current fandom has a group of people who insist the only reason other people don’t see all the “subtext” for their random rarepair is racism or something, and then ignore how much textual stuff they have to deliberately leave out or misinterpret for their reading to “work” lol. Like scenes where their starry eyed expression is directed at a different character and that’s obvious in the actual episode but not in their selectively edited gif set or meta post.) But that is not the same as doing that with KISSING ON THE FOREHEAD ffs. And also, let’s not pretend that slash (or femslash) shippers are the worst offenders, like het shippers — and the broader culture — doesn’t constantly treat “a man and a woman interact” as meaning “they could/should be a couple,”

If you’re not bothered by that, but you’re bothered by when people do it with two men or two women… yeah you gotta ask yourself why that is. I have an idea why, and it’s not bc of your greater cultural open mindedness lol

--

[ad-al-ai]

1-What is the plot of Substance?

2-When was it released?

3-How is Substance a modern retelling of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde?

I’m about to spoil this whole movie, but it’s a really good and has some great practical effects and costuming. So if you can handle some seriously intense body horror, I really recommend! Also I haven’t read any outside articles about the production of the film, and these are all my opinions based on one viewing. And I’m apologizing in advance because you gave me an inch and I yapped for a mile, but thanks for the questions!! :)

Released September 2024, The Substance follows famous woman, Elizabeth Sparkle, who is fired from her show because she’s “too old” (50). She discovered a new drug/injection that creates duplicates your cells and makes a younger clone. The rules are that you must swap between the old and new version every week to replenish the spinal fluid that maintains the clone. Elizabeth, as her new identity of Sue, auditions for the show and becomes mega famous. Sue, as her young self, enjoys the thrill of youth and fame, but at the price of Elizabeth’s OG body. It then becomes an ‘internal’ struggle between who gets to be in control and explores themes of female beauty standards in Hollywood.

The obvious parallels to Jekyll and Hyde is the magic potion that creates a younger, more chaotic, body/alter ego that is directly tied to the older, host body. Where in J&H, Hyde’s action negatively affects Jekyll status as a pillar of the community, Sue’s actions negatively affects Elizabeth’s body directly (since her career/status is already non existence and Sue needs her spinal fluid to live since she’s the clone.). The comparison could also work in reverse. Sue could been seen as the Jekyll counterpart by doing the more socially acceptable/expected activities, like working on her show/career and partying with friends. While Elizabeth would be Hyde, acting on grosser, “base urge’ activities, like spending her week doing nothing but watching TV and cooking/eating- activities she was likely never able to do during the height of her own fame.

Now here’s the big spoiler part. In the first 2 acts it really isn’t clear how consciousness works with the clone. The phrase “You. Are. One. You can’t escape from yourself” is used by the company that supplies the substance and is a main theme throughout the movie. In the first 2 acts, we’re lead to believe that Elizabeth is switching consciousness/control between her og body and Sue; just like how Jekyll is fully in control of Hyde.

However, there are several time Elizabeth complains to the company about how Sue isn’t respecting the balance, and vise versa. Whenever one refers to the other they use “she,” or “her,” showing that there is a discrepancy between identity. At first this can be interpreted as a mental separation; that Sue doesn’t want to associate with her past life as Elizabeth, but at her core they are the same person. This divide becomes more and more clear; as they continue to complain about the other, we realize they aren’t aware of anything the other does during the week they aren’t in control.

This comes to a crescendo during the end of act 2. Elizabeth decided to stop using The Substance, which means she must kill Sue/the clone body. However she doesn’t go through with it all the way and tries to switch back. In the process, Sue becomes conscious while Elizabeth is also conscious. This completely changes our understanding of how consciousness works regarding the clone. Since both host and clone are awake at the same time, it kind of breaks the idea that they are “one,” because they are clearly acting independently of the other. Here is where the comparison falls apart, because Jekyll and Hyde, even towards the end, can never directly harm/fight the other since they are technically 1 guy with 2 bodies. Even towards the end of the book, when Jekyll and Hyde are acting more independently, it more-so shows the different perspectives on their situation. Sue and Elizabeth start physically fighting each other in a ‘there can only be one,’ fashion.

By the end of act 2 Elizabeth is dead. Sue, who can’t sustain herself without Elizabeth, takes The Substance. Since she’s a clone, this doesn’t create a younger clone, instead makes a Blob like monster combining her and Elizabeth (Called Monstro Elizasue).

Here’s where the movie looses me a bit. Act 3 plays into classic monster movies tropes, with people calling Elizasue a monster and a freak while she, in her monster form, tries to quell the panic. Sue was set to host the New Years show (so The Substance is technically a holiday movie, A La Die Hard). Elizasue only knows that she must perform, that she must play the part, regardless of her grotesque appearance. While on stage and live on air, in the midst of all the chaos, Elizasue gets cut (or shot, I cannot remember) and starts spraying blood on the audience.

Now there were alot of scenes that were very long, but I thought it added to the horror. The blood scene went on a bit too long for my own taste. I think it’s because most of the other long scenes were so intensely focused on Elizabeth/Sue and their body horror. This scene had the entire audience of the New Years show acting chaotically. To me it felt too different in the broader context of the movie. It fits with the classical monster movie vibe the final act is going for. I think the blood connects back to the overarching theme of womanhood— either how blood is connected to several aspect of the traditional female experience (menstruation and pregnancy/birth) or how women in Hollywood give so much blood, sweat and tears to fight to stay in the industry.

All that being said, I don’t think it was a bad ending by any means. It’s just that the first 2 acts were so strong that it didn’t hit as hard. I did think the final scene/shot was really good, and the makeup/effects used to make the Elizasue costume were crazy in the best way possible. So if you sat through all of this and my crappy summary didn’t put you off, I really recommend this movie if you can stomach it!!

[standreamy]

Miraculous The Movie Review: An admirable, imperfect attempt

PREMISE

It's not a masterpiece, it's not groundbreaking and it has flaws that limited the result quite a lot, which I'll point out. Yet it's also a very good product that I think should be praised for its efforts.

I watched this movie both with people who have followed the whole series, and with those who have seen it partially. I also watched it by myself and with people who have never seen the series and knew nothing about it.

I have therefore tried to keep my view as unbiased and objective as possible.

I will divide this analysis/review into various sections. I tried to leave comparisons with the series only in the last one, though inevitably, it wasn’t possible to never mention the differences. For this reason, I decided to leave a final vote that will be split into what I grade the movie by itself and what I grade it as part of the Miraculous brand.

However, I want to clarify that with this post I do not intend to discredit those who prefer the show, nor do I intend to encourage those who prefer the movie  to behave arrogantly and attack Astruc.

The final part is where I will directly compare movie and show and where I will explain my preferences. You are perfectly free to skip, as it’s the last part before my grades.

With that said, let's get started!

ANIMATION

I've seen little contrast of opinion on this topic. Indeed, it is undeniable that it is of the highest quality. I'm a big fan of 2D, and as for animation I prefer it to 3D by a long mile, but the choice of quality for the movie is impressive. You can’t just help but admire and it surely deserved a worldwide release in theaters. 

The backgrounds, the characters, the details, the textures and the focus on expressions… Nowadays, Disney movies spend almost double the budget and offer equal or almost inferior graphic quality. 

I also want to clarify that the focus on expressions is very important because by following the "show and don't tell" rule, it allows you to receive information on what the characters are feeling and therefore enriches their profile. You never see a stiff character, even in the background or from a distance there are characters expressing emotions or doing something, which is actually stunning for the eyes. One of the best 3D graphics I’ve seen personally.

MUSIC

The number of songs is a judgment that can only be subjective, as not everyone likes musicals. But for being a musical indeed, I personally find the number acceptable, especially for the role that the songs played.

I find that composition wise (I study music professionally) they are all very high quality. The harmonies chosen, the orchestration that Zag has composed are of a very high standard not generally seen often in modern animated movies.

This can also be seen in the background music, which is extremely impactful and recognizable. None goes unnoticed, embrace the scenes in harmony. The soundtrack in a movie is fundamental, it enriches the feeling that the scene can evoke. It is after all not an unknown factor that, for example, by removing the soundtrack of a horror movie, you remove much of the effect of fear and unsettlement it creates.

Returning to the songs, however, I particularly appreciated their usefulness for the plot and the characters. I have seen very opposite opinions on this matter, from people praising them and people thinking they were totally unrelated or repetitive. Personally, I think every single song expressed a well-defined concept that carried forward the intended messages.

Speaking from a purely personal point of view, on a melodic and interpretative level my favorite songs were "Courage in me" and "Stronger Together". However, I find the most important to be “If I believed in me”, “Chaos will reign today” and “Alone again”. A song for each of the film's main characters; Marinette, Adrien and Hawkmoth.

And I also found the most well executed “Reaching out”.

But for this analysis, I'm going to touch on each song.

“If I believed in me” This song is the perfect introduction and presentation of the character. It tells us all the key details to know about Marinette at first glance. She is very shy, awkward and introverted to the point of having social anxiety. This has led her to willingly shut people out, even though people who know her a bit more seem to like her, and even if deep down inside she wants to fit in and her creativity is a way for her to channel that. She has a dream as a fashion designer and takes all the inspiration from the world around her. However, this inner conflict leads her to self-sabotage and behave in a bizarre way. This is a classic and basic step that most of the best musical animated movies follow and in this one it was quite appropriate. Putting a song right at the start may seem unsettling for people who dislike musicals or found it unnecessary, however, it was a very right and basic rule to follow.

“Alone Again” Another very important song that expresses not only Adrien's pain for the loss of his mother, but also for his father's neglect. The text is universal enough to show that Adrien may want to reconnect with both Emilie and Gabriel. Not having enough minutes in the movie to properly focus on the Agreste family dynamic, this was key to fix that. Because of this, I think that removing it in non-French versions was a very big mistake.

"You are Ladybug" While it’s not one of the most fundamental, it’s a song very well handled, because it not only explains part of the lore, but actually shows that in this movie the Kwami are much more sentient.  Tikki demonstrates her knowledge of years of experience. She knows how it works, she knows which carriers are best for her and she also knows it might help Marinette to improve her confidence as she outright states while singing. On a musical level, the use of the show's original opening is also very effective. It's not easy to readapt a motif several times without getting bored of it, even building a new song on top of it, and in this case Zag did an excellent job.

"Ma Lady" Similar to "Alone Again", this song is also very important to show one of the new motivations for Adrien to open up. Chat Noir is Adrien's way of bringing out his inner self, and even though it didn't do it the best way at first because of his attitude, this is the beginning of his change. It’s a crucial song to a crucial improvement.

“Chaos will reign today” This song has a strong Disney villain vibe that fits very well with the model they followed for Hawk Moth in this movie. Another classic to express the desire of the villains is to convey it with a song that gives the right tone to the character, who can be more or less evil. In the case of Gabriel it is very smart to show him with a theater man attitude, given that his wife performed in the theater in the world of the movie. It fits well with the character they chose for Gabriel. This song is also the very moment Gabriel is sure about his path and finally decides to go on being a villain.

“Courage in me” This song, in addition to having excellent musicality and a change of tone that is always and gradually more triumphant, is very well represented. It begins with Marinette grappling with anxiety and her instincts and desperation growing stronger until they become a call to the mission. Marinette embraces her role after much hesitation and from this moment a change begins for her as well as for Chat in "Ma Lady". From here on Marinette will try to open up slowly and improve.

“Miraculous theme remix”  Nothing in particular to say about this. It's a pretty good adaptation and perfect for a montage, even if I'll explain later on why I would have substituted it with something else (“The wall between us”).

“Stronger together” Perhaps the most representative song of the movie. In addition to the impressive presentation, the portrayal of the relationship of the two protagonists under these forms is enhanced to the max. Both open their hearts, finding the pinnacle of their relationship and communicating it openly. Especially for Chat Noir, this is the quintessential moment where he finally opens up and reaches out to someone. He makes himself vulnerable for the first time in a long while, demonstrating the improvement in him as a person. Sadly, it doesn't end the way he hoped.

“Reaching out” Perhaps one of the best-performing songs in the movie. Marinette, similar to Chat, has improved and opened up, hoping to be able to find a mutual feeling that however, apparently, wasn’t reciprocated. This moment naturally creates a lot of doubt and insecurity in her and the song represents this difficulty and duality. By now she's grown up, she's learned to be herself and she can't just go back to zero point, however now her doubts and insecurity are growing because her efforts didn’t seem to work.

"Now I see" The song played during the end credits. An alternative version to "Stronger Together", with the same main melody, but different words, much more appropriate for the resolution of the movie and the now realized reveal. Their feelings were revealed in totality and they managed to connect. Their eyes and hearts can finally see.

"Careless Whisper" Yes. I will put it in the list because while its purpose is silly, it has one. Putting it in the moment Chat falls for Ladybug makes sense because those feelings are still incomplete and needs to grow and mature. It's understandable to make it a comedic moment. Just like it was a good idea to use it again later on as it's a break up song.

PLOT

Simple but functional plot, which follows a perhaps predictable path but also manages to exploit as much as possible in such a small time frame.

Compared to the series, at least the arc of Hawk Moth, everything is very simplified, but I think it's a good choice.

Not having too complex bases and having to fix everything in a limited time, but also needing to address important themes, the movie was able to focus better on the chosen details.

There are some cuts that unfortunately, however necessary, demonstrate that the movie’s potential would have been better expressed in a trilogy totally focused on Gabriel, rather than with a change of villain, thus allowing for more in-depth development.

However, it is understandable that with the Covid crisis and with the movie's few certainties of success a few years ago, Zag chose a safer path for the first and possible only installment, given the great uncertainty of possible sequels. The only thing that can be blamed then, is the possible fear of daring.

Beyond these elements, the film is certainly well studied in its three acts. Reinterpreting an existing story that spans several seasons and containing it in a movie is not for everyone and I find that as much as possible has been done and that it achieves the goal.

I also appreciated that many aspects of the PV have been restored for this version.

STRUCTURE AND RHYTHM

One of the main flaws of this movie, maybe the most critical, is the pacing.

Given the large number of characters, messages and plot twists, as well as the necessary gradual developments to be made and the relationships to be highlighted, everything happened very quickly and sometimes felt rushed. From the second act, it gallops towards the finale.

At my first viewing in French, this feeling was clear as water, but it improved on subsequent viewings in other languages as well.

It was an aspect I find impossible to prevent, but perhaps could have been lessed in some ways.

This problem goes hand in hand with the impetuous scene changes, even if mostly softened in the Italian version I watched afterwards.

Often there are sharp cuts that can be noticed between one scene and another, given the many perspectives to follow. It is clear that the time frame was limited and this detail would have been significantly improved with just a few more minutes.

In its favor it can be said that despite the short time frame, the many things to say and the too fast pace, the substance is clear. Characters are defined in who they are and what they want. The story is too, touching all the stages and completing itself, but still leaving room for the sequel. All reading levels are readable despite the flaws.

It’s a real shame though, that many aspects had to be rushed where instead they could have hugely benefited with more playing time or even splitting this arc into 3 movies.

DIALOGUES

Another mixed point of this movie are the dialogues. In some moments, for example the beginning with the conversation between Marinette and her mother Sabine, they fall into unnaturalness. They feel a bit out of place.

However, there are many other dialogues that are opposite to this; they are well thought out and excellent for explaining messages that cannot always be shown for playing time.

One such example is the dialogues between Tikki and Marinette when they get to know each other. “Exciting! You discovered electricity!”, “Girls can wear pants? Finally!”: these are dialogues that together with Tikki’s sung story not only make us understand the authority of the Kwami but also the historical context of the story and guess the time that has passed since there was enough chaos to call the Miraculous into action.

Also much of the characters' banter and comedic gags (with the exception of Plagg farting, which I find unnecessary as that kind of humor nowadays can be considered "outdated" for children and as the movie already had other comic reliefs) help to define the various contexts. Nothing the characters do or say really seems pointless.

DUBBING

On this aspect, I decided not to focus much because for each language there are positive and negative aspects. I have seen the movie in French, English and Italian (my native language) numerous times. In French and English, the known problem is that Marinette's voice is too deep in the singing and I agree that at least in English they should have let Cristina Vee sing. However, even here I don't feel like judging enormously because I also watched the movie in Italian and there these problems are completely absent. Indeed, the Italian version is probably the best in my opinion. Excellent acting and intonation, Marinette's chosen singing voice is very similar to speech as well as impressive in the expressiveness, and Adrien's is the same in both speaking and singing and is intoned and expressive.

The only voice that is out of place in Italian in the singing is Tikki, the same as in speech, a little out of rhythm and intonation.

However, I appreciated the different depth given to the characters compared to the show. Deeper and more expressive.

LORE

Starting from a purely introductory point of view, we can say that we have had a fairly complete one that immediately informs us of the basics; The miraculous of the cat and the ladybug contain enormous power and are balanced, they are called only in times of chaos and that of the butterfly is the most dangerous in case of incorrect use.

We are then informed in the movie that the Miraculous have been used since ancient times, that the Kwami are related to jewels and bestow powers but that they are also wise and skillful in their choices. They probably go dormiant when use is not needed.

We still don't know how the Miraculous were created, how Fu lost them (if he lost them in this version in the first place) and how much the Kwami have to obey their bearers. Furthermore, perhaps one of the defects is the absence of an explanation on how actually the Miraculous of Ladybug and Chat Noir could help Emilie. Would they bring her back to life? Would there be a sacrifice to be made?

Another aspect that I would have introduced in advance is the explanation of the powers of the Cataclysm and the Cure.

From a usage point of view, I think an excellent job has been done. Great idea to leave them at only the last drastic case, also for a matter of scenic effect. The idea of eliminating all of Ladybug's other powers to truly balance the two heroes is also excellent. Destruction and creation, Ladybug forced only to use her wits with what she has around, without extra help, and Chat engaged in a more physical role.

In this aspect, I think the movie did a better job of never making Ladybug and her Miraculous feel more important than her counterpart ever.

However, as mentioned, the lack of an explanation of these powers and introduction is a shortcoming of the film.

Even a mention of their danger and the fear of using them in any casual fight would have been of great help to better serve the surprise effect. Or propose that you need to reach a certain level of maturity or experience to unlock certain powers, even just inner acceptance.

The transformation limits have been removed, as well as that of only one Akuma at a time and a self-akumization of Hawk Moth while he was still transformed. All these changes in my opinion are not harmful and with the time limit it is a more than necessary cut.

It is also implied that the incorrect use of the miraculous can have negative effects on the bearer, as seen by Gabriel, increasingly destroyed and unkempt, as well as victim of fainting episodes. I found it a very ingenious choice, like making the enhancement of the powers of the two main miraculous literal when coordinated.

CHARACTERS

There are characters more or less different from the series, but regardless of whether they are good changes or not, the fact that they exist is not a mistake. It's a reboot, the characters don't have to be the same as their counterparts. They do not have the same roles, priorities or main characteristics. They are not supposed to be anything the show portrays them as.

The most remarkable thing is throughout the duration of the film the two protagonists have balanced roles.

Marinette/Ladybug

In this version, Marinette is a very different character from the series. Introverted and shy, and it is precisely this factor that makes her clumsy and awkward, even going as far as to assume bizarre attitudes in public, withdrawing into herself (as demonstrated with the teens who had tried to greet her and with Alya, whom she advises to stay away) and making mistakes that she apparently wouldn't make with more confidence in herself.

This leads not only others to avoid and mock her, but also to increase her anxiety.

A fairly predictable path for a protagonist where the superhero theme is concerned, but functional and excellent for counterbalancing Chat Noir and his readiness for the role.

From these points of view, Marinette is a character who is a victim of the situation, but also a victim of herself. She is flawed on purpose in the right ways. Her attitudes have a clear cause understood from setting, but realistically it’s still an unhealthy behavior for herself (hiding behind a car on first greeting, risking getting hurt repeatedly, loneliness).

Marinette is "chosen" by Master Fu and Tikki, for her instinctive and rapid heroic gesture, which almost failed. She doesn't hesitate for a moment to risk her life and almost throw it away, there are zero second thoughts. However, Tikki also chooses her because of her experience with past wearers of hers. Indeed, the call to become a hero, a very common theme in the stories of superheroes who are called to service in case they have the opportunity to help, even if perhaps they don’t wish to or never had an option to choose.

It can be said that Marinette is actually "the exception" for a girl of her age. Many would jump at the opportunity to have superpowers, like Adrien.

Indeed, Marinette keeps doubting clearly until "Courage in me", where fear is transformed into the need to act. Marinette has no choice, but she embraces the task and from that moment she begins to change.

She will begin to open up more to Chat's company, she will begin to open up to her friends and Adrien, to communicate with him, to get to know him.

And we see her blossoming into the same but also a new person, which leads her to a better life. However, the message given isn't that you have to change yourself to be accepted. But that effort must start from you. If you harm yourself and wait for others to step forward (even if the help of others is useful, as demonstrated in the movie) you will not be able to get back on your feet.

Marinette finds the confidence not to change herself, but to BE herself. To open up, to try courageously and relax, arriving at beneficial results for herself and this consequently leads to acceptance by others.

Marinette is already a fantastic person, but she has to let others see it and her experience as Ladybug, then leading to opening up first with Chat, with Alya and then with Nino and Adrien allows her to reflect what she has inside.

After rejecting Chat Noir with regret and inner doubts and after the rejection by Adrien, Marinette doubts again. After all, she made the effort, she got better… and it wasn't enough.

She doesn't know if it was worth it or not... yet she proves that the Marinette she once was is now different. She rushes into action to help when Hawk Moth strikes and after a moment of crisis she remembers the words from Chat and Tikki, during the very moment she hits rock bottom. She gets up in the form she believed most vulnerable, which she had already exposed once failing, she throws herself forwards and saves Chat Noir.

And finally, with the herself that she built, she rebuilds the city and steps forward to connect to Chat/Adrien. Difficult step because there will always be the slightest doubt of being rejected, but she embraces it and this time it brings her to a happy ending.

She no longer has to worry about having her parents drive her to school, she no longer has to worry about being watched, because now she can let her inner light shine and she knows that if she falls, she will rise again.

Adrien/Chat Noir

In this version the male protagonist is much more introverted as a civilian. Similarly to Marinette, he too has difficulty opening up and from a certain point of view he too by personal choice. Also demonstrated by the symbolism of the earbuds that he always wears in moments of insecurity. Indeed, in his case it is mainly a self-isolation that is imposed due to the trauma suffered by the death of the mother and the distancing that the father has placed in the relationship with his son.

Unlike the Adrien of the show, this Adrien grew up without particular restrictions, he can go where he wants and also had a good relationship with his father, who was present and affectionate. It's not hard to think that in this version Adrien was even encouraged by his father to go to school as a way to push him away, given Gabriel's confirmation in the finale that he couldn't bring himself to see his son's sad gaze.

As a consequence of this, we see an Adrien who, while kind and helpful, is not the same ray of sunshine of the show, whose main trait is kindness. But in this case, it doesn't HAVE to be.

This Adrien has trouble opening up and is afraid of becoming attached, which is why despite going along with Nino proposals of hanging out and helping out Marinette, he doesn't feel like being around them too much.

On the other hand, as Chat Noir, he is extremely stuck up and arrogant, proving that Chat is really an escape for the boy, who however exaggerates in letting this side out and ends up behaving in a quite negative way (albeit in moderation). A guy who probably really took on a few traits of the snotty rich kid.

This reading shows us a clearly flawed Chat Noir.

We don't see his meeting with Plagg or transformation, but from the get-go Chat is the one willing to wear the role, so while it would have been nice to see it, I don’t blame the cut. It was Marinette the one that needed more focus in this case.

Chat's attitude changes from the moment the boy develops a crush on Ladybug. This drives him to improve and gradually moderate his attitudes. Unlike the show's Chat he doesn't flirt and while it’s gradual, his banter with Ladybug becomes more playful and affectionate in nature and starts trusting her capacities. He becomes more humble and approachable, admitting that he doesn't see himself as the boss of the duo and offering to play sidekick. He collaborates with the girl during the fights, listens to her, begins to see her merits... and in civilian life he begins to go out with Nino, Alya and Marinette, to the point of opening up about his mother with the latter, an extremely personal topic for him. He no longer wears earbuds, no longer isolates himself from the outside world.

We see him again in class finally, when he didn't show up at the other lessons and we see him go back to a normal life.

His feelings for Ladybug in this case have improved him and come to a head when he also confides in Ladybug about his mother in his special place, confessing his feelings in a song and showing his vulnerability. Unfortunately, it does not end up as he would like and it leads him in the same situation Marinette will be into shortly after, doubting how good it was opening up. At the proposal to go to the gala with his friend, he will reject her with regret and what appears to be repentance and guilt.

This passage can be read both as insecurity about his feelings towards Marinette, and as insecurity about him opening up to others, given the hard blow immediately after finally opening up for the first time.

But even Adrien can't go back to zero point, and after a momentary moment of grudge, once he realizes that Ladybug is in danger, he runs to help.

Adrien throws himself into the fight against his father, which lands him in trouble. Thanks to his father's guilt, the villain stops and the two talk. Here Adrien's growth finally shines, who finally incites his father to let Emilie go, which he too had to learn to do and did, and forgives him.

That is a moment of acceptance and unfortunately, however, it is also a probable farewell, with the father who has presumably ended up in prison. Adrien thus remains alone and returns to isolate himself again due to the new trauma, even if not completely (he went to the dance, he doesn’t wear earbuds and Nino says he will join them). It's hard for him to go back to normal and heal, but he's learned and the step Marinette takes to reach his heart finally pays off and Adrien can start healing.

Gabriel/Hawk Moth

Perhaps the most human character in the movie. Gabriel, contrary to the show, is a man who shows constant crisis towards the loss of his wife. In the presence of others he proves to be composed, engaged in his working life (which we finally see more of), but in the private sphere he does not hesitate to show us all his desperation, also visible in his appearance which becomes increasingly scruffy as he continues with his hunt for the Miraculous.

We arrive at the end of the fight that he is a man destroyed by pain, by his own obsession that has taken over and by repentance.

As a character, although he comes across as cold and distant, he doesn't seem to abuse his son. Rather than an abusive parent, he is very neglectful and he pushes Adrien away for a matter of grief, not for his own standards of the family. He doesn't harshly reject Nathalie's proposal to eat with Adrien because he really doesn’t find it necessary, rather the reminder seems to hurt him because he knows he is wrong to not want his son around, which is why he acts so stern right after.

Thanks to the song and the revelation of his role, we discover that he is slowly descending further and further into madness, overwhelmed by his feelings. His own song, while not excusing his actions, treats him almost sympathetically and is the very moment he made the choice for his path. Up until then he was unsure which way to go, but the more his desperation and impatience grew, the more he lost control. And as Adrien freed himself from the chains of mourning, Gabriel became more and more engulfed in them.

Gabriel shows us that he cares about his son, while trying to detach himself emotionally to the point of believing he no longer has "Nothing to lose". To the point of believing that their relationship cannot be saved and that really the only way is to return Emilie to Adrien, even if that could mean losing his son's affection.

Still, Gabriel worries about his son's health and safety at all times, between making sure he's not at the scene of his attacks and wondering where he's been during the night. All this, while we see him more and more unkempt.

Gabriel, however, has been a loving man in the past and has all the bases for a possible redemption. It is precisely so that when he recognizes his son in Chat he decides to stop, realizing how far he has gone.

It doesn't excuse him from his actions, for which he will likely pay, but it does make him a villain we can sympathize with. He finally lets go of his wife, accepts the pain, and receives acceptance from his son who acknowledges that Gabriel too needed help. And then he hugs Adrien for the last time, in what seems like a desperate gesture that he's wanted to do for a long time. Heal the wounds of loss with the love of the one he still had, but who probably couldn't raise anymore.

However, a negative detail of Hawk Moth, perhaps the only one, is the fact that his costume does not fit with the character. In the series, his mask is understandable because at the beginning you don't want to immediately reveal his identity. However, this element is not introduced in the movie, so a redesign would have been appropriate.

For the post-credits scene, it is very unlikely that Gabriel left to Nathalie the duty of carrying on the plan, especially AFTER he surrendered, evidenced by the dialogue she recalls, implying that at the time of the confession no one else knew of his identity. After his surrender, all Paris was aware and it would have made no sense to talk about it as if it were a secret (although Emilie's body still was). Nor would the authorities let Gabriel loose after his surrender.

The kwamis

In this version we generally know little about the origins of the Kwamis as we do in the show. However we are aware of how much more sentient they are. Their authority is significantly greater and they are more difficult to manage. Theirs is not an attitude of chaotic innocence, but rather a "We do as we want because we have the right to", because they have enough years and experience behind them to be able to decide for themselves.

They impose themselves on their bearers and although they act as advisors, especially Tikki, they do not hesitate to reiterate several times that they are very expert beings in their job, to the point that they know how to recognize a pattern in all their bearers and also use it for choosing them. They are Gods, and as Zag wanted, they manage to prove it despite their cuteness.

We also know that Tikki and Plagg don't get along very well, but having not seen them interact we cannot yet define their relationship. Let's hope that in the sequel we’ll see this element, given the new relationship of their carriers.

Tikki is much more in-depth than Plagg in terms of screentime. Often advising Marinette to follow her feelings but also advising against it if needed, always following her own experience and gut.

Plagg on the other hand, unfortunately has much less screentime and another weak point of the movie is the fact that he was into the comic relief, in a somewhat avoidable way. Too bad, because despite his tough exterior he hides a soft heart, as demonstrated when he consoles Adrien over Ladybug's rejection.

Master Fu

Master Fu in this version appears more like a real guardian than a mentor. A person who looks at the Kwamis and makes sure they don't take too many liberties and then takes care of choosing new bearers together with their approval.

He does not approach the two heroes to instruct them except at the beginning, approaching both of them and at the end to recover the miraculous of the butterfly.

More than his absence as a master, the lack of his backstory and the missing miraculous can be seen as a flaw, although it is possible that it will be addressed as a theme in the sequels.

Fu in the movie is much weirder, ending up taking on a secondary comic relief role which in my opinion would have worked a lot more in this case, rather than on Plagg.

Secondary characters

Given the short time, many of them could not receive much space, but they were still able to show their usefulness.

First, Alya. The girl has a very charismatic personality and this leads her to approach Marinette and be the perfect person to match the girl, given the social problems she has and her tendency to push others away. This is one of the elements that helps Marinette open up, leading her from being drawn into a friendship to making friends of her own free will. Very important is that we are told early on about her dream of being a reporter and that it is used to motivate her attitude, which is never explicitly said on the show, even though it is part of her character.

Another character that I would like to mention is Chloé. The girl, contrary to the show, falls more into the kind of bully that cares about their reputation. She doesn't want to be seen doing bad things to Marinette, as shown more than once, especially in the scene where Alya purposely starts filming her to make her stop. She is bratty and bad-mannered, yet her refusal to be caught mistreating others is a sign that she recognizes her actions as wrong, which is a huge differentiator from the show. While it doesn't excuse her, this sets the stage for possible redemption in the sequels.

I also find the use of Nino and Marinette's parents positive, who are an excellent side element and help the characters move through the plot and in their development.

The akumatized

For a short movie, the handling of the akumatized people was excellent. The first showed us how transformation and its lore works in this universe, also showing us that a negative feeling is not just simple anger and sadness, but even intentions alone count.

The first clash serves us as an introduction and unleashes the story from every point of view, both for the roles and relationship of the protagonists, and for Gabriel's journey and the reaction of civilians. Each clash changes things and a notable contribution is made by the second. The two heroes learn to work together and are finally seen in a positive light by the still hesitant civilians.

The second clash also shows us action scenes during which Chat Noir and Ladybug strengthen their relationship, their powers and show the basis of their individual qualities, or the physical clash for one and creativity for the other.

Then we have a montage of villains, which saves minutes and despite everything allows the collaboration of the two heroes and the opinion of civilians to flourish.

The background characters/Civilians

Another element already mentioned are civilians. As I already talked about in the animation section, one notable aspect is how no character is standing still and everyone has their own reaction. I really appreciated the naturalness with which we see them trying to control the anxiety on a roller coaster, despair despite the worst was over after the final showdown and the slow acceptance towards the new heroes.

An aspect often overlooked in the series is the perception of civilians towards the heroes, almost completely enthusiastic right from the start if not for the competent authorities.

In the movie, we see them hesitant and intrigued, slowly in the process of opening up and trusting the two vigilantes, always not completely sure, given their mysteriousness. Contrary to the series, the two heroes seem much more unreachable at the beginning and it is visible and understandable that the inhabitants of Paris do not know whether to trust two strangers that hold powers as strange as those who started to haunt them.

RELATIONSHIPS

One of the obviously most important sides to analyze is the relationship aspect, especially the main couple… (as I already talked a lot already about Gabriel and Adrien’s relationship in the characters analysis, I will focus more on the romantic aspect in this section)

From a lovesquare point of view, it can be said that this movie has a total absence of Ladrien and almost total absence of Marichat, leaving room for a parallel path with the Adrienette and the Ladynoir. However, it is also clearly visible that the movie's main couple is Ladynoir.

Starting back…

Marinette and Adrien in this reboot are two characters both very introverted in civilian life, opposite to the show. The two have a similar problem of mostly self-imposed isolation, which is broken when wearing the mask, which seems to improve them and allow them to let go more of their inner self. From this point of view, the lack of the Adrienette seems less problematic, as their deepest parts come to the surface with the masks and they are shown to fall in love with them.

However, it remains a pity the little playing time given to the development of Adrien's feelings towards Marinette.

While it is made clear that Marinette is undecided between Chat Noir and Adrien, on the other hand, Adrien's indecision between Ladybug and Marinette is very hidden.

It is not totally absent of course, we can clearly see the regret mixed with guilt and frustration when he is forced to refuse Marinette's invitation to the gala. He seems mortified, at the verge of tears. And you can see it also in the happiness and simplicity with which he accepts Marinette after she reveals herself, as if it made perfect sense and reassured him.

We also see him open up to the girl about his mother, which is extremely personal, and we see him support her in the montage. All of this would have been better exalted if spoken dialogue had been kept in the definitive version (for example, in the book version of the movie Adrien loses his locket and Marinette helps search and finds it), or, if there had been the inclusion of "The wall between us" .

Unfortunately, this is one of the points on which I have to dwell in a negative way. The removal of this song was probably the movie's biggest mistake. Just replacing the remix theme song with this song, which accompanies the scenes and shows us Adrien's conflicting feelings, would have greatly improved the situation.

Like all the other songs in the movie, which have a very specific purpose, "The wall between us" also had one, perhaps one of the most important ones that would have balanced "Stronger Together". They are songs to pair, not replace on with each other, and the removal of one has affected the entire movie.

I want to say again that I don't think there is a total absence of Adrien's feelings towards Marinette, underneath, and that the damage doesn't mar the movie enormously, but it is still one of the major flaws, which could easily have been fixed with an extra song or a simple replacement.

I also found out that in the book version of the movie Adrien was indeed showing thoughts of being conflicted between Marinette and Ladybug and before the ball he retrieved the papillon she made for him, besides refusing to dance with Chloé because he only wanted to dance with Marinette.

Sooo yeah, I wonder if the timespan of the movie was really such a big issue, as they cut something important that they still had pretty much figured out.

Speaking on the other hand from the point of view of analyzing the feelings themselves, let’s first focus on Marinette.

Marinette's feelings for Adrien blossom when he helps her up and worries about her, which has never happened to her before. Sure, Alya had rescued her and was her first friend, but it was a different attitude. Adrien worried about her several times and patiently helped her and that gesture, for her who was always teased or ignored, was fundamental. Her slow realization and her desire to get to know him better slowly pushed her to solidify that feeling and to be able to develop their friendship, although this element unfortunately had little space.

The depiction of Marinette's feelings was excellent despite everything, starting from a gradual shy crush, growing towards friendship and then becoming a conflict with the feeling directed towards two different boys.

As for Adrien's feelings, as already mentioned, we're sadly pretty short on the Adrienette front from his perspective. However, we can still note that although he finds Marinette "strange" for her behavior, he does not make fun of her in her face or behind her back with other people. He is not saying it with ill intentions, it’s just a very true observation. He helps her gently and slowly opens up, supporting her in her needs and allowing her to support him back.

On the Chat Noir front, again as already mentioned, we can clearly see that his feelings for Ladybug were born as a crush, almost comically, just when the girl saved him. Initially, his feelings are quite confused, guided by the idea he has of her. However, already from the second mission, their attitude towards each other changes and Chat begins to discover the most creative sides of the partner. The boy is aware of Ladybug's fears, because she herself tells him about it and we can see in the timeskip that they have fought together for a long time and have also dedicated time simply to get to know each other. He knows she is scared but she is still trying and his feelings grow. Ladybug too clearly starts falling for him.

We can say the partnership of the two heroes in this version is very interesting, because it doesn't start in a positive way at all. The two argue, as their Kwamis apparently do. They are really in conflict, because they are opposites. However, their bickering slowly turns thanks to the acceptance into affectionate banter and retort, no offense.

Their partnership throughout the film demonstrates the need for a balance, between a Chat expert in physical combat that shows him easily beating Ladybug, and a more creative and flexible Ladybug in exchanging strategy.

We see them engaged in fighting schemes, in coordination, to the point where it is no longer just a saying "stronger together" but a real rule. Their miraculous actually strengthen when they are in sync, like the Ying and Yang, two figures that complement each other.

And the sidekick figure that switches from Ladybug to Chat, then disappears. Their simple partnership, their collaboration and support in an unknown situation, leads them to improve their character from every point of view, to the point of reflecting on their lives as civilians.

For the timeframe available, an excellent job has been done on these aspects.

The only flaw remains Adrien's conflict and the consequent lack of "The Wall Between Us".

It was also excellent how the natural conflict was moved to Ladynoir and all the relationships were treated in a very natural and realistic way. Adrien and Marinette’s initial conflict in the series lasted very short and was quite forced, while Ladynoir has all the reasons to have it for how their personalities were presented and for their roles. Them growing in their civilians and heroic parts was done very beautifully.

Speaking less of objectivity and more of personal taste, I would have liked them to use the Marichat route more than the parallel love of Adrinette and Ladynoir, always insertable.

Furthermore, I would have appreciated that the reveal came more for the fulfillment of the heart and less for events that forced it. That is, that falling in love led the heart to understand that the two loved ones were the same person.

However, these elements are pure personal taste, and I don't find their absence a real fault of the movie.

Another element that I greatly appreciated is the fact that we saw a montage of Alya, Nino, Marinette and Adrien coming out as friends and forming a tight group.

It is a very important detail for the development of the characters.

COMPARISON TO THE SERIES

*CRACKS KNUCKLES*

Ok, as said at the beginning of this post, you are free to skip this part. If you decide to read it, know that I don't expect you to agree with me or that I’m not judging who didn't like the movie and who loves the series more.

This is just my personal opinion and I apologize if at times it can come across as quite intense. That is totally not my intention!

It is no surprise that I liked the movie and that I enjoyed it more than the series.

I am aware that one is a movie, with limited time, and one is a series. And I am also aware that they are products written in different conditions.

However, with one being the original source, I feel it is impossible to avoid a comparison.

One thing I'd also like to point out is that it's not about what I like best as a trope. Because if that were the case, I wouldn't have liked the movie at all; Marichat is my favorite ship as a concept and I think it's the best development for the story, and as you well know it's totally absent from the movie and with the reveal already done there can't be any pre-reveal development in the sequel.

I also like the idea that they realize their identities with their hearts after they meet.

The show has tropes that I might like, some even more than the movie. However, it was the way things were handled that led me to the conclusion that the movie did a better job in the writing.

It's a common thing I've heard in the fandom that the movie in an hour and a half has done more than the series in 5 seasons.

And well, I think that's true, although I also think it's crucial to explain why and what was done better.

First of all…

I don't think a more confident Marinette is a problem. What I think has been the mistake in the way she's been handled on the show is to have her act so… extreme. Her weird behavior is a manageable element, but it's one thing to be weird cute that can embarrass you, it's another to make it so over the top that it becomes all of her character, especially while implying that those attitudes are a normal thing. Especially if when she makes a mistake she either doesn’t pay for it, or she does but goes back to stage 0 from the following episode. Or even if it’s portrayed as nothing is wrong at all.

I don't think it's a good move  to have her act like this for 4 out of 5 seasons of the first arc, rendering her unable to hold a conversation with Adrien and form a natural friendship with him BEFORE entering a relationship with him.

We barely saw the group of friends (Alya, Nino, Mari and Adrien) hang out, perhaps justifiable by Gabriel’s choice to keep Adrien locked up. But there was never an attempt to get around it and still allow the characters to interact for an adequate period of time except in very rare cases that lasted very little, when the series had all the time to do it.

Most of Adrien and Marinette's conversations were cut short and we can count on our fingers how many times the two had a heart-to-heart before getting together. It got to the point that Marinette admitted that she didn't know Adrien at all at the beginning of the fifth season and not recognizing Chat in Adrien in the fourth, which is very grave.

The movie, with its limited time frame, not only managed, albeit largely in a montage, to show us the group of friends that was forming, but also showed how Marinette attempted to get closer to her crush, to get to know him, and have formed a real bond of friendship!

I don't think adding trauma last minute in season 5 to explain Marinette's behavior fixes that. It doesn't work, as she's never had those problems in alternate realities or with other guys she had crushes on and her attitude has never been portrayed as a bad thing.

I much prefer the movie's approach to her feelings and her character, because from the beginning we know that she has problems, we know that what she does is not healthy for herself, but it gets better with time.

Just as I appreciate, as already mentioned, the removal of the initial conflict between Adrien and Marinette, as it was one-sided and basically short-lived. I think the intention of the series was to show that Marinette didn't fall in love at first sight with a pretty face or the boy's fame. However, for 4 seasons it never came out why Marinette liked Adrien, nor were those feelings deepened by the characters as they got to know each other more and more. Marinette has portrayed Adrien as the perfect boyfriend material for a long time in the series, which contradicts the purpose of their initial conflict.

Same goes for Show!Adrien, that barely shows his personal interests and thoughts that aren't Ladybug related (first) or Marinette (later).

The conflict in the movie however was given to Ladynoir, which makes a lot of sense as they are opposites anyway who have to learn to work together. It also brings a whole new development to their relationship which I appreciate.

Chat Noir and Ladybug are treated as equals in a way the series never has. Their powers are balanced, so are their roles in the story, screentime and in combat. Their relationship is never “subordinate and leader” and we watched them explore this aspect until they came to the conclusion that they were equal partners. Even Fu approaches them together Tikki calls them "guardians".

The series dealt with the topic by always leaving Chat Noir in the dark and creating an entire subplot that was never resolved and just showed us a still insistent Chat Noir and a Ladybug who treated her partner badly, with no guilt on the way and with no final apology. 

Using misunderstanding tropes is good if you can handle them.

If we are to believe that Chat and Ladybug are partners, that the characters are equal in roles and relationships, it is not only necessary to say it, but to prove it.

And surely the season 5 finale didn't help in that aspect…

I have delved into these topics in other analyzes that I have done. You can find the analysis of the Ladynoir subplot here.

While here you can find the analysis of the season 5 finale.

Characters with flaws are important, but these aspects must be addressed as such and corrected in an adequate amount of time.

While not as much as Marinette towards Adrien, Chat has also been too insistent on his feelings for too long and I appreciate that with his character change in the movie, we had a natural conflict that turned into respect later on.

Just like I appreciate that their relationship improves in the long run and gives them the courage to improve themselves.

As for the change of personalities itself, I think it's pretty subjective here. It's not wrong to choose a more open Marinette and the same goes for a sunny and innocent Adrien.

These are different interpretations of the characters. I just think with what it has at hand, the movie has managed its version with more skill.

I also much prefer the approach to the character of Gabriel, because while I like the abusive parent road to the core more, I also think it's something to be treated with a lot of care, which is not the case in the show. Gabriel in the movie is a very human character, who, although in conflict, never contradicts himself, unlike Gabriel in the show.

One thing I immediately explained about the movie is that the pacing is poorly managed. True, this is a big flaw. But it's also understandable given the playing time available and the amount of information and relationships they had to readjust.

The series has terrible pacing too. And it has had plenty of time to deal with its elements and most of the changes have occurred in the last season of the first arc, with more elements being dragged further and further and most of which have not been resolved.

It's even missing a lot of lore, when there was so much time to put it in! Even to delve into it in detail.

Or the management of the secondary characters, rightly cut a lot in the movie with limited playing time, but completely incorrect in the series which has every opportunity to make them stand out.

Marinette's falling in love with Chat lasted for a few episodes where she was constantly being told that she was just projecting her crush on Adrien. Adrien falling for Marinette only happened in the last season and that becoming again all he thinks about.

There isn't enough attention to the characters' passions, their lifestyles and they often don't react naturally to things that happen to them. They don't ask themselves out loud things they would naturally think in their situation. The characters don't get to know each other, they don't spend time together normally even just like anime would in their fillers.

This is something we lack in both what they say and what they do.

I would also like to mention that it doesn't matter how many seasons they add. The fact remains that we have had 5 seasons already badly managed. You can add as many seasons as you like afterwards, but you can't fix the issues you've had over 100 episodes with them.

The path is as important, if not more important than the final goal.

In the movie, however, we saw the characters open up about personal issues that they could reveal without worry, even with the masks. We've seen the characters spend time together, have natural conflicts due to their personalities and conditions then resolve still in a natural way. We have always seen a sometimes comical but realistic representation of the feelings of the characters.

What was cut and simplified, allowed for better management of what they had in their hands. That these elements correspond to the vision of many fans is no surprise because Miraculous in its structure is a very predictable series. A series that can have thousands of different developments, but all of which can be foreseen in a certain sense, at least the basic ones.

This however is not a bad thing. The use of clichés or predictable structure is not wrong if well managed. It is much better than the constant pretense of unpredictability which however leads to the distortion of the entire product, making it unnatural and giving unclear or negative messages.

If the movie was just fanservice, we would have had Marichat, the fan-favorite ship.

We would have had the most thorough Adrienette.

In the time available, the movie has proposed a development of relationships and characters that are not perfect, they are flawed but healthier.

We had a semi-conclusion which, however, leaves room for further development into the sequels, for example for the post-reveal relationship of the protagonists.

One never expects the perfect relationship, or the perfect character, but something coherent in its construction and treated for what it is and not pretending it managed something it never really had done.

The movie managed to make the heroes lose but also to make them win, to make love win, which was the message of the film.

Whether it's a non-abusive Gabriel who ends up face to face with his son, whether it's a Chloé with a chance of redemption, whether it's a reveal… all these elements have also been set up in a different way.

Chloé does not go beyond certain limits, the characters got to know each other enough to instantly accept each other at the reveal and react with extreme joy to the point of crying, Gabriel has always shown that he loves his son…

Choosing that Chloé doesn't redeem itself is fine, but it's how it was introduced, managed and set up that is wrong. Gabriel remaining bad through and until the end is fine, as long as the purpose of the villain fathering the male protagonist holds a sense writing wise, confrontations are allowed and no wrong messages are passed across.

Choosing to set character crushes as unhealthy in the beginning is fine, as long as getting to know each other leads them to develop those feelings in a more positive way.

Adding love rivals is fine, if they’re properly handled and they have a purpose that leads the character to learn something and then to a better endgame. 

Adding new villains is okay too if they’re realistic enough to not go outside the suspension of disbelief and they are slowly and constantly built up. Adding conflict and angst is fine, as long as it's natural, leads to an equally good resolution, and has a purpose.

A movie with so many limitations and with its visible flaws, has succeeded in an impressive feat and served up a great product.

Yes, it would have been better if it was the start of a trilogy for the first arc as a whole. It would have been better if it hadn't cut “The Wall Between Us”. It would have been better with a slower pace. It would have been better without the fart jokes!

This movie had the potential to do even more, to be something spectacular.

It did not make it.

But it still managed to be a great movie.

The movie has accomplished a lot in a sea of restrictions.

The series has accomplished very little in a sea of opportunities.

FINAL VOTE

Movie as a product by itself: 8- / 10

Great messages, great developments and comedy often well managed. High level animations and music. Extremely poor pace management.

Movie as a product of Miraculous: 9.5 / 10

Clearly more successful than the series, although it has strong limitations due to the vast content and the limited playing time. Aspects much better managed from every point of view. The only flaw is the Adrienette content they cut out or the lack of "The wall Between Us"

[taylortruther]

omg rae! i can’t believe i’m admitting this publicly on the internet, but i am OBSESSED with lifetime movies! please share some recent ones your crew has watched 🫶🏼 it’s going to be chilly in my area this weekend, so i’m trying to figure out inside activities!

ps: i’m sorry about your friend. i hope she comes around and realizes that y’all want her to be included!

MELISSA MY WHOLE LIFE HAS LED UP TO THIS LMAO. i love lifetime movies! i love making fun of them, but they're just a big part of my life, as silly as that sounds, i've been watching them since i was a kid!

here are some of my faves:

the wives he forgot 🔗 - my favorite lifetime movie EVER. PERIOD. it's so dumb it's good. man experiences amnesia, and falls in love with molly ringwald! unfortunately, his secrets come to haunt them...

her perfect spouse - on the lifetime movie club app. this is bad in all the classic lifetime movie ways: acting is mid, plot is thin, the villain is villainous. i quote this movie all the time with my friends lmao. also includes one of THEE lifetime movie actresses from the early-aughts, sophie gendron. tw for pregnancy loss

your boyfriend is mine - just watched this the other day! it's more modern, so it's pretty good by lifetime standards, and also breaks some of the common lifetime tropes (no spoilers!)

seduced by my neighbor 🔗 - i don't think it's on the app right now, but here is a link to a free stream. it is SOOOO lifetime. nice, pretty single mom + hot villain that wants to take over her life. watch for the surprisingly intense pingpong match (55:07) and watch the people in the crowd lmao.

if you want so-bad-it's-good lifetime, i'd definitely recommend the stalker doctor series. the villain is villaining AND he's the main character. and he's played by julia roberts' brother! tw for a main character who is just a total fucking creep:

stalked by my doctor

stalked by my doctor: the return

stalked by my doctor: patient's revenge

stalked by my doctor: a sleepwalker's nightmare

just what the doctor ordered

if i were to pick one i haven't seen yet, i'd go with dating a sociopath (2019)... sounds right up my alley.

please please tell me if you watch any and what you think!

[linklethehistorian]

Total Eclipse (1995) — A Movie Review by linklethehistorian (Post 3/4)

(Continuation of review placed under the cut for length and spoilers; proceed at your own risk.)

The Bad

Casting & Acting

I honestly can’t think of anything much ‘bad’ to say in this section that isn’t completely nitpicking; as I mentioned in the previous section, I actually think that on the whole, the cast was very well chosen and the skill level of the main actors is stellar. Even in regards to more minor and background characters, I can still only find a few of their performances to be subpar at absolute worst, and I don’t think that’s really anything worth talking about.

I guess if you asked me to go over the entire ensemble with a fine-toothed comb and find something I thought was genuinely off about one of them in any way, I would have to say that, based on the only existing glimpses we have at Mathilde Maute’s true visage through surviving photos, I think Romane Bohringer is far too conventionally attractive by the modern standard to really make for a convincing close physical approximation of the woman she is portraying, but that is truly me splitting straws because she’s too good of an actor to find any major flaws in her performance and I can’t come up with a problem among any of the others, either.

There is one moment I can bring to mind in scene 39 — during which Rimbaud and Verlaine are on a ship headed towards England — that I feel a single line of DiCaprio’s acting felt extraordinarily weak (particularly the moment in which he says “Oh…my God”), but I’m unsure if this is actually the actor’s fault, or that of the director’s for not trying to get another take and just going with that particular cut anyway.

Writing & Script

Alright, well…this section is probably going to be a bit of a difficult and messy one to tackle, unfortunately; you see, the problem I find as I finally sit down to write this section is that much of what really ought to be discussed in this subsection also happens to belong to another — given that a great deal of this film’s issues lie with things intrinsically tied to its notable lack of historical accuracy.

After a great deal of painstaking debating and procrastination by writing out literally every other subsection within “The Bad” except these two, though, I have finally come to what I believe is a reasonable solution: I will use this subsection to talk only about those issues which are the more broad and/or narrative and technical ones, and which are not intrinsically tied to the authenticity of the events and natures being portrayed, and I will use the “Overall Historical Accuracy” subsection to discuss those issues which are inherently bound to how genuine the ‘facts’ and characterizations within Total Eclipse tend to be.

So, with that settled, I guess let’s get started with my first topic of interest for this area: the script’s occasional inconsistency with its own chosen narrative.

Numerous times within this movie, the writing will initially state a certain ‘fact’ that it seems it would earnestly like its audience to believe, only to sooner or later completely contradict itself through another statement or action — and no, I am not talking about the times where it is intentionally using some form of disconnect between a character’s words and their actions to point out their hypocrisy; that definitely is something that is done throughout Total Eclipse and done very well, but those instances are always very clear in their purpose and in no way similar to the obvious slip-ups and oversights to which I refer here.

For instance, in the very first scene ever shown to us, there is a voiceover from Paul Verlaine quoting a certain part of A Season in Hell’s ‘The Infernal Spouse’ — a poem which, I remind you, was widely believed to be written from the perspective of Paul about Rimbaud — in order to tell us of the alleged reasoning behind his fascination with the young poet that we see on screen; even as we see the teen take a huge, obnoxious bite of an apple as he stares out a window, and then eventually strangely decides to leap mid-trip from the train he had boarded into a river far below, Verlaine assures us through his monologue of all of Arthur’s best and most redeemable qualities: his gentleness, his grace, his kindness and innocence — something that we essentially never get to actually see, whether in this scene itself, or the entire movie as a whole.

Yep, that’s right; if you thought that this line of dialogue would have any value whatsoever to the rest of the contents of this cinematic ‘masterpiece’, or even come into play at any point at all, you’d be wrong, because there is absolutely no part of Total Eclipse where we see this side of Rimbaud ever — or are even given any reason to believe that it exists, for that matter. (Unless, of course, you intend to count the two few-second long, dialogue-less moments in which he silently drops a few coins into the hand of a man on crutches in an alleyway, emotionlessly, to which the man barely reacts (in the third scene), or the time in which he briefly embraces and kisses Paul when they reach the ocean (in the thirty-first scene), but I would personally consider that to be something of a stretch.)

Indeed, if this movie was attempting to try out the inversion of the saying ‘show, don’t tell’, and prove to its viewers in doing so that such tactics really can work effectively in storytelling, then the results of that experiment backfired spectacularly in everyone’s faces, and only served to prove precisely why moves like that are generally considered a terrible choice in the first place. 

…And if it wasn’t meaning to do anything of the sort, then I would strongly suggest to the creator(s) of the script that from now on they either learn to refrain from choosing quotes that directly conflict with their preferred narrative, or actually include some form of meaningful content that backs up the statement within the material they decided to use.

As for other examples of general writing and plot inconsistencies besides this, we can most certainly take a look at one particular line in scene 40, where Arthur says to Paul that he had chosen him as a partner in his creative endeavors for a reason, for although Rimbaud himself always knew what he wanted to say, Verlaine knew how to say it — and as such, he was able to learn a lot from him during their time together. 

This line in and of itself would be all well and good, if it didn’t directly contradict another line of dialogue from much earlier in the film (scene 5, to be exact), where it is established firmly into this movie’s interpretation of Rimbaud’s character that he does not believe that poets can learn from each other unless they are bad poets, and that he does not think himself to be a bad poet.

If, as a matter of fact, this somehow is meant to be an attempt at pointing out some form of hypocrisy in the younger poet like they have done with his elder lover countless times before, then it is, quite frankly, a piss-poor one; after all, unlike in all of the other cases surrounding Paul, where the blunt teenager lost no time in calling out his lies and stating things for what they really were, Rimbaud is strangely never confronted about or even looked at a teeny bit differently by his partner for this conflicting statement at all — and this has nothing to do with their natures simply being different, as the Parisian author is much more than willing to accuse him of other things later on with far less proof, so the only truly logical conclusion one can come to about this scene is that the writers merely forgot they had ever established differently in the first place, and never checked back thoroughly enough to find out.

Likewise, in what feels like potentially a similar — yet also somehow nearly opposite — moment of incompetence, some of Verlaine’s dialogue in one of the final scenes of the movie (scene 62, specifically) references Arthur being at fault for Paul’s arrest, which, although very historically accurate, is neither established nor even remotely implied by this film at any point throughout it; as a matter of fact, given that the actual event that lead to Verlaine’s apprehension by the police was entirely omitted by Total Eclipse (more on this later) and replaced with someone barging into their hotel room shortly after Paul shot Rimbaud’s hand, anyone not already familiar with their true life story would be made to believe quite the opposite.

As such, the only way that this statement can possibly not be taken as a complete contradiction to the plot is if you choose to ignore all of the context surrounding it and twist the meaning to something less literal — such as that the older poet is saying it is his paramour’s fault that he ended up in jail because the boy tried to leave in the first place, thus “forcing” Verlaine into shooting him, or because he for some reason sees Arthur as the sole one to blame for the fact they were ever romantically involved to begin with, and their involvement was what indirectly lead to the arrest. Granted, although these may be absurd claims for anyone to try to make in his position, I suppose it really wouldn’t be beyond someone like Paul to do it anyway, but I do think that working this hard to wave off what is very clearly a major inconsistency in the writing and intended flow of the story is a little bit more pardoning than the writers deserve to be given.

Sadly, this apparent indecision with the tale’s direction and failure to clean up the loose ends of the abandoned plot elements is something that does not end with this one fumble alone, either, as throughout scenes 29, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 58, and 62, we are constantly presented with what appears to be many different leftover scraps of potential paths they considered taking in regards to the reason why Arthur eventually loses his ability and will to write; the most logical and close to historical accuracy of these — that the teen very simply became more and more jaded, disillusioned, frustrated and depressed throughout the course of his and Paul’s stressful, on-and-off again relationship and gave up completely in the aftermath of the end of it — is unfortunately the one which, although almost seeming to be set up now and again, is pushed down the most in favor of the more abstract and absurd “explanations” that are hinted at, such as Rimbaud constantly forseeing the near-end of his own life in Africa in the far future and having it start to consume him after he sees the boat to said continent while in London, and the most boring of all excuses, that it was something inexplicable that “just happened” for no particular rhyme or reason despite any of these other surrounding factors giving us every reason to believe that there was, in fact, a cause behind his fading inspiration and change of behavior.

Perhaps my ‘favorite’ scene of all in regards to this is the ridiculous one in which, shortly after having stated that he considered putting his affair partner in a position where he would literally be sent to jail just so that he himself could possibly eventually re-unite with Mathilde, Verlaine, in a moment of utter obliviousness to his own bullshit, comments that Arthur is no longer acting the same way that he used to, and asks him what’s wrong, and the script then chooses in spite of the obvious and most likely answer to have the young poet respond that it’s “the writing” that has changed him. Yeah — try and make sense of that one.

The ultimate reason for Rimbaud’s death, too, almost seems to have been something they considered at one point changing in some manner, as I find it odd that they thought it relevant to show and emphasize him getting an injury on his knee while exploring in Africa, coincidentally in the exact same place where he later developed the tumor that would take his life — unless, of course, they somehow mean to imply that the wound lead to it forming, which is, to my admittedly limited understanding of medical knowledge, a pretty farfetched claim, to be honest.

Barring that bizarre logic, I can only really assume that perhaps they may have originally considered having him simply die of some sort of infection, for whatever reason, before they eventually changed their minds and decided to be more historically accurate — or, who knows, maybe they never had any other sorts of plans at all, and rather than being a leftover bit they decided to keep from an earlier version of the script, the injury was just some unrelated sub-plot they intended to have all along; whatever the case, though, I personally think that it was a terrible decision to include it, as it just makes the entire situation a whole lot more confusing, considering the extremely convenient placing of the wound.

Something else that I find rather annoying and disappointing about this film is the way in which it handles Arthur’s brilliance as a creative; yes, as I’m sure you’ve already guessed from some of what I’ve said in previous sections and subsections, if for any reason you approached this film with the hope that it would not lean into the horridly overused “geniuses are all extremely quirky and raving mad” cliché, rest assured that you will be severely disappointed in every way imaginable.

From spending three scenes making sounds like and mimicking dogs and goats, to unzipping and pissing on someone from atop a table with a sword-cane in his hand, there are many wild, out-of-left-field, historically unbacked ‘antics’ which happen throughout Total Eclipse for seemingly no other reason than to paint the teen as a thousand times more insane and over-the-top than he truly was.

Unfortunately, this tendency towards theatrics over truth most often results in not only the dehumanization of Rimbaud (which I will discuss further in the Historical Accuracy section), but also just some very weird, awkward, inhuman, and/or incomprehensible moments as a whole.

I sincerely appreciated the attempt at showing genuine, heartfelt frustration from him in scene 32, after he wakes up to find Paul sneaking out of their shared bed to reunite with his wife, for example, but the way that they have him quickly kind of punch his own hand once in anger somehow honestly feels to me less like a sincere display of strong emotion and more an almost cartoonish moment where one would expect a villain to be saying, “Blast! Foiled again!”

Many of the attempts at quoting his poetry as directly as possible within the character dialogue, too, although perhaps noble in intention, falls to this same fatal issue of creating some very robotic, unnatural-feeling exchanges.

Scene six, for instance, where Arthur and his much older companion debate the general topic and existence of love, quickly becomes very inhuman, as the youth monologues the entirety of his famous “Love…no such thing” quote, pausing to allow Verlaine to speak his rebuttal partway through, but then completely and utterly ignoring what he says to finish the rest in a way that feels very awkward and out of place for any real human interaction — never to address his words for the whole remainder of the scene.

Now, I don’t dislike the inclusion of this quote or the overall concept behind this scene by any means, but it — like many other ‘reference’ scenes and lines throughout the film — would be much better off if the dialogue was instead written in such a manner that the characters were more paraphrasing the things they were giving a strong nod to than directly quoting them nearly word for word, thus leaving a lot more room for the special homages they wished to pay to actually fit and flow with the rest of the conversations around them naturally and comfortably.

Trying to overambitiously cram as many tiny bits and pieces of Arthur’s actual works and sayings into the film even where it does not make sense or is clearly being forced purely for the sake of it — such as distastefully making said poet deliriously ramble off random quotes from the Infernal Spouse on his deathbed, or having him go through an entire cringeworthy interaction with a random dog statue in Mathilde’s family’s home just so he can later say the “dogs are all liberals” line to her father — is just plain embarrassing to watch more than it is pleasing as an Easter Egg within the dialogue.

Perhaps my least favorite example of this is the way that after stabbing Paul’s hand in scene 27, the script then has Arthur state in a dull, cold, monotone voice that “the only unbearable thing is that nothing is unbearable”, which, although one of my favorite Rimbaud quotes, here just seems to come out of nowhere, and appears to have absolutely no real significance to the rest of the scene, besides that the writers apparently thought it would sound ‘cool’ and ‘edgy’ (and although I will grant them that it does sound edgy, I would sooner consider it terribly cringe-inducing than I would ever call it ‘cool’).

And speaking of their poetry, I sure would like to know what the creators’ obsession was with the Infernal Spouse; I mean, don’t get me wrong, it’s actually one of my most beloved Rimbaud pieces that exist, but I think that quoting it — what? — three or four times throughout the movie when so many others don’t get even a single homage (there are really only four or five referenced pieces that I counted in total) does seem a bit like overkill. I do have a theory on why that might be the case, but…well, we’ll get to that later.

It should also probably be noted that, although I am by no means an expert on Verlaine’s poetry (I know a good deal about his life story, even if not quite as much as I do Rimbaud’s, but I have primarily only ever read Rimbaud’s works thus far), I could not spot even one single reference to any of his works in the same vein as is done for his lover — though again, I could be mistaken.

While not necessarily related to much of the above, or even anything else I will be talking about here —  besides perhaps just fitting into the ‘strange’ and ‘unnatural’ interaction theme in general — I also would simply like to say that I find it incredibly awkward that despite Verlaine and Rimbaud’s romantic and intimate involvement throughout pretty much this entire film, only Arthur is ever seen calling Paul by his first name, and never the other way around; in fact, Verlaine never even calls him by his last name at any point, either — an extremely strange writing choice for a film that centers itself around their affair and typically tries to present Paul as the more clingy, familiar, lovey-dovey and sentimental partner, but I suppose at this point we’ve already established that the lead creators of Total Eclipse rather suck at making anything that feels remotely sane or natural.

Even the cuts between scenes and the arrangement of them — all historical inaccuracies completely aside for the time being — often feel very whiplash-inducing, and while some of that is likely the editors to blame (as I explain in greater detail in a later subsection), the fault cannot be placed solely upon their shoulders, for the writers are very clearly a large part of the problem on this front, too.

The editors can certainly make things even worse, yes, through inconsistency and an overall poor exercise of their skills in the precise placement and style of cuts used, as well as sound-mixing and other audio and visual matters, but the authors of a script are ultimately the ones who most typically decide and control how a scene ends and which one comes next, as well as what takes place within it.

As I later state in the Filming & Editing section, there are many moments in this which are extremely hard to follow thanks to the placement of the scenes every bit as much as the editing later done to them; massive leaps in time are made on multiple occasions from one scene to the next, and all with little explanation other than the rare helping of a poorly placed title card of the year and location and, if you’re extremely lucky, a few throwaway, poorly explained lines indicating a vague idea of what had happened in between the two scenes to lead the characters to where they are now — usually not, though.

And some of these larger jumps in time aren’t just extremely hard to keep up with or unclarified in their events, they’re sometimes also emotionally jarring due to the complete, instantaneous mood change that happens between scenes — perhaps the most bizarre and unintentionally, morbidly hilarious of these being the time when the movie cuts from Arthur violently stabbing Paul in the hand in a bar and coldly watching him scream in pain to them being in the middle of having very intense sex in Arthur’s room and then fairly peacefully cuddling up in bed; that was definitely a very…interesting decision to make for the script, to put it politely. Truly, it was a…choice — perhaps even one of the choices ever made.

Additionally, there are many other scenes here that just probably shouldn’t have been included to begin with — not even necessarily because there is any deeply offensive content in any of them, but rather, purely because they don’t seem to serve any logical purpose other than taking up space as a bunch of mindless filler that mostly isn’t even that much fun to watch.

A lot of them are really just quite short, pointless, and (at least in terms of what constitutes the baseline for ‘normal’ content in this film, which isn’t always saying very much) mundane in nature, and leave you feeling as if you’ve walked away with absolutely nothing particularly gained from seeing them, but even the two main examples I can think of that seemed like maybe they were at least trying to establish something vaguely important just…fell completely flat on their faces and left me feeling extremely confused, which is why they ended up in this ‘meaningless’ category from the start.

One of these is scene 41, in which Paul and Arthur have a brief discussion about their greatest fears; one would think, given most of the focus of this scene being placed solely on this part of the conversation, that this little exchange was meant to be something profound and deeply important to their characters, but the reality sadly ends up being much more shallow and befuddling. I mean, perhaps in the eyes of the writer, this was meant to be some grand reveal that deepened both of their characterizations greatly, but the audio is so soft and poor-quality here when it comes to Thewlis’ lines that Verlaine’s answer to his lover’s question is difficult to truly make out, and the only thing that one can seem to make of it (which I discussed earlier in the “Writing & Script” subsection of the previous section) is completely absurd and impossible to take seriously, and as for Rimbaud’s revealed fear — “That other people will see me as I see them” — setting aside the apparent contradiction with the fact that Arthur has never really expressed much care of how others perceive him, although it at first does seem like an interesting statement with a lot of potential for depth if expanded upon and explored, it is unfortunately very quickly thrown away for a subject change the moment it is said, and then never brought up again. 

It is almost as if the script considered for a moment that it might like to explore its characters and add a deeper layer of humanity to them, but then realized that it would require too much care and effort and just decided to toss out some surface level, throwaway lines that people can interpret however they want and leave it at that.

The deeply overdramatic scene 47 is the only other one out of this bunch that I found to maybe have been intended to have some deeper purpose beyond just showing that he had developed writer’s block, given the enigmatic nature of the scene and the apparent ties to that whole strange “foresight into one’s own death” subplot for Arthur, but at the end of the day, I just find it too confusing to make a lot of sense of the rest of the strange elements within it; what exactly is that spillage that suddenly appears out of nowhere to ruin the page he is working on — is it ink? If it is, I don’t know where it came from, and it’s awfully red for that to be the case. Is it blood? That doesn’t really make sense; he doesn’t seem to be visibly injured in the scene. Are they suggesting he’s hallucinating? Is it supposed to be in some way tied to his vision of Africa and the end of his life? Is it meant to be his blood? He didn’t die from anything relating to blood loss, really — although I guess some bone cancers are technically tied to blood. I don’t know. I really just found the whole thing extremely confusing and honestly unnecessary to have as some sort of barely addressed supernatural sub-plot in general.

Maybe the feelings about that last scene is just me, though; maybe some people enjoyed it. All I know is I think it detracts and distracts from the real issues that were actually going on in his life at this point in time.

And lastly for this subsection, while we’re on the subject of things that are way out of touch with reality even within the rest of its own narrative, I’m not at all fond of the way that this movie’s ending was written. Don’t get me wrong — having Arthur’s spirit (which presents itself at the same age as when he and Verlaine were having their affair) visit Paul every night after his death and even come and kiss his hand in broad daylight at the bar after Isabelle leaves is an extremely romantic and happy ending, all things considered, but that is exactly why it is terrible; part of the more intricate details of this I will be saving to discuss in the Overall Historical Accuracy subsection, but even with that and all of the lies thrown into this film to make things look more romantic and forgivable aside for now, the bottom line is that this story should by no means have a happy ending. It absolutely should not end with the implication that because Paul did one decent thing to preserve Arthur’s legacy, then that suddenly erases years of terrible, horridly selfish actions towards both him and Mathilde and means that now he deserves to be loved and respected by — and even find everlasting happiness with — the teenager that he literally tried to murder.

There are a lot of things I would love to say right now in regards to this completely wild and vomit-inducing decision, but since I’m setting all of that aside for the Historical Accuracy subsection, for now I will just have it suffice to say that I think it is absolutely batshit insane.

Costumes & Scenery

Much like with what I stated in the “Casting & Acting” subsection, I don’t really have a lot to say in this category that isn’t praise; the only thing I can truly think of at the moment that I took any issue with in regards to any of this was very simply that I saw no moment throughout any part of this two hour film in which Rimbaud wears his signature bowtie — you know, the unique style he literally invented? 

Yeah, it’s a minor thing, but I’m still kind of peeved about it, to be honest; surely, it wouldn’t have been that hard to achieve.

Music & Sound Effects

My sole complaint here is something that only genuinely happens twice: there’s this particular sharp, brief swell in the music that happens both in the library while Arthur is struggling to write in scene 43 and later when Paul purchases a gun and is loading it at a table along the streets of London in scene 53, which almost mimics what one would expect to hear in a horror film, and thus induces the same expectation of an upcoming jumpscare or something truly horrifying about to happen.

You could perhaps try to make the argument that this is at least fitting for the latter moment, given that Verlaine is about to return to the hotel and shoot his partner, but the prior usage of it in an otherwise relatively uneventful scene and the lack of clearly established pre-meditation (since they imply the drunken Parisian only intended it for himself originally), coupled together with the scene change and the rather long conversation between the loading of the weapon and the actual shooting, just makes it all feel very overdone, deeply anti-climactic, and just plain awkward, cringeworthy, and out of place.

Other than that, everything is honestly fine in this department.

Editing & Filming

I really don’t want to be unnecessarily harsh on the camera crew involved in this endeavor, as I don’t know how many of the decisions for what to do with the different scenes were actually theirs to make, if any at all; yes, there were a few moments here or there where I thought things could have been done a little bit better than they were, and a handful of times when I thought the recently acquired film maybe should have been rewatched enough to realize that the actors should have been directed to speak a little bit louder, but on the whole I don’t really want to place blame on people who were clearly doing their best to capture what they were told to capture, quite possibly the way they were told to capture it.

As far as I’m concerned, however, the same excuse cannot really be made for the editors and those who were tasked with overseeing the editing process — and this, apart from the writing and the historical accuracy, is unfortunately where Total Eclipse tends to fail the most.

As I mentioned very briefly before, there are some instances in the supposedly ‘finished’ product where the editors seem to have decided to give up halfway and awkwardly transition or just outright cut to the next scene when the main characters are clearly still mid-dialogue. Not only that, but the scene changes in general — comprised of a very strange mix of ordinary scene cuts, unexpectedly abrupt jump cuts, and extremely awkward fade transitions — are often deeply confusing to follow, if not entirely jarring to experience; thanks in part to the writing just as much as the editing, scenes often feel very incomplete and/or short enough to leave the viewer either wondering what their point was or give them a sense of whiplash as the location or emotions of characters change vastly and without much explanation from one moment to the next, and even the occasional — and devastatingly sparse, for a movie that features a lot of travel across many cities and countries — title card to tell one where and when a scene takes place sometimes only seems to appear when one is already halfway through a scene, rendering its usefulness in clearing up any shock or confusion almost moot.

Even for someone as intimately knowledgeable about the true events this film is based on as myself, Total Eclipse at times proved to be extremely hard to follow and keep up with just what exactly was going on — and although this is partly due to the many historical inaccuracies involved and the creative liberties taken within the script, the editing crew and their overseers absolutely did not help by any measure with the bizarre choices they made when putting all of the material they had together into a complete movie.

All in all, I genuinely believe I could have gotten a better job done with the editing just from spending an hour playing around in the iMovie app, with no professional degrees to my name, than the actual editors were able to manage in God knows how long.

‘Mature’ Content

Listen, I know this movie is apparently categorized as an “erotic historic drama”, and I’m not saying there’s anything inherently wrong with that; in fact, I’ve already stated before that I genuinely do think that a few of the more sexually charged scenes legitimately contribute something of value to the film, in terms of establishing character motivation and personality, and sometimes even historical accuracy (we know that Rimbaud did, in fact, briefly streak one time as depicted in scene 15, more or less).

…Even so, do the main three characters — especially Rimbaud and Verlaine — really have to be in some state of undress as often as they are? 

Seriously, the amount of times the characters are either half-naked or just completely nude in this film is venturing way out of the realm of just uncensored honesty or even an attempt to be ‘sexy’ and into just plain absurdity; there are many times where Leonardo DiCaprio and David Thewlis are very clearly just shirtless purely for the sake of being shirtless — even in scenarios and conditions which, quite frankly, would not lend themselves well to one having such few layers of clothing on their body, given the supposed location and time of year in which these scenes are taking place. 

There are also a few times in which the characters are in completely compromising positions or situations for reasons which are completely inexplicable, other than that the film creators were obviously just trying to find any reason or opportunity under the sun for which to disrobe someone; for example, there is one particularly telling instance in scene 52, where Arthur arrives at a hotel in Brussels to reunite with Paul, and is guided to his room by a staff member who, upon knocking for him, is told to “come in” by Verlaine, yet when the door is opened, said older Parisian poet is standing almost right in front of the hotel room’s door, stark naked, pouring water over his head as if to take a bath — making absolutely zero efforts to cover himself for what very well could just have been the staff alone coming to talk to him about something. 

The entire rest of the scene also takes place with the elder man making no efforts to even grab a towel after getting out of the bath, and then getting into a physical brawl to the point of wrestling in the buff with a fully clothed Rimbaud along the floor even in an entirely non-sexual context, because of course it does.

Perhaps it is absurd, from your point of view, to complain about these sorts of things in a film that places itself under such a category as “erotic” anything, and if that’s the case, then sure, that’s a completely fair way of looking at it; still, at least for me, pointless nudity and sex scenes that add nothing to the plot even from an emotional perspective — especially in a film that is supposed to be telling a real life tale about people who actually existed in this world — equals an automatic detraction of points from the movie in question, as a truly good film would not have to resort to such cheap tactics to keep a viewer interested and entertained.

I suppose some watchers might find it refreshing that it is actually the male characters who are primarily getting treated this way this time around, as it is typically the female ones to whom this is done in most cinema, but as for myself, I personally find it just as ridiculous, awkward, and unnecessary regardless — whether it calls itself an erotic drama or otherwise.

Overall Historical Accuracy

Alright, before we get into the very biggest issue with the movie’s script and all of the little historical inaccuracies that are connected to it, I first want to take the time to address just a few small ones scattered here and there throughout the film that are entirely disconnected from the main subject we’ll be talking about afterwards.

Unlike the more major problems we’re saving for a little bit later, most of these things I’m going to be mentioning don’t have any extreme plot-altering powers, in terms of the bigger picture that viewers are going to take away with them when the credits roll; they’re merely factual fallacies and omissions that, although minor in impact, I still thought were kind of unhelpful for anyone who might be tuning in to Total Eclipse with the hope of actually learning something.

You’d think with a movie so incredibly bold and confident about having its facts straight that it doesn’t even just claim to be “based on a true story” as most do, but actually outright states over text before the film opens that “what follows is [Verlaine and Rimbaud’s] story directly taken from their letters and poetry”, the actual contents of the film, then, would have to be something phenomenally well-researched and extremely close to the real events — even if a little bit of extra dramatization might be sprinkled here or there; that’s really not the case, though.

Despite the much braver and frankly somewhat lawsuit-inviting statement, the vast majority of even the most basic points about their lives and the time the two poets spent together are greatly misrepresented by the writers — let alone the finer and more intricate details of it all.

Even the facts surrounding Rimbaud’s death towards the end of the movie are…murky at best, in the way that they are presented there; I have already explained some of this — mostly in regards to the potential for audience confusion, thanks to an unusual decision to write in an injury to Arthur’s knee, in the exact same spot as the tumor that will later develop and take his life — in the “Writing and Script” section, but there is far more to it than just what was spoken of back then.

Yes, while we are admittedly told that Rimbaud developed ‘a tumor’ in his knee, that his leg was amputated, and that regardless of the operation, he became even sicker and eventually died, what the film fails to mention in any capacity is that this so-called ‘tumor’ was actually bone cancer (presumed osteosarcoma), and that the reason the amputation did not save his life is that neither he nor anyone else was even aware it was cancer until after the surgery was over; in the beginning, he had honestly assumed it to be nothing more than arthritis, and this is why he didn’t think to seek any help until it had become rather unlivable — then, once he did, he was misdiagnosed by two separate doctors before he was finally operated on under the assumption it was actually tubercular synovitis. By the time that any truth in the matter had actually come to light, the damage had already been done, and no amount of amputating or rest would have saved him.

I’ll make mention here, as well, that I’ve seen another person once bring forth a complaint that Arthur never had a point in which he returned home to the family farm in Roche between the amputation and his death, but I cannot personally find anything which definitively supports this claim within any of my own resources that I’ve acquired over the years; as far as I can see, the order of those events in particular as they are presented in the film actually seem quite accurate to reality, so take that information as you will. If you, yourself, wish to do further research to see if it is indeed the case, then feel free; either way, I thought it was at least worth a single note.

Another, topically similar head-scratcher for me which I cannot recall being factually supported in anything I’ve ever read thus far is this purported ‘tumor’ that Verlaine claims to have in his own knee in Total Eclipse, when he is told of how Arthur died; either I am just forgetting something and have not looked thoroughly enough into things (which I grant is entirely possible, seeing as that Paul is someone I have researched admittedly a tiny bit less than Rimbaud), or this is a completely made-up issue they added purely to mirror the last physical condition of his lover for some reason.

Some other befuddling omissions and inaccuracies include entirely failing to ever make even so much as a passing reference to the fact that Verlaine actually took up teaching professionally during the time that he and Arthur lived in London — choosing instead to have him sit around and bemoan the dwindling of their personal funds as he continues to rely solely upon the money he had claim to through his fractured marriage with Mathilde — and making Paul claim to Arthur that he converted to Catholicism after the divorce with his wife was finalized, rather than in prison as was genuinely the case (and which, perplexingly, was sort of previously established in an earlier line of dialogue to begin with).

I would also like to have seen Mathilde’s father express a bit more sweetness and protectiveness over his daughter, for, although his character is mostly serviceable enough in this movie for the part he holds, it was a well-known fact that Mathilde’s parents were both very loving, and especially that her dad was a good man who was greatly concerned with her personal happiness, wishes, and well-being, in a time where that was admittedly rather exceptional and extraordinarily uncommon on its own.

And while we’re speaking of parents, while, again, I don’t want to dive into another massive history lesson here, I would like to say that I don’t think Rimbaud’s mother is portrayed accurately here at all, compared to how she was said to be in real life — both by Arthur himself and by basically anyone who had ever even briefly met her; by all historical record, Marie Rimbaud was a cold, humorless, unsympathetic person whose husband (supposedly described to be her exact opposite) could not even stand to be in the home with her for more than a few days per year — if that — after their first few months of marriage, and permanently left her after six years, never to see her or their children again.

To her children — and especially Arthur, whom had an extra burden placed upon him when, as a young child, he had already been labeled a genius by his teachers — Marie was callous, cold, strict, controlling, and (especially physically) abusive, sometimes even forcing them to go for days without food as punishment if they did not perform well enough in school.

She did not, by any means, approve of Arthur’s career of choice and absolutely did not feel even as mildly sympathetic to him and his plights or feelings as this film seems to want you to believe; in fact, given that on his deathbed she actively chose to forcefully pull his sister away from visiting him at one point, and even went so far as to go against his final wishes for his burial, I hesitate to think that she would’ve cared to follow him out and watch him leave the family farm on his final days, either.

Anyone who had ever met her — including some of Arthur’s teachers and interviewers later on in her own life — tended to fear her and either considered her a terrifying, violent, or just plain unenjoyable individual, if not all of the above.

Now, I believe that just about covers all I have to say in relation to the smaller things, so, without further ado, let’s sit down and have a nice little chat about the real trouble with Total Eclipse and its very poorly written plot.

Considering how little I know them, I truly don’t want to assume the worst when it comes to Agnieszka Holland and Christopher Hampton’s intentions for the script — and, by extension, the film that was built upon it; nevertheless, there are some things in this film that it is just very hard to give them the full benefit of the doubt on, when they so boastfully proclaim that they have been perfectly faithful to the true story and that everything that happens in their adaptation of it is taken directly from Rimbaud and Verlaine’s poetry and letters, yet so much of it is either completely made-up nonsense with absolutely no basis or majorly re-arranges events in a way that it completely changes the narrative with which an uninformed audience is going to walk away.

(And granted, the original screenplay that this movie was made from was written in the late 1960s, so information then was likely not as widely available as it is today, and thus, it does leave a little bit more slack for any of Hampton’s personal failures at that time (although some are still very inexcusable basic facts that definitely would have been out there within reach), but the same cannot truly be said for the movie itself — as, even if some details perhaps still weren’t available in the same way that they are today, at least the vast majority were out there in some capacity, and they had more than enough money and means to hire actual historical experts to do research and seek the truth out for them.)

I can’t — and thus won’t, as I don’t want to place words in their mouths or make any unsavory assumptions on this matter that may be untrue — begin to guess what possessed the creators to make Verlaine the true protagonist and narrator of this story, but regardless of what their reasons may have been, I can say with the utmost confidence that it is almost certainly what caused all of the greatest downfalls of this film, plot and accuracy-wise.

You see, the big challenge that always comes with telling a story from one particular character’s point of view is two-fold: 1) that that character you chose is always going to be biased in the way they tell their tale and how they view other characters, and 2) that, at least typically speaking, once you make your character the narrator and the main protagonist, it becomes tempting to want to paint them in a better or more forgivable, sympathetic light so that the audience will be at least a little more likely to root for them.

Now, this isn’t necessarily a problem when it comes to fiction, because in fiction, the writer is free to present a story from whatever perspective they want and make their characters — however either ‘good’ or ‘bad’ they may actually be based on their actions — as likable as they desire, and that is perfectly fine, as at the end of the day it is no one but the author’s invented story to tell; however, when it is a story about real people and their actual lives, the situation becomes a bit hairier.

Not only is it very difficult to tell a factual story from a factual person’s point of view and represent their thoughts fairly and accurately, unless their feelings on the matter are exceedingly well documented, but it will also inevitably do some form of disservice to someone else involved in that tale every time.

There is a famous saying that there are two sides to every story, but I disagree; there are not just two sides to every story, but at least three — even if there are only two people involved; after all, there is the perspective of Person A, the perspective of Person B, and then also the perspective of anyone else who might be on the outside of the situation looking in — the person who probably has neither of the biases that the involved parties have, but whom, at the same time, might also be lacking in some key information that the other two both possess, depending on the circumstances.

Naturally, when telling a true story, the ultimate goal is usually to be able to present a little bit of all three — that is to say, to show things largely from the unbiased outside position, but also use the information we have been given of both sides’ thoughts and motivations, if available, as well, to establish and represent those feelings and ideas and do justice to them as much as we can. 

Total Eclipse does not care about any of this, though; rather, it seems to be under the impression that simply because Verlaine was the longer-living of the two men and he did the one simple courtesy of preserving and publishing whatever poetry his late former paramour had left in his care, this means that it is acceptable to tell the story of their relationship entirely from his perspective and that no harm could possibly be done in doing so.

However, that is a logical fallacy, and a very harmful one, at that, to the actual victims of the real life happenings that went on during those years — especially if you intend to make Paul look at all like the ‘good guy’ within the dynamics of either of his relationships, or even only ‘equally as guilty’ as Rimbaud.

Of course, I won’t say that presenting Verlaine in such lights from his own point of view would be in any way an inaccurate depiction of his thoughts, because from everything we do know about him, this was his point of view; based on many of his actions and letters and other recorded bits of information, he did appear to have a massive victim complex in every situation that he himself had caused, constantly jumping back and forth from blaming either his wife or his extramarital partner for all of his bad behavior — often dependant on whomever he happened to be with and/or wanted to appease at the time — throughout the affair. 

Even further supporting this already clear observation is Rimbaud’s famous The Infernal Spouse, from his work A Season in Hell, which, as stated before, is widely believed to be written from the perspective of Paul about Arthur himself; in it, the speaker (whom would be Paul) ultimately paints himself as the poor, helpless, ‘once-respectable’ victim of a demon who came to him in the guise of a youth (whom would be Arthur) and seduced him, making his life a living hell where the speaker has “no choice” but to continue down the terrible path of ruin.

If I didn’t know any better, I would almost assume that this movie was, for whatever reason, written not just to be told from the Parisian poet’s perspective, but specifically and solely through the lens of this one particular poem, if the narrative of said work was taken entirely at face value — yet, this is clearly not true, as even that piece (including some excerpts from it I discussed before, which were used within this very movie) leaves more room for charity towards Rimbaud and his overall portrayal than this film does.

Whereas The Infernal Spouse still speaks at times to his kindness, charity, grace, and goodness — among other not strictly negative human qualities present within him — in spite of itself, Total Eclipse’s version of Rimbaud is, as I’ve said in prior sections, a jaded, sadistic, rude and relatively heartless edgelord who may or may not be a complete sociopath, not to mention the ultimate source of all conflict in everyone’s lives.

Meanwhile, Verlaine is presented as, yes, a violent drunk who abuses his wife and child during his moments of insobriety, but one who is genuinely remorseful after every action and who, no matter how thoroughly unlikable his actions may make him at present for most of the film, is heavily implied to have only become a drunkard thanks to Rimbaud’s influence and presence in his life, and ever before that — and any time the teen was out of his life at all, for that matter — was a good, kind, and loving person who merely didn’t know how to exist without someone by his side and just couldn’t help falling in love with multiple people.

Oh, but those might seem rather broad-sweeping and loaded claims without getting into any details, so let’s go through the film bit by bit and talk about all the big and little changes and omissions that make it turn out that way, hm?

Aside from the dichotomy already mentioned twice earlier of the quoting of an excerpt from The Infernal Spouse in the opening scene — which speaks of some redeeming qualities in Rimbaud that we will never even truly get to see throughout this entire film — the first major mistake made within the script is the decision to include so much of the second scene so early on within the movie.

Now, of course, I’m not talking about from a narrative perspective; naturally, it does make sense that if one is telling a story from the point of view of Paul, then starting the movie out with a glimpse into the time after Rimbaud’s death when he meets with the young poet’s sister not only is a great way to attempt to generate intrigue right away, but also provides an excellent way to transition back into the past by having Verlaine begin to reminisce on the things they had once done together, but in regards to trying to present an unbiased story that will allow the audience to form their own conclusions at the end based on actual facts, I do feel it is a little bit manipulative — whether intentionally so or not.

After all, if from the moment we are first introduced to this older Parisian poet, we instantly see him establish himself as this selfless hero of a man who helped Rimbaud along in his ambitions as a poet even to the complete detriment of his own once-greater notoriety and career, it will from that moment forward already be seeded in our minds that we are intended to see him as such and remember it above all else, despite any of what we might see in the scenes that will follow; it makes it much harder to be unbiased towards him when the film is immediately waving it in our collective faces how much he sacrificed and suffered for the man that now isn’t even around to enjoy his own success.

Skipping past all the pre-established discussion surrounding the writers’ decision to add in all of the unfounded, extremely awkward, and cringeworthy animal imitating and how that is a poor portrayal of Rimbaud’s genius, we next arrive at the dinner scene between Arthur, Paul, Mathilde, and her mother.

There are quite a few strange and, as far as I could tell, unbacked claims that are made here — not least of all the statement from the teenage poet himself that his mother was “quite happy” that he had joined Verlaine in Paris to do writing work with him, when as far as we are aware, she was actually quite opposed to her son’s job of choice; I suppose the intended implication, then, was that she was just happy to get rid of him in any way she could so long as she didn’t have to pay for it, because he was nothing but trouble — and while that may not necessarily be inaccurate to her actual personality or thoughts towards Arthur in real life, regardless of whether it is or isn’t, it is still a bit confusing within the context of the movie, as this attitude is not really well expressed in any scene where she appears.

On the flip side, when the boy’s father is mentioned, he dryly makes a response saying that his father’s primary occupation is drinking and that they (the Rimbaud family) haven’t seen him in ten years; the latter part of this is absolutely true, as Captain Frederic Rimbaud left after the last of the children was born, and it does somewhat make sense to show Rimbaud having a relative disinterest in getting back in touch with him given that we know neither the children nor the father himself ever seemed to care much about reconnecting, but the claim about him being a drunkard is, to my knowledge, mostly unfounded, and I find it particularly unusual that they go so far out of their way to include this comment and have Arthur show a cold disdain and strong sense of negativity behind his words when talking about drinking — as though it were a bad thing in his eyes — when he is henceforth after this scene portrayed as someone who himself enjoys drinking and is not only happy to start a relationship with a man whom, after meeting him, remains almost perpetually drunk, but even later tries to talk said man out of quitting.

And lastly, the claims that Arthur lied about his age to Paul in his letters by saying that he was 21 is, to my knowledge, completely speculative and entirely invented by this film; granted, given that the vast majority of all correspondence between Paul and Arthur prior to their first meeting — save for one or two paraphrased lines of one letter that Verlaine claims to remember existing — was lost forever to history, there’s nothing to say that it didn’t happen, but there’s also no real reason that I know of to believe that it did. 

So, why, then, was the decision made to add this line? Well, I think it may have been for the sake of audience comfort, in a way — just as was the choice to reinforce that Mathilde was 18 (stated in scene 14) when Arthur arrived at their home, and the creative decision to have Rimbaud be the one to make the first physical move on Paul (shown in scene 21) when in reality that sort of thing is completely undocumented and therefore anything shown of it will always be speculative; if we’re assured that Verlaine is married to an eighteen-year-old woman and it’s never stated when they married, if he thinks Arthur is an adult man when he invites him into his home, and if even after knowing better, Rimbaud — the sixteen-year-old — is at least the first one to make a physical move on the adult, well, it’s probably a little bit less creepy in the eyes of the audience, right? Especially if their ages are really only brought up once or twice — or, in the case of Verlaine, not at all (he was 27 historically when Arthur came to live with him) — and then never mentioned again for the rest of the two-hour film.

I know that there will be people who will likely want to use the “it was a different time” argument here to push away the disturbing factor in all of this, but not only do I believe that this argument is absurd — as if you truly believe something is wrong according to your personal moral compass, that should not change based solely upon what may or may not have been considered “acceptable” at the time — the simple fact of the matter is that things weren’t as ‘different’ back then as you might think, anyway; the age of majority was actually much higher back in the late nineteenth century (hence even Total Eclipse itself having Paul call Mathilde, his wife, “still just a child” and Arthur reply “so am I” in scene six), and most people did not marry until both parties were fairly late into, or at best halfway through, their 20s.

Any way you want to slice it, Paul Verlaine’s only dating history throughout his adult life (a 16 year old girl at 25, a 16 year old boy at 27, and purportedly a 17 year old boy at 32) was disturbing according to most people’s moral compasses, even from the perspective of someone from back then. It is a matter of historical record that when the poet’s mother started pushing in fear for her own life and desperation to have him gone (more on this later) for the at-the-time 24-year-old Paul to find someone to marry and her first suggestion happened to be that of a 14-year-old Mathilde, the courtship that eventually ensued when Mathilde was 16 and the proposal for marriage 8 days later heavily concerned the girl’s father, and he did all that he could to prevent it, as she was much too young for such a thing; it was only because Verlaine was friends with the girl’s brother that he eventually managed to worm his way into the rest of the family’s confidence and approval, and perpetually forced the father’s hand through continuous pressure from them and Verlaine’s mother that he eventually caved and gave consent to both a relationship and then later a marriage under the belief that this was what his daughter wanted, who she loved, and who would make her happiest — which, based on Verlaine’s wishes, would have occurred fairly soon after had several events not taken place to postpone it.

As for Verlaine, just as I stated earlier, there are very few times when he is shown to have been cruel to anyone outside of a very clearly drunken state — and in those two moments that he is, it is still rather ambiguous whether or not he has perhaps had a little bit to drink beforehand; we can, of course, assume that he has not by the very coherent way that he is speaking and his much steadier and more refined mannerisms, but at least as far as scene 10 goes — in which, after Mathilde suggests possibly finding somewhere else for Rimbaud to stay, her now rather angry husband goes on a rant about unfairness and how if it wasn’t for the war and everything he’d been through because of it, they wouldn’t even be living in her parents house to begin with, then throws a book across a room — the situation is made a little hazy by the fact that we saw the two poets drinking in a bar not too many scenes prior. Without anything to indicate whether or not these scenes take place during the same day, I find it rather impossible to say for certain.

Regarding the other scene, well…we’ll talk about it when we get there, but I do find it ironic that despite him having been historically recorded as drunk at that time, it is the only one in the film besides scene 10 where he is probably written not to be.

Immediately after scene 10, we once more jump back into the absolute absurdity of his teenage affair partner’s portrayal; instead of being honest that Arthur had only ever been brought into the home on a temporary stay while Mathilde’s father was out on a hunting trip and that by this point in the genuine reality, at least by all accounts of anything that I could find, he had already been moved out of the house and into a small apartment paid for by Paul and their other literary friends, Total Eclipse chooses to make it so that Mathilde’s father comes home in the middle of the boy’s stay without warning and there is a confrontation in which Rimbaud is quite rude to the man, until he is unceremoniously thrown out of the house — at which point Verlaine chases after him in the rain and hurriedly finds him a place to stay.

Of course, I am not saying the youth was actually a perfect house guest, or that he didn’t cause any amount of trouble ever or garner some form of disdain from his hosts in the house de Fleurville — far from it; certainly, Mathilde and her mother took a strong disliking to Arthur which only grew the longer he stayed there — not just because they deemed him unrefined and more trouble than they cared to handle, but also out of jealousy of the fact that Verlaine would spend almost all day every day at his side out in the city — and thus, hoping to be rid of him and make Paul dedicate less time to him, they arranged for Mr. Theodore Maute de Fleurville to come home sooner, so that Paul would feel obligated to put him up elsewhere before he arrived. 

The point I am trying to make, though, is that things did not happen in the way, order, or even entirely for the exact reasons that this movie presents it — for, by all known sources that I could uncover, Arthur was never meant to stay there permanently, he stayed a bit longer than was properly communicated through the scenes we were shown and a lot happened that was not discussed regarding him and his now-mentor (some of which we will be talking about later), it was absolutely not by random chance or without warning that Mathilde’s father arrived home, and Rimbaud and Mr. Maute de Fleurville never even really met at all.

Scene 16 itself is actually fairly true to historical fact, minus the exchanging of Mathilde’s then actually-visiting brother for her parents as the ones who noticed the ruckus upstairs and came to her rescue during the abuse, but it is missing a lot of context and clues as to the passage of time due to the rushing of — and changes made to — the main plot.

In reality, this fight had occurred quite a while after Arthur had been moved to his new apartment, and while she had never looked kindly or understandingly upon the teen’s poverty, the harsh comment she made which sent Verlaine over the edge was likely more fueled by resentment and jealousy than anything else — as, despite her expectation and hope that removing the boy from the household would lead to her husband spending less time with him and more time with her, it had actually just backfired into the older man deciding that he would rather start spending nights over with him and often not even come home at all for days or weeks at a time.

In regards to what the argument was about, they also fail to leave in the context that although Rimbaud did feel the need to steal books back in his hometown in order to be able to read them because he could not afford differently, he also did try as a general rule to return them after he was done, and it was only if he felt there was no way to do so without getting caught in certain situations that he would choose to sell them instead for money — thereby making him look infinitely worse than he actually was in this situation.

They also have Arthur explain to Paul in Scene 17 that after a somewhat dubious but not altogether unlikely life event, he had “decided to be a genius”, but this is something of a misquoting, as the actual letter to a friend that they are referencing through this scene did not say he desired to be a ‘genius’ — which he had already been dubbed for better or worse since childhood by his teachers, as we will discuss later — but rather, a ‘seer’.

Some might say that these two words could be more or less synonymous with each other, but I disagree; being a visionary is not necessarily the same as being a genius or vice versa, and furthermore, Rimbaud himself has described in his own words what he believes it means to be a true ‘genius’ (essentially being able to recover a child-like sense of wonder and heart at will), and it does not match up at all with the context of any of what this movie purports — nor even with the standard definition of those who had given it to him in the first place, so using it here just feels strange and deeply out of place within his actual philosophy, and seemingly only exists to sound overly conceited.

Scene 19 is just…completely off the rails with its insanity.

Yes, I will grant that Rimbaud did eventually drunkenly injure someone from Verlaine’s literary circle with a sword-cane, and that will be something I will discuss when the time actually comes, but that event that is, for some reason, shown here did not happen until many months into his stay in Paris, and it most certainly did not happen in the same absurdist, heavily over-dramatized fashion in which it was presented here — nor did he ever unzip and take a piss on Theodore de Banville(?), from atop a table, or anyone anywhere for that matter.

Something I desperately need everyone to understand and which Total Eclipse did Rimbaud a huge disservice in never showing is that, despite what this scene’s dishonest placement on the timeline would imply, and like I had alluded to previously, the aforementioned writer group was, for the longest time and especially still at the juncture in question, actually fairly fond of him on the whole, and that was why they had worked with Paul when Mathilde’s father was returning home to find Arthur a place to live there in Paris.

Outside of the obvious growing resentment from Mathilde and her mother, the time during which this scene is incorrectly claimed to have taken place was genuinely a time of relative peace and happiness — at least, as far as Rimbaud’s happiness, reputation, and overall well-being was concerned; every day, Verlaine was helping him move up in the literary world, writing poems with him, and proudly walking around Paris with the boy lovingly clinging on his arm, taking him to theatres and showing him all sorts of grand places that the city had to offer, even as their obviously romantic and sexual relationship became a thing that started to be mockingly reported about in the papers. 

Because, at the time, he was — to the best of anyone’s knowledge — still saving all of his rage and abuse for his young wife, he and his paramour were thus able to enjoy this sort of honeymoon phase whilst his infatuation with Arthur was still pretty new.

Now, scene 21’s creative liberties aside, realistically speaking, we honestly don’t know when or how their relationship there turned physical; like I’ve said, any attempt to nail down a specific time for that would really just be engaging in rampant speculation, but for the sake of determining historical accuracy, I think it’s pretty fair to say that it’s probably more realistic if one assumes it was roughly around the time that the boy moved into his own apartment, given that was when Verlaine actively started staying the night with him instead of with his spouse. Thus, no, I really don’t think the timing here is anywhere close to accurate.

Scene 22 is…something that also needs addressing. 

Please don’t get me wrong here; it is 100% a historical fact that while Arthur may have been overall very emotionally well-off during this time period in his affair, Mathilde, on the other hand, suffered greatly at the hands of her husband. During this very painful stretch of her marriage to Verlaine, she was often forced to endure a never-ending back and forth of being neglected some days and then emotionally, physically, and yes, most presumably sexually abused the others; it was a living hell for her, and I am certainly in no way attempting to take away from that or make excuses for her abuser.

That being said, the day that their son, Georges Verlaine, was born into the world, this was absolutely not the case — and although I appreciate their willingness to so explicitly show the dark side of their relationship, lying about this one time when things actually seemed to be improving, even if ever so briefly, really only serves to prevent the audience from being able to understand why it is that she remained so devoted to him for so long, caught up in this shitty situation.

Exactly as I said back in the “Writing & Script” subsection of “The Good”, the vast majority of abusive relationships — the one between Mathilde and Paul absolutely included — do not exist entirely devoid of ‘good’ or ‘happy’ moments; as a matter of fact, a good deal of them actually start out as quite wonderful and unsuspecting, but this is just precisely what can make them all the more dangerous — as once the honeymoon phase wears off (and/or the abuser realizes they have their significant other hooked and can relax) and things take a darker turn, these good moments that existed in the past and sometimes still might happen now and again in the present can often keep the victim from leaving, trapped by the vague hope that if they only give their abuser enough chances for improvement, things will be happy once more.

I will not be discussing the ins and outs of their situation in detail for a little while yet (though we will get to that eventually), but trust me when I say that there was no doubt Mathilde’s situation was exactly this sort of problem.

Because Paul reacted well to the birth of their child when he returned home late that one particular night, acting joyful and proud and kissing his wife and son, Mathilde’s heart was set enough at ease that she started thinking things would improve and he would naturally want to be around more to spend time with the family he had created; she was, of course, wrong in her belief, for the sweetness died not too long after this brief respite, and the cycle of absence and abuse, followed by tearful apologies, became the normal thing for their daily lives once more. 

As a matter of fact, things escalated even from what they already were before — so much so that it reached a point where he would begin to threaten his wife and son’s lives on several occasions, attempting to kill them in various ways and repeatedly having to be dragged out or stopped by the threat of violence from other people in their lives.

…And yet, despite all of this being entirely true, he was nevertheless forgiven by her almost every single time, even after multiple transgressions. Why? Well, exactly because there were those few good moments she remembered sharing not even so long ago, and because each and every time he hurt her, he would literally get down on his hands and knees and cry, blaming it all on his drinking and begging for forgiveness in such sad and pathetic ways that she — so desperately clinging onto the happiness she believed they’d had before and wanting to believe that what he said was true — could not help being moved to pardon him and give him “just one more chance”.

The above outlook being her historically documented attitude and thought process throughout it all is why it is so crucial to establish that there were some rare good moments between him and Mathilde, even in the midst of all the horrible treatment she endured, as it presents her own personal experiences as a victim of abuse fairly and accurately and allows others who perhaps have not gone through such things to more easily relate and understand why she — and for that matter, so many other victims like her throughout the world — often ends up caught in this terrible, seemingly unending cycle of mistreatment; to fail to present this in any better way than “he suddenly started beating her and was never, ever kind to her at all anymore for months or years, but she still stayed because…reasons” even when all of the information is right there in front of you, is to do a deep injustice to all victims of abuse of any era who may have a similar story to Mathilde — not simply her alone.

As I have said before, when it comes to situations like this, it is almost never anywhere near that black and white.

And speaking of times in which this movie attempts to oversimplify very complex matters and issues with no concern for the consequences, what this next scene and a ridiculously good many after it attempt to set up is yet another perfect example of that.

Total Eclipse would like you to believe that immediately after the baby is born and Verlaine allegedly mistreats his wife yet again on that very same night, Rimbaud is quickly sent back home to Charleville to return to his family due to Mathilde “making trouble” over the poets spending too much time together; it then appears to proclaim to us that some time later, after being terribly bored with life on the farm, Arthur just up and decides seemingly out of nowhere to return to Paris, and it is only after this self-re-insertion of the teenager into his mentor’s life that Paul becomes abusive to his spouse once more. 

Unfortunately, absolutely none of this is the truth, and before I can explain to you just how much injustice this narrative does to the people involved in it, I need to first explain to you what actually happened.

In reality, as I might have alluded to prior when talking of the suffering Mathilde and her child endured continuously after that brief respite of the day of Georges’ birth, it was actually a few months before things finally came to a head between the couple, and even then it was only truly because Verlaine’s actions on that day became so traumatizingly extreme — ripping his son from Mathilde’s arms and throwing him against the wall, and then proceeding to pin his wife to the floor and strangle her until her father found them and intervened — that she could no longer bear to hide it from her family anymore out of fear for herself and, above all, her little one.

After this, the couple ended up splitting for a little while — with Paul already having hurried off to his own mother’s house to seek refuge from his own actions for a time, and Mathilde leaving with her father and child for Périgueux for six weeks of rest, under her doctor’s orders. 

From day two onward, the drunkard poet would, of course, make several attempts to reach out to his estranged wife and try to make amends, but to little to no avail, as, even after he managed to convince her mother to forward his letters to her, he was still forbidden any knowledge of her current location and although Mathilde did admit to still loving him, her one condition for taking him back was that he first had to get rid of Rimbaud — whom, seeking someone other than her husband to blame, she blindly pinned all of her suffering and Verlaine’s horrible actions on.

And you might think, “Okay, but this has to be the point when Arthur actually gets sent home, right? That’s not really that big of an omission, is it?” But no, you’d be wrong about that, too — immensely wrong, on both accounts.

See, Paul thought that if he refused and waited it out long enough, Mathilde would just have to come around about the whole thing and forget about her ultimatums in favor of being with him again.

In the meantime, he had Rimbaud to still focus all of his attention on — both positive, and now also likely negative, given that not only did Verlaine just no longer have anyone else to store up and take out his cruelty and abuse on, but it was also only after this point in time that there was a noticeable and historically documented decline in his teenage affair partner’s general physical and mental health. 

Suddenly gone was that honeymoon period I had spoken of before, where life was nothing but sunshine and roses and rainbows for the relationship between the two poets and the rapport they shared with their writing circle, as Rimbaud would soon begin to show up drunk and in disarray among their mutual author and poet friends more and more, and — although he had always been less refined in his behavior and fairly brash and frank about his disagreements on things — started to act out more amongst them, as well. In the end, this unexpected descent of Arthur’s into someone they could no longer bring themselves to respect as they once had, coupled with Paul’s increasingly brazen behavior surrounding their relationship, began to drive a wedge between them and the rest of the group, which reached its final straw when Arthur, thoroughly wasted and frustrated over (if I remember correctly) a debate about poetry and morality, got into a fight one night with another man, injuring him with his sword-cane and ensuring the total downfall of his reputation.

It was in response to both this particular event causing potential disgrace for Paul and pressure from Mathilde’s father — who was now contacting a lawyer and threatening his son-in-law with separation of property and a full investigation into his abusive behavior if he did not comply — that the older poet finally decided all that time later to send Arthur home and supposedly try to make amends with his wife.

And yes, Mathilde did (regrettably) take him back after Arthur was gone, and yes, he did genuinely make an effort to be better and live a stable life working a stable job — but only for all of a few days, and then he immediately went right back to drinking and abusing and kidnapping and threatening death upon his wife and child many times over, until he eventually just disappeared one day without a trace, unable to be found, and went off to Brussels, where he wrote to Arthur to essentially tell him that he was done with his wife and that they could run away together, and sent for him to join him — and join him the boy did.

…So, now that we’ve been over what really occurred in the space of time supposedly covered by scenes 22 through 32, let’s talk about all of the reasons why Total Eclipse’s interpretation of those events is a major problem (besides the obvious aforementioned portrayal of Mathilde’s personal motivations and reasonings for staying with Paul).

Starting off with the small stuff, and definitely on a more positive note, I don’t really have a lot of bad things to say about scenes 23 and 24, where we see Arthur return back home to the farm and spend time amongst his family; the most major complaint I have about this section is that the youth’s mother seems, although somewhat strict, noticeably more pleasant and lenient than how she was described to be in real life, and far more willing to take Arthur’s side and be understanding in her own way when the teen explains why he was forced to come home, but this topic is something I will go into greater detail about much later down the line, as it is something of a repeating theme within this movie.

Other than that, circling back to that aforementioned discussion between the boy and his mother, the script has him state that Mathilde was the one who was making trouble and threatening consequences if he was not sent away, but this is not exactly true, for although the poor woman did state that condition to her reunion with Paul in her desperation to hopefully fix her tragic marriage, it was actually her father who escalated things into any sort of serious threat; this change doesn’t really have that big of an impact on anything, admittedly, but it does knock a minor point off for historical accuracy.

The montage in scenes 30 and 31, where the two are traveling together, obviously did not happen at all — or at least, definitely not in the way that they were presented — given that there actually was no time prior to Brussels in which they had reunited, but as I will get around to talking about later, it does sort of serve to fill a space of happiness and relative stability that did occur after that reunion and before the time that Paul sneaks off to see Mathilde again, so it’s not really anything directly in the contents of that set of scenes that is a problem, but rather, what the narrative that they had met prior to Brussels implies as a whole.

…Which brings us to the major (and final) elephant in the room about all of these changes to, and rearrangements of, events for this section of the movie: the constant, continued push — even against all logic and proven, historically documented reality — towards the aforementioned idea that Verlaine was a relatively good man prior to Rimbaud’s arrival at their home, and that it was only while said teenager was present in his life that he ever showed any signs of abusive tendencies or other negative behavior. 

Now, you can chalk nearly everything else up to lazy writing, poor fact-checking, blind negligence and lack of information all you want, but you cannot possibly convince me that there is not at least a little bit of deliberate deception in the fact that the event which was originally the actual temporary breaking point for Verlaine and his wife, ended up being removed from its rightful place before Rimbaud’s departure for the farm and instead adapted in its own right into scene 22 — just after Arthur’s supposed return.

You cannot convince me that it is a mere coincidence and accident that in this same breath, the script manages not only to somewhat tone-down the abuse that Paul dishes out to his family — at least in regards to the fact that, in real life, Paul threw the actual baby against the wall and not just shoved the bed that Georges was for some reason shown to be sleeping in — but also makes Mathilde react to this event by saying, “[Rimbaud]’s back, isn’t he?”, after Paul apologizes and breaks down, as if until this point everything had been peaceful and there was no other possible explanation for her husband to be acting this way.

Likewise, it is surely no mere mishap that the movie completely fails to mention that it was the older poet who sent for his young illicit partner to rejoin him and not just some whim of a bored Arthur, nor can it be easily seen as just a mistake that it insists that there was ever a point where the two poets were still in Paris and Verlaine was still with his wife after his and Arthur’s reunion at all, despite that no such thing ever genuinely happened to begin with; literally the only purpose that any of this serves within the film is simply to perpetuate this myth of Rimbaud being this absolute demon’s spawn who, although brilliant in his ideas, was the source of everyone’s problems and misery. In scene 27, they even go so sickeningly far as to portray Rimbaud — who, in many of his real life writings, actually sympathized and empathized greatly with battered, oppressed, and controlled women — as someone who laughed uncontrollably with amusement when Verlaine made jokes about his actual, horribly violent acts of abuse towards his wife.

Even if you really want to somehow give them the benefit of the doubt and say that maybe they are just doing this for the sake of creating added melodrama and shock value and didn’t realize at all the picture that it was painting, it doesn’t change the fact that this narrative which is supposedly about real, living, breathing people who existed in the world once is made horribly untruthful and demonizing as a result, and thereby spreads way too much misinformation to anyone who doesn’t know any better but to take it at face value.

No matter how much Total Eclipse purports otherwise, Rimbaud was not the reason why Paul became the way he did — not him being a drunkard, not him being indecisive, and not him being abusive, or even homicidal; he was already all of that long before they ever met. Without delving too much into giving out another long history lesson, what you need to understand is that Paul had had a drinking problem before he even met Mathilde, and despite both of his parents being frankly very good people as far as we are able to know, he disliked his mother and had even tried to murder her on several occasions; yes, he temporarily put up a facade for the sake of wooing Mathilde and avoided drinking for a brief period in their marriage as well, but he had already broken character and begun to verbally and physically abuse her before Arthur was ever involved in their lives. Mathilde blaming the boy for their troubles (which she genuinely did and continued to claim even long after their marriage was over) was simply her way of coping with the terrible situation she had found herself in and giving herself a way to believe that the person she thought she had known during those good times was real and could be made to come back if someone else was only removed from his life. Paul played into this fairytale because it benefited him to do so when he was trying to get back into her good graces, just as he would play into Mathilde being the source of their grief when he was trying to earn Arthur’s favor.

Though unfortunate, Mathilde, for her part, cannot be totally blamed for trying to cope with her trauma in this way, but Paul absolutely can be blamed for using it as a scapegoat for his problems — and so can Total Eclipse for taking that false scenario and going to such absurd lengths to make it seem as though it was true. I wish I could say that this was the last time that the movie did something like this, but…well, we’ll get to that when we get to it; for now, let’s step away from this topic for awhile and move on to the next scene. 

To be honest, aside from one minor thing I’ve already said in a previous section, I wouldn’t really say that there is anything wrong with scene 32 or 33 in any way. It is a fact that at some point after their reunion, while they were still in Brussels, Paul did arrange behind Arthur’s back for his wife to meet him at a hotel, and he did sneak out to see her as is depicted; I just wish once more that they had been honest about the timeline of things prior to this moment, and that it was made clear that for at least a short while after the two writers re-connected, things were actually very peaceful and happy again between them — to the point where Paul was (probably unadvisedly) openly waving his relationship with Rimbaud in front of the faces of Belgium authorities for fun, and as far as we know there had been no indication of any fights between the two, which makes him turning back to Mathilde an even better example of just how undecided and unpromptedly unfaithful of a person he was to both of his lovers. Scenes 30 and 31, as I said, do sort of fill that quota of peaceful times I suppose, but…not exactly in an honest way.

As for the next part, where Paul reunites with Mathilde and makes love with her before promising to leave with her for New Caledonia and abandon Arthur, there’s not a whole lot of negative things for me to criticize about it, as it’s pretty accurate to reality, overall, other than one small nitpick about the fact they have Paul deny that his paramour had ever been involved with the Commune, but I understand that at the time the movie was made, this was a much bigger point of contention than it is nowadays with the surfacing of new proof and information, so I can’t really hold the writers at fault for this.

What I can hold them at fault for, though, is the very unusual decision in the next scene to not only have Arthur run into Mathilde as she is leaving the hotel — which never happened, as she was long gone from the area before he arrived looking for Paul — but also to taunt her and then attempt to kiss her out of nowhere, against her will, despite the fact that a) Rimbaud had never shown any signs of being attracted to her and most importantly, b) this behavior would once again go against everything we know about how he genuinely viewed women and the way that they should be treated (with absolute freedom and respect, equal to that of any man).

Here, again, we also see yet another repeat of the insinuation that he is entirely at fault for everything that has happened, as Mathilde asks him bluntly, “Why are you doing this to us?”, making it clear to the audience even further that we should feel that both she and Paul are equally victims in this scenario, rather than that her abusive, cheating husband is ultimately the one to blame for being a two-timing asshole who can’t decide which person he wants to sleep with and treat like shit more. Granted, as has been established prior, this isn’t necessarily inaccurate to how the poor woman viewed matters, but with the movie never distinguishing her thoughts from the reality of the situation, this line really does not do anyone’s portrayal other than hers any legitimate favors.

Other than these few glaring issues, the rest of the scene is fairly accurate to how things went down in real life; I especially appreciated the partial, sarcastic reading aloud from Arthur of one of the genuine letters from Paul to Mathilde during this point in time, and the argument had between them following this was, on the whole, quite well-characterized and raw in emotion.

There is one particular bit of dialogue — where Paul asks, “You don’t care about my happiness, do you?” and Arthur answers “No, and neither should you” —  I will say, that I can’t exactly make heads or tails of if they’re trying to portray the teen as heartless and manipulative, or just genuinely fed up and trying to insinuate that Paul should start thinking of others more than himself for once in his life, but given that I’m trying to be as generous as possible in my interpretations of these scenes whenever I can, we will just go under the assumption that it is the latter.

Ah, but then we reach the scene where Verlaine is leaving with his wife on the train; you know, this movie sometimes makes it very hard for me to be generous towards their intentions with things, and this is yet another one of those times, because…look, Arthur Rimbaud did not follow them to the next train station and then convince Paul to join him and go back; he wasn’t even there. Yes, Verlaine did ditch his spouse and her mother at the last minute as they were switching trains, but that was entirely his own decision, and as a matter of fact, based on the letters he sent to Mathilde shortly thereafter, insulting and berating her for trying to ‘trick’ him into leaving ‘his friend’, he wasn’t even certain that Rimbaud would take him back at the time — he just intended to try, so no, the younger poet had absolutely no part in that decision, much less was present at the station and mocked his partner’s wife from the other train as they left like how the film attempts to portray it. The entire thing is utter nonsense and a complete and total exaggeration of reality.

Moving on all the way to scenes 42 through 47, which supposedly depicts a good deal of their time living in London, the very first thing that I would like to address is this…insanely ‘creative’ liberty that was taken when they decided to create whatever absurd, borderline supernatural sub-plot they had going on to seemingly ‘explain’ Rimbaud losing his ability to write.

I don’t know who exactly on the writing team decided that it was an excellent idea to have him start dreaming of the moments in Africa not too long preceding his death, and to have these visions and senses of déjà vu when he sees what is presumably a boat to Africa consume him and his entire being to the point where his creativity nearly completely dies, but as I have said in a previous section, there is, to my knowledge, absolutely no basis to this, and it really only serves to take away from the importance of the things that were actually going on in his life at this point in time.

Indeed, things between the two lovers in general — and especially for Arthur — did eventually take a turn for the worse, but it was not because of some hallucinations of a future event plaguing the younger writer’s mind and destroying his sanity; it was actually due to far more ‘ordinary’ and sadly very predictable reasons.

As I think pretty much anyone could guess by now based on Verlaine’s previously set and established pattern of behavior whenever he has to be even remotely committed to one of his partners for any length of time, the older poet didn’t really take all that long after they settled in London to start trying to reach out to and make amends with his wife again, attempting all sorts of approaches in winning her back — including some utterly absurd ones like offering to share Arthur with her. And, it was in failing to receive a response from her time and time again that he became increasingly more frustrated, angry, restless, and reliant on drinking to comfort himself, leading to the same old cycle of violent outbursts, tearful apologies and pleading for forgiveness, and even threats of desertion or suicide aimed towards his current partner.

Just as with the time when he had been temporarily estranged from Mathilde due to his abuse and had only Rimbaud at his side to focus all of his moods on, this constant strain of fights and overall tension between the two men and obvious discontent on Paul’s part with not being able to reconnect with his spouse resulted in that same visible decline in the boy’s behavior and mood all over again, and unsurprisingly it became almost a perfect repeat of the past: friends, acquaintances, and colleagues who were once respectful of the two distanced themselves from them, and rumors flew about their unsubtle connection, leading only to further isolation and stigma — and when the going got rough, well…I think you can take a guess what happened: after a particularly brief quarrel one day, Verlaine essentially decided he’d had enough of the problem he’d gotten himself into and then jumped ship in the hope that he would be able to come crawling to Mathilde and ply her into taking him back with tears and threats of suicide if she didn’t.

But…let’s not get ahead of ourselves talking about the abandonment of Rimbaud in London and the accuracy of that matter just yet; we still need to finish addressing the topic that we’re already on.

See, the truth is, there are actually a few brief moments and lines of dialogue in this movie where we genuinely come close to almost addressing any of the above as having happened and been the cause of the deterioration of their relationship and life together, but the point I had been trying to make before is that pretty much every time this truly starts to seem like it is being set up and established even in some small minuscule way, it gets slapped away with some manner of absurd swerve into either a complete denial or omission of the facts, or this weird and unnecessary subplot about precognition.

The fact that Paul was repeatedly trying to reconnect with Mathilde on a romantic level, even while things really weren’t going all that terribly or unhappily for them in London, is never truly established; it is almost hinted at in Scene 42 by having the older poet seem unhappy about the possibility of a separation, and his willingness to submit both himself and his affair partner for a damning medical examination that could land them both in jail and the indifference he shows towards his partner’s fears and feelings about that does speak to an extent about his own selfishness and indecision in what he wants, but this subject is quickly dropped and swept to the side by the younger of the two suddenly spotting the ship which assumedly leads to Africa — at which the story shifts its narrative to focus on the apparent effects of that.

When the perfect opportunity comes up to address that they had actually been living a fairly steady — even if poor — life in London for some time before things went to shit and that Paul had been working a teaching job of his own to support them both, they instead heavily imply that all they were living off of was I guess previous funds from while he was with his wife, and this was the only apparent reason why he had been trying to reconnect with her or her family, which is greatly untrue and horribly misleading, at best.

And likewise, while we are given the constant impression that there is conflict and unrest between the two poets and their relationship, and there is one single, verbal line about Verlaine supposedly still being a drunkard, we are not ever shown any visual or verbal evidence of his drunkenness from the man himself — much less receive any display of the actual, sincerely violent altercations that occurred as a result of it; rather, we are simply shown one very clearly playful and obviously unserious little slapping fight in scene 40, which is quite obviously supposed to be viewed as ‘cute’ or ‘touching’ within its proper context, and then just the one serious argument in scene 48 that plays out just before Paul leaves to go back to his spouse.

There is a singular moment in scene 45 where Total Eclipse nearly appears to attempt an addressing of the underlying issues between the more seasoned author and his partner, by having the older man ask, “I don’t know what — what is it? You seem different.”, but instead of using this opportunity to do so and go into the actually most logical and truthful reason why his lover might have a more exasperated and less enabling attitude of his entitled and indecisive behavior (especially given that there is already a scene in this where Paul expressed that he was willing to send Rimbaud to jail for his own selfish desires), as has been said before, the script instead returns to its strange sub-plot and has Arthur respond that it’s the writing that’s changed him. No, not the exhausting back and forth of this on-again-off-again relationship with an indecisive man who can’t decide what he wants in life, not the constant emotional, physical, and mental turmoil — just the writing; that’s definitely all that’s wrong here.

Strangely, though, this almost seems to be contradicted by the later fight scene, as the greater frustration expressed by the youth there revolves primarily not around the writer’s block he is experiencing, but with the fact that he feels Verlaine is only still there with him because his wife won’t take him back and he doesn’t want to be alone, whereas Rimbaud himself is there because he genuinely wants to be. Really, with all of the contradictions and half-baked sub-plots, I don’t think this movie knows what it wants the motivations of its main characters to be, sometimes.

Even when it comes to the semi-final little quarrel between them — the one that was the apparent breaking point to make Paul decide to suddenly leave the country without his protégé and try to return to Mathilde — despite extremely evidently loving and looking for any and all possible excuses to add drama and shock value everywhere else but this section of the film, the writers for some reason decide not to address the fact that the older man made it a point to indulge himself in one final, direct slap to Arthur’s face with a fish he had just bought at the market.

I do find it incredibly odd just how devoid of any remotely violent, extreme, shocking, or even just plain absurd (beyond that one strange future-vision sub-plot) content that entire section of the movie is; it is almost as if the movie is just now intentionally going out of its way to avoid showing anything of the sort, but only in this one specific section, and although I can theorize some semi-logical reasons why this might be the case, I really can’t say for certain what their angle is here. It’s just…bizarre.

Moving onwards to scenes 52 through 54, we finally reach the…well, what I assume should be the climax of this film, considering it supposedly depicts the last days of their relationship and the famous moment when Verlaine fires his pistol on Rimbaud, but I’m not quite sure that’s how the script itself views the event — given that there’s still somehow roughly thirty minutes left in the movie by the time this happens.

Either way, there’s a lot that could be said about historical inaccuracies here — such as the fact that, despite showing the two fighting almost immediately upon their reunion in Brussels in scene 52, the true reason why things remained so tumultuous between them for those last few days they were together is never shared, and even outright lied about; it wasn’t just that Arthur was angry and distraught over having been abandoned in a foreign country with no money to his name, it was that despite sending for the boy to rejoin him out of guilt and thus giving him hope that they would live together again, Paul was still insistent about going back to his long since estranged wife, even after ages of having no contact with her, and very firmly stating that he would sooner choose killing himself than any other option if she should refuse to take him back.

That’s right — that dialogue they make Paul say about not planning to walk out on him again and that they’ll go back to London? Entirely fake. Never happened according to what any of the facts tell us. …And yet, it’s clear that he didn’t want Rimbaud to leave him, either; he wanted both of his partners, even though neither of them were willing to settle for being just an ‘option’ to him at this point — much less one that he would manipulate and abuse whenever he was bored and feeling like going back to the other.

Although the exact words exchanged during the argument were less than entirely accurate, at least that much of scene 54 was true: Verlaine escalated the situation on the final day and turned his gun on his paramour because the young poet was over all of the games and indecision and just wanted to get away from him, and the older man wasn’t going to have that; he would much sooner have seen him dead than watched him walk away.

Before we get into the finer, more inaccurate details of the movie’s interpretation of that event, though, I first want to talk about something else that this scene vaguely references in the dialogue, and why I feel it was a very unfortunate decision to omit any further inclusion of it into the film as a brief scene, or at least allow us to hear a little bit more about it.

At one point, while aiming the gun at the back of Arthur’s head, Paul essentially insists that Arthur must still want to be with him deep down, because of what he had said before in his letter and the fact that his tears were visible on the paper, to which the teen coolly responds, “That was before I thought of pawning your clothes”.

The thing about this line is that, in reality, pawning the clothes was always a feasible option to him from the beginning, in terms of technicality — Arthur knew that, but he specifically chose not to pawn his lover’s clothes because he could not bear to give them up, even if it was a matter of his own survival; it was the only thing that he had remaining of Verlaine, and he refused to let go of it.

To omit this information from the movie once again just sadly lends to the narrative being pushed that Rimbaud was a cold-hearted person who was pretty much only using ‘poor’, desperately lonely Paul for his own gain, and took pleasure in intentionally destroying his life in the process, and the fact that he is shown as taking even the supposedly final threat on his life and all of the emotional intensity going on around him with either amusement and a smile or a stone cold attitude does not help matters in such a case — even if ordinarily it could possibly be taken as disbelief or simply exhaustion and disgust as he’s reaching his wit’s end with his partner’s erratic, extreme and violent behavior.

Now, with all of that said and at last out of our way, let’s get into one of the biggest and strangest inaccuracies of them all: the fact that somehow, despite this being easily one of the biggest — if not the single most — publicized moments of their entire histories, either together or individually, Total Eclipse still manages to get numerous details, and even the bigger picture of the whole incident, wrong.

What Rimbaud was feeling in that moment just before being shot in the hand, yes, is truthfully anyone’s guess; he could have been terrified, or he could’ve been numb from emotional exhaustion, indignant over all he’d been put through, and in total disbelief that his lover would necessarily follow through on his threat, as the movie could easily be interpreted to have shown us — it is mostly hearsay in regards to that event. It is understandable that the film is going to have to fill in some of those gaps in whatever way the writers personally feel best fits the facts; there is leeway wherever there is no blatant contradiction.

…However, there are also many times in this scene and the next several to follow where there is a contradiction, and yet, rather than choosing to use the information that already exists to give a very plain and clear picture of what genuinely happened, they instead trample directly over the facts in favor of their own re-imagining of two people’s actual lives.

One of the less serious examples of this is in having Verlaine say and do nothing but cry on his knees on the floor at the time of firing upon his affair partner, when in reality we are told that in this moment, he had seemed to have taken a much more openly violent and vindictive approach, shouting something akin to “I’ll teach you how to leave!” (roughly translated from the original, “Je t'apprendrai a vouloir partir!”).

Setting aside petty dialogue choices, however, there are also much, much bigger matters — such as the fact that this movie implies that, immediately after the shooting, some random people within the hotel find Verlaine and Rimbaud from the sound of the gunshots, arrest Verlaine for his crime, and then take the teenager off for surgery as the older man is still being tried, but this is in no way anywhere remotely close to the truth.

No charges were initially pressed against Verlaine at all for his actions — not from anyone at the hotel, and not from Arthur, who not only dismissed his injury as being superficial at the time, but also forgave Paul for it under the understanding that he would be leaving him still. The elder poet agreed to this, but insisted — allegedly along with his own mother, whom was there visiting Verlaine at the time — upon walking him to the station personally that night to see him off.

The arrest of Paris’ once-esteemed poet only came to pass when, during the course of that final trip, Verlaine allegedly started acting quite suspicious and concerning; it was at that time that the much younger man noticed that he was still carrying the revolver in his pocket, and, sincerely believing that Paul intended to murder him rather than let him leave, immediately went into a panic and ran to the nearest policeman, frantically begging for Verlaine’s apprehension.

After the removal of the bullet from his hand, the teen would eventually come to have guilt and attempt to withdraw the charges, but by then the investigation — including Mathilde’s request for a thorough physical examination of her husband and an interrogation of the man into the nature of his relationship with Rimbaud — had already run its course, and he was found guilty of both wounding with a firearm and sodomy/pederasty (which was considered an aggravating element), and was sentenced to prison for two years.

I have sat and thought about this particular chunk of information for the longest time, trying to figure out why in the world Total Eclipse — this movie which is so incredibly bent on maximum drama and shock value — would possibly choose to omit all of it when it could so easily use it as fuel to ramp up the angst of this relationship tenfold, and, apart from perhaps some strange sort of budget issue which somehow led them to prioritize much less important scenes over the literal climax of the film, I can only ever come back to one conclusion: plausible deniability.

Yes, Paul Verlaine is very decidedly an asshole even within this film; he is a liar, he is  a cheater, he abuses his wife in numerous terrible ways, and he even attempted to kill his affair partner, but as I’ve said countless times before, all of this is always framed within the context of it being an alcohol-fueled, spur-of-the-moment and instantly, deeply regretted action brought on only by Rimbaud’s dark influence on his once-perfect and happy life.

Going out one morning and buying a gun for nondescript reasons while drunk and depressed, completely as-of-yet unaware that his partner is really serious about leaving him, that’s one thing; with the way that even after finding out for certain, he talks of having threatened to his wife that he’d commit suicide if she didn’t take him back, then eventually moves on to stating in random succession he was going to shoot himself, then Arthur, then everybody, it’s presented as a completely unmeditated thing — and it probably was, at the time, as far as anyone can say.

But to present the rest of the situation to us accurately — to have him actually make the conscious, premeditated choice to put the gun in his pocket before meeting up with his own Mom and walking Arthur to the station, that is no longer just some drunken, angry or devastated spur-of-the-moment pulling of a trigger; it’s a planned-out murder that he actively thought about ahead of time and decided to carry out anyway. It — just like making any mention of him having tried to murder other people multiple times before — would completely shatter the facade that he was technically not to blame by reason of having just acted without any forethought due to intoxication.

…And if they’ve established him as any of that, well…then they can’t make this movie out to  the bittersweet and tumultuous story of the man who, even after being put through hell and back, still heroically saved and preserved his crazy genius ex-lover’s poems against his prudish family’s wishes and put them out into the world so they could be remembered and appreciated and change the course of the literary world, even at the cost of his own career — and given all of this and especially the very ending of the film, as I said near the beginning of this subsection, that’s clearly the narrative that they want to push here.

As for their final, brief reunion in Black Forest, Germany, after Verlaine served his two-year sentence, yes, that did happen, but once more not anywhere close to the way it was depicted; it was only after trying to make amends one last time with his estranged and soon-to-be ex-wife and failing that he once more met up with his former lover, planning to take his poetry and try to help get it published. By this time, having lost his spark after the end of their relationship and burned out into nothingness, Arthur had given up writing in favor of working a steady job, his creative energy evidently defeated by the world.

When all was said and done, despite supposedly having converted to Catholicism while in prison, the older man ended up nevertheless briefly reigniting their relationship within only a few hours of being in Rimbaud’s presence, only to later pedal backwards and reject him again in the name of his faith, leading to one final argument and spelling the very end of their time together — marking the very last time they would ever see each other.

Strangely, as I’ve mentioned before, this scene does seem to make an apparent one-off reference to the fact that Arthur was the one who got him arrested — which contradicts completely with the film’s plot, but…at this point, I’ve kind of stopped trying to make sense of their contradictory writing.

What bothers me far more is, as I’ve alluded to before and inevitably comes with this “Paul was overall a good person before and after Rimbaud” narrative, how undeservingly and frankly revoltingly romantic they tried to make the ending — and now that we’ve at last reached the very end of this lengthy mess of a subsection and I’ve hopefully convinced you that there’s more than enough evidence to support what I am saying, I can finally speak on that.

At the end of Total Eclipse, the script tries its very hardest to sell us the idea that despite allegedly losing his career and presumably also his wife thanks to his “great and radiant sin” of an affair partner whom he has not seen in nearly two decades, Verlaine regardless remains madly in love only with and faithful to Arthur by choosing to remain in loneliness ever since their parting, whilst Rimbaud himself had eventually moved on, but most of this is just so horribly untrue.

While there is at least some extremely vague room for speculation on if Arthur had ever found another potential partner, it is clear at the very least from his very last letter to Paul near the end of his life that he still held strong feelings for him; meanwhile, it is widely known and understood that within a mere two years of their final in-person parting, and while his divorce with his wife was still being finalized, Paul had already met and gotten with another 17 year old boy who was one of his students — a relationship which he maintained for a full six years before the young man tragically passed away due to an illness, leaving him utterly devastated.

Not only this, but whatever the effects of the rise in popularity of Rimbaud’s revolutionary writing may or may not have speculatively had on Verlaine’s literary career, it is beyond deceptive to frame Paul as having not benefited in any way socially or financially from publishing his ex-partner’s poetry entirely without his knowledge while he was still alive, much less posthumously, without ever involving any of his living relatives in the matter; furthermore, all their speculation aside, we are actually given no genuine reason by any known reputable historical record I could find to suspect that it even was his former lover’s writings that caused his reputation or popularity to ever take a dip to begin with. 

Certainly, there was a point in time where he struggled financially to the point of becoming practically homeless and resorting to living in the slums and hospitals and spending most of his time in cafés, but this had absolutely nothing to do with Arthur whatsoever; rather, it was because, after getting out of prison for attempting to strangle and murder his own mother yet again, shortly after the death of his most recent partner, he had ended up jobless and on the streets without her to run to, and rather than trying to clean himself up and start over again, he instead continued to drink his life away, only making scraps of money from the very occasional conference or written text — at least, until the rediscovery of his older works and the outrageousness of his strange behavior eventually led to him regaining an income, as people even began referring to him as the “Prince of Poets”.

By the time that Rimbaud had died, he had already become a very recognized and respected poet again in the eyes of many, despite his perpetual alcoholism, so the fact that the film attempts to paint him as having suffered greatly for his support of the young visionary is nothing short of insidious.

Perhaps almost the worst of all in my eyes, though, is the fact that this film has the absolute gall to even take it so far as to imply that, even after all Arthur had been put through mentally, physically, and emotionally time and time again — just like Mathilde — the one halfway-decent thing that Verlaine, his abuser and attempted murderer, did for him after his death by preserving and making any works not already possessed by the rest of the Rimbaud family known to the world was apparently enough for him to have earned the younger man’s eternal love and respect from the grave, as the writers make him return from the spirit realm to not only appear before Paul in the bar and kiss his hand, but also apparently visit him every night for the rest of the aging poet’s life and live with him in eternal happiness.

Now, don’t misread me here: I’m in no way trying to imply that Arthur was a perfect saint — quite the contrary, actually; throughout the course of their relationship and even for a short time prior in his life in general, he certainly made his fair share of mistakes, a good number of bad or otherwise just plain inadvisable decisions, and partook in a few behaviors that were deeply unhealthy at best and more than a bit toxic at worst, but his and Verlaine’s situations and action are by no means comparable.

Having grown up in a poor, single-parent household with a mother who was extremely cold, strict, controlling and abusive to the point of not only physical violence but also starving her children for days on end — not to mention having additionally been the victim of a gang-rape in his teens, in a situation that furthermore left him scarred as one of the sole, if not the only, survivor amongst a large number of communards — Rimbaud, still only a mere 16 years old when he met Paul, was most certainly not in any sort of state to be capable of comprehending or engaging in any sort of normal, healthy romantic or even platonic relationship with anyone due to the horridly unhealthy evironment he had grown up in.

Verlaine, on the other hand, was in a complete and total position of power over him from the very start, considering that throughout their entire affair, he was the one who possessed all of the money (financial power and control), provided the boy a place to stay and held all of the social status required for Rimbaud to gain any standing in the life path of his choosing (social and workplace power and control, and complete reign over whether or not his lover would have to return to the home he’d worked so hard to escape from in the first place), was older, bigger, and probably much stronger than him — not to mention definitely more prone to physical violence, and homicidal thoughts and actions — (seniority, physical advantage and power) and by entering into a romantic relationship with him after taking him in, was able to establish an emotional hold over him as well, with which he could manipulate and/or blame him over any trouble that arised out of it.

And yes, there’s no overlooking the fact that Arthur was, himself, also partly responsible for the fact that the affair took place — at least insofar as that he also had to make the decision to be with Verlaine, despite knowing all too well that he was married — but the one with whom the blame ultimately lies, above all, was the man who was already married, for actively choosing to cheat on his wife when he could have just practiced self-restraint. 

Furthermore, I think it also bears mentioning that, while this was fairly clearly not the case for Verlaine in hindsight and it does not in any way lessen or excuse the suffering that Mathilde endured over the matter, considering that it was quite common in those days for any remotely queer folk to marry into loveless marriages and even raise families with people to whom they were not even physically or romantically attracted purely for the sake of maintaining a good image and/or social and financial status, it is more than entirely plausible that Rimbaud may have interpreted Paul’s interest in him and his self-proclaimed emotional and intellectual incompatibility with his wife as having been a result of such a scenario when they met — thus leading him to think that their extramarital relationship would be freeing him from a lifetime of unhappiness due to societal obligation.

There is no doubting that Mathilde was every bit as much of a victim to her husband and his affair in real life as she was in the film, if not more, but no matter how much Total Eclipse rearranges or omits real life events so that it can imply otherwise, Verlaine was not some hapless victim to a devilish Rimbaud who lured him in and destroyed his once perfectly innocent, happy and respectable life and marriage; Paul Verlaine was, by all accounts of genuine history, a manipulative, indecisive, unhealthily clingy, physically, verbally, and emotionally abusive drunkard with a strong tendency towards homicidal urges and a penchant for only dating teenagers who were always at least a decade younger than his mature adult self — both long before, during, and after Arthur was a part of his life, until basically his dying day.

Rimbaud — who, incidentally, turned out an overall normal, healthy, and respectable, if fairly withdrawn, human being after his relationship with Paul was over and he had gotten away from his mother — apart not being his original partner, was just about as much of a victim in this whole scenario as Mathilde, just with even less of a support system to turn to, given the nature of his relationship with his family (especially his only parent) and the fact that the only vaguely friendly acquaintances he really had while living with Paul were those that were inherently said lover’s friends first. (To say nothing of the fact that even openly talking about the true nature of their relationship would have been utterly forbidden and met with complete hostility or mockery at best, if he had chosen to open up about it to anyone.)

So yes, in light of all of the above, I honestly find it extremely out-of-touch at best and absolutely vile at worst that Total Eclipse) seems to have taken the stance it has in all of this, much less that it would choose to make either of the two victims — whether living or dead — return to him to give him the love, happiness, and devotion he supposedly ‘deserves’ and has ‘earned’ through doing one sort of good and allegedly selfless thing at the end of the film.

Other

Have I mentioned that this movie is nearly two hours long, and that at least more than half of that runtime is spent being completely disingenuine about the events that it openly and explicitly claims at the beginning are all being represented 100% truthfully? 

Oh, I have? Okay then, moving on.

After all that I’ve said in this whole section, I honestly don’t think that there’s anything much more to say for this part. I guess one unfortunate but not at all surprising fact is that, adjusting for inflation, this movie cost about £12,778,266.00 to make in today’s money, but only made back £641,059.97 — which is only a little over 4% of the cost.

[Click here for Part 0: Preamble]

[Click here for Part 1: The Good]

[Click here for Part 3: The Takeaway]

[lawrencegarte]

i think parts of this argument — that they shouldn’t have curves, that they shouldn’t express any hint of queerness (though like… i don’t know if regina is really embracing queerness by making direct fun of janice’s sexuality to the whole school and then calling her a pyro lez in the burn book. outside remarks from known lesbian renee rapp should not be taken as actual character canon)— are honestly from a bygone era.

i read an interview with tina fey recently where she said that regina would understand that homophobia and slut-shaming in a modern high school setting would not actually allow her to maintain her queen bee status, and from what i see of gen z, that is absolutely true. high school and what it means to be popular is different now than it was in the early aughts. the outfits the plastics wear throughout the film are en vogue right now, and being a size zero isn’t really in (though of course none of the plastics are actually /fat/ because we still have a long way to go irt fat phobia, but i don’t think bullemia is in the way it used to be).

also “this is modern feminism talking, i expect to rule the world in shoes i cannot walk in” always felt like tina fey’s own internalized misogyny than anything karen was actually thinking. it’s a dig at women who conform to standards set upon them in the workplace who dare to believe they can get anything done in stilletos because tina wears chucks and always has so why can’t other whiny women. sexy in general is a dumb song (i also honestly believe the movie did a lot better with it than the musical which just stops everything for sexy corn) but that line in particular is just. yuckkkk.

at the end of the day tho yes we should be having a discussion about the problems that gen z does face but a movie adaptation of a broadway musical adapted from the 2004 teen comedy mean girls is maybe not the perfect space to do it.

this post is not gonna be well put together but i am having feelings

mean girls is trending right now because the musical movie just came out and i feel insane. idk why i do, it was stupid of me to think that most people Got It, no one ever gets it, it was always about the memes and the aesthetic.

the first mean girls movie was based on a nonfiction book called queen bees and wannabes. it interviewed and discussed the social caste system in teen girl friendships. how they hold each other to these insane standards of heternormative femininity out of sheer terror that they won't meet those standards themselves. the way they leverage their relationships for some small degree of power in a world designed to strip them of it, even if it drags other girls down.

the "you can only wear your hair in a ponytail once a week and on wednesdays we wear pink" speech was not an original creation for the script. it's a QUOTE from a real teenage girl. those were REAL RULES.

then the musical came, and it was one step removed from the intended messaging of the film. OG mean girls was not perfect (and was extremely racist), but it said what needed said. the musical leaned on the comedy more, but still left a heartfelt undertone, and still critiqued the systems in place. of course no piece of media is going to be perfect, but it was about the conversation.

then this new movie comes out and it is washed over in the veneer of white hollywood feminism so thick you can't see anymore. the problematic aspects of the original movie are taken out to avoid "offending" when the offense was the point. it becomes toothless, it becomes some other thing entirely. they changed karen's line "i expect to run the world in shoes i cannot walk in" to "watch me as i run the world in shoes i cannot walk in." because choice feminism is in vogue, suddenly this character whose entire point is that she doesn't think deeply about WHY she does anything is suddenly hip to the fact that the world is against her.

i think of sokka losing his misogyny arc in the new atla. i think of the Heathers remake casting the bitchy, identical heathers as queer and hollywood-fat outcasts. as if the story, the meaning, the allegory is hidden in the sets and the jokes and the music. it's a whole new thing now, and it's a thing that means nothing in particular.

the plastics should not wear jeans. they should not have curves. their queerness should be suppressed, painful. their sexuality is not a slay, it's the only thing they think they have of value. the santa dance isn't sexy, it's shocking, it's mortifying - they are children.

they're not mean because "we are all mean." they are mean because they are girls in a world that brutalizes them and crushes them into a standardized shape. they are mean because the world is mean to them. they are mean because it gives them some power back. they are mean because it's the only weapon they have.

the landscape of femininity today has shifted to camera-ready makeup at the age of 10, stringent performative hygiene standards, and avoiding being caught on film while having a genuine emotion. the consumerism, the fatphobia, the racism, the classism, the homophobia remain. We could have had a conversation about that.

[thisaintascenereviews]

Colter Wall - Little Songs

Colter Wall is one of the most interesting figures in modern country music. Whether it’s for his deep baritone that sounds like Johnny Cash, or for his cowboy aesthetic that looks and sounds like he’s from the 1800s, he’s very much an outlier. He sounds like belongs in the 1950s, versus the 2020s. Hell, I was on Apple Music looking up some 1950s country music, and under the RIYL of Marty Robbins, Colter Wall was there and he was the only modern artist. It makes sense, though, as he covered a Marty Robbins on one of his most recent albums. That’s the thing, too, he covers songs that are old enough to be his grandfather or great grandfather, versus more recent songs. He covers a lot of standards and traditional songs, which I’ve always found interesting, but I can’t say that I’ve liked the last couple of his records that much. Not that they’re bad, but they’re not that interesting.

Let me back up a second, because I remember finding Colter Wall in 2015 or 2016, a bit after his debut EP, 2015’s Imaginary Appalachia, came out. The song “Sleeping On The Blacktop” was featured in the movie Hell Or High Water around that same time, and that led me to check out the EP, which was and still a great outlaw country, folk, and Americana record that showcases Wall’s deep and booming voice, along with a gift of poetic and timeless lyricism. His self-titled debut from 2017 was just as good, featuring Tyler Childers of all people, but I haven’t cared for anything that much since, although 2018’s Songs Of The Plains is pretty good, but his last LP I just didn’t care that much for. I’ll be honest, too, I didn’t originally care for this album, Little Songs, but it took me a few listens to sink my teeth into it.

When I did, though, Little Songs, is such a fun record, because it fully embraces Colter Wall’s cowboy aesthetic, and you can just picture him singing these songs on a ranch. He does have a pasture, I believe, so he doesn’t just talk the talk, he is a cowboy, and he’s talked about how he loves being outdoors and being on a ranch. This record is great, though, especially for how short and to the point it is. This album has a good mix of slower songs, such as “For A Long While,” but songs like “The Coyote & The Cowboy” and “Honky Tonk Nighthawk” are more upbeat and a lot of fun.

Wall’s voice is very expressive, and very distinct, which helps both this record and his sound quite a bit. You know it’s a Colter Wall record, and you know what you’re getting, but the key is, everything is so well-written and/or well-performed, and he also made sure that his backing band gets the spotlight throughout this record, so the instrumentation is top notch throughout it. I said this in my review of Tyler Childer’s Rustin’ In The Rain, but in any given year, this might be my favorite country album, at least if the former album didn’t come out, but it’s a tough call, since so much came out this year that I really love and there’s more to follow. Little Songs is a fantastic record, and if this is your introduction to Colter Wall, it’s a damn good one.

[paragonrobits]

Movie Review - The Best Little Whorehouse In Texas

(Presented by the statement "it's not a porno I promise")

The specific bit about this movie that had me initially interested in it as part of a recurring set of movie challenges between me and a friend, who watch movies independently and then confer on our respective thoughts on the experience, was that it starred Dolly Parton, Burt Reynolds and Dom Deluise. (I think it is fair to say, having watched the movie, in THAT order of importance.) I was vaguely aware of this movie but in retrospect it’s hard to say in what capacity. Suffice to say I knew of its existence in a back-of-the-mind way, but now I can’t recall having heard of it, just that I knew OF it and that for some reason I regarded it as a classic. That was at least correct in some ways; this movie was released to notable commercial success and was the most successful musical film for about 24 years. But more notably, I was interested for the three aforementioned stars: Dolly Parton, Burt Reynolds and Dom Deluise.

These are significant names if you, like me, had your formative years throughout the 1990s; two of them were household names, Parton’s more so (or perhaps that’s just my recollection of things), but Reynolds still had enough importance to be playing himself in Saints Row the Third, where I apparently knew of his existence enough to be startled when he popped up; a casual glance at his write up on the TV Tropes wiki suggests that he’s done this in the past, too, playing a comedic depiction of himself.

Parton comes to mind first; while Sheriff Ed (portrayed by Reynolds) arguably drives the plot in a more direct way as he tends to be the one setting off conflicts and consequences for better or worse, Miss Mona (played by Dolly Parton) seems to be the true protagonist of this story so to speak; at the very least she’s the heart of it, a benevolent and charming madame running the titular brothel. She’s a lot of fun on screen, and it also gives the impression of being completely genuine rather than some kind of facade, which also sets up the vibe of the brothel being a place of business chiefly, and the antagonist Melvin Thorpe (portrayed by Dom Deluise) as stirring up trouble in a moral panic that is, sadly, true enough to our times. (He gives the impression of having no personal stake in this, being a moral crusader who is breaking up a long time unspoken agreement not to make an issue of something harmless, purely for the attention and sake of his career. This, along with the moral panic itself, is a curiously timeless feeling; I actually kept forgetting about the time this movie was set and kept assuming it was much earlier, until the presence of more modern technology made me realize this was NOT set in the early 50s like I assumed for some reason.)

Dolly Parton in general was frequently the butt of jokes in the 90s, and it feels relevant to remark that most of them were HER jokes, specifically; people might have made cracks about her being top heavy or lines like ‘it costs a LOT of money to look THIS cheap’ but you had better believe than anyone doing it to insult her or mock her would be beat to the punch first by Parton making those jokes, and she does a fair bit of it poking fun at herself here, and in a way that feels both like her just doing her thing as well as something genuinely in-character. At the same time, Miss Mona’s character is established pretty early on as both the proprietor of the Chicken Ranch and running it as a business where the women working there are cared for and kept to strict standards, as well as having a good-natured demeanor that makes her come off as a town authority that holds a LOT of influence she’s to genteel to directly acknowledge.

This in turn lends itself to a bit of historical digression; to my knowledge, these brothel madames were instrumental in the early towns of the frontier as genuine authorities, getting more and more power and becoming integral to early feminist movements in the counter, particularly on the West coast. Deliberately or not (and this may in turn be a reflection of this movie and its theater inspiration being based on real events to some degree), this is the same vibe Miss Mona has; much like her historical predecessors, she’s established very quickly as a philanthropist who gives a lot of money to important charitable concerns.

There’s also a vibe that even if the town doesn’t acknowledge it, or later want to admit it, but her funneling the money sent her way by the Chicken Ranch’s services and then back into town is likely economically important. The town likely suffers seriously after it is ultimately shut down, and there is certainly room to contemplate about shooting yourself in the foot because of a moralizing panic. ‘Just think of the children’ rhetoric never really changes, especially when its used as a sledgehammer into your own face, so to speak, used by people who really don’t care about you or your concerns and just want to garner a bit of fame in the moment.

Miss Mona’s characterization is also strikingly similar to Parton’s own well-known character; much like Miss Mona, Parton is well known for her philanthropy and charity work (specifically that she’s made public record; apparently she does a LOT of it on the down low; the extent of her charity work is somewhat beyond the intent of this review but suffice to say, she does good and she does a LOT of it), and its one of those happy accidents of actors being INCREDIBLY well suited to playing a particular character. It’s notable to me, too, since like I mentioned, she was a self-proclaimed camp icon in the 90s but I don’t recall her charitable work being as well known, and to me this movie seems to make it a bit of a cornerstone of her character. There’s a specific trope known as the establishing character moment, when the first significant scene we see of a character sets the stage for everyone we need to know about them right away; after the campy intro and musical number, the first thing we see her doing is donating a great deal of money to the town, with the implication that she regularly does this and is at least partially a big part of the town’s success.

This in turn leads us to Reynolds and his character of Sheriff Ed, who is friendly with Miss Mona after a long series of on-again off-again flings, and once Thorpe turns his muckracking ways towards the Chicken Ranch, her chiefest ally. As mentioned earlier, while I can’t honestly say he’s the main protagonist (at least to me), he DOES drive the plot. The vast majority of the story’s events are driven by his choices, his actions, and people reacting to him. Perhaps there’s something to be said here for them as deuteragonists; Miss Mona as the chief actor, and Ed as the one who tries to handle things. In this movie, while one can say he does things for better or worse, he gives the impression of a man struggling to adapt to the times and unaware OF those times changing, and his outlook and preferences in action being unsuitable without a little bit of forethought.

More often than not, Ed’s apparent temper, tendency to bluster and intimidate threats into backing down backfires HORRIBLY; a chief example is during Thorpe’s big number in the town proper as he prepares to investigate the Ranch directly, Ed attacks him while being filmed, unaware that the cameras were running; the intent apparently being to scare off Thorpe, and Ed being completely unaware of being filmed at the time. Given the ultimate closure of the Ranch after a hundred years of operation and Miss Mona going her separate ways from Sheriff Ed at the end (at least, in the theater’s more original bittersweet ending, which I will touch upon later), I keep thinking of a theme of ‘the world moves on’ in this movie. The years go by, and the normal we know keeps slipping away or changing bit by bit, and it's too late once it's moved too much to do anything about it as it affects us negatively. The world moves on, and leaves them behind, and all because a muckraker wanted attention for his career.

Ed can’t move with those times until it's too late. And truth be told I did have a BIT of a difficult time getting to read Ed; with his tendency to intimidate others, outright attacking someone to make a point (Even if, in context, we are likely intended to cheer for him in the moment and it's certainly understandable), he does uncomfortably feel like the authoritarian copaganda of works that spread the idea that ‘if only cops didn’t have REGULATIONS and RULES and could do whatever they wanted, they could get so much more done’. I think this might be the result of recent years of abuses of power coming into the open and more awareness on those topics, and we are looking at this with the benefit of hindsight. I don’t think Ed is INTENDED to come off as an authoritarian bully, and he ultimately doesn’t feel like one to me. I think a lot of it is the result that in other circumstances he’s rather genteel and polite regardless of who he’s talking to. A lot of his more violent behavior comes off as desperation or panic. His ‘all bark no bite’ vibe goes a long way towards keeping him out of the copaganda list, at least for me personally. This man ain’t no Dirty Harry! (Mind you, I AM from Arizona so awareness of this sort of thing is pretty relevant given some of the politics here. Go look up stuff with the Sheriff of Maricopa, you’ll find some unpleasant details, yeah?)

As a minor digression, though I didn’t realize it at first due to his voice being much more known to me than the actor behind it, Reynolds had been involved heavily as the main character Charlie in All Dogs Go To Heaven; I would go so far as to say that this was sort of his archetypal character to me. It’s actually pretty interesting how much Don Bluth works were instrumental both in my formative appreciation for animation as well as establishing basic responses towards several of the actors in this work. It’s hard for me to say now if Reynold’s role as a charming con man is contrary to his usual roles, but I’m tempted to say so; he certainly gives the impression of having been an actor who made his fame portraying tough no-nonsense men of action.

And speaking of Don Bluth, this brings us to the last bit of the ensemble; Dom Deluise. He is most keenly familiar to me as Tiger from the Fieval movies, though as some of the movie challenges have gone towards the 80s (animated and live-action alike) he pops up a LOT, and in truth it was actually hard for me to place him specifically, but he has a distinctive lilt to his voice that is similar to Tiger (or perhaps Barf in Spaceballs), and I expect he used a variant of his normal speaking voice for those more comedic roles. If Burt Reynolds was a bit of an unknown quantity if expected to be a Polite Man of Action, and Dolly Parton more or less personified herself here, then Dom Deluise is genuinely startling to me. That voice is VERY distinctive as a comedic and heartfelt character that is more often than not my favorite part of the movie or at least one of the nicest bits about it, so you can just imagine my surprise when I realized HE was the antagonist of this movie! I would actually say that it goes a long way to establishing this movie’s particular tone, as its antagonist is a sleazy muckraker that stirs up trouble and sets off shifts in public perception with catchy song and dance numbers, stirring up moralistic outcries with song and dances after straight up lying to Ed’s face about it! He has an energetic energy that is strangely fun AND punchable at the exact same time, and its tremendously surreal to me given my expectations from his characters. It sets off all sorts of jangling ‘WTF’ bells in my head. Such goes against the laws of Nature! Dom Deluise as a VILLAIN? It’s just plain weird and it works very well in this movie’s favor, and really shows off his acting chops beyond what I was used to with him. Given that I initially assumed the deputy (a comedic character who appears throughout and works well as a foil to Sheriff Ed) was Dom Deluise; I was quite wrong about that.

Deluise’s Melvin Thorpe is a fun and sleazy villain, and interestingly enough his actual impact lessens as the movie goes on, to the point that he shows up less and less. There’s probably a point to be made there; those who shape opinion and twist events to serve their ends (particularly that odious ‘THINK OF THE CHILDREN’ mentality, which is a phrase I’ve come to associate with a particular wretchedness of the soul) are dangerous, yes, but not quite as dangerous as the ripples they send out. Those ripples touch other people, who in turn send out more ripples, and the balance of things shift and things often get worse for someone in particular, and so the initial paradigm we see in the beginning (people KNOW what the Chicken Ranch is but they don’t interfere with it and leave well enough alone; they’re not hurting anyone, they’re bringing in money, there’s no NEED to make a fuss) is toppled over. Melvin’s actual presence in the movie is a lot bigger than his on-screen scenes.

The mix of wholesome and fun in a movie about, well, a brothel, may seem an odd one at first, but it pervades this movie overall. The song and dance numbers are a lot of fun and very campy (and given the plot, it proves that campy and serious can be part of the same venn diagram); I don’t have a particular favorite, but they’re all quite good. Sidestep near the end, from a governor who is a ghost for most of the movie and then displays his refusal to commit to anything except for the most popular option, is a fun one and a walking metaphor for a character that we hear OF but never see until a pivotal moment. The sexual actions taking place in the brothel are of course not shown but hinted or euphemistically suggested with gymnastic dance scenes that are just goofy enough that even my sex-repulsed self found apt to get the point across.

Even so, the movie ends on a dour note; the governor, whom Sheriff Ed beseeches for help as their last option to keep the Chicken Ranch open, refuses to help at all in favor of just going along with public opinion, officially closing the Ranch. It is important to note that while this tail end of the movie, following a fight between Miss Mona and Sheriff Ed as things that can’t really be taken back are said, is a lot more dour than the preceding movie’s events, it doesn’t feel like a downward spiral except in a plot sense. All of this builds up over the movie, as opinion and rabble rousing increasingly turns against our protagonists. It feels very natural, and ultimately bittersweet. That sense of camp and fun never really leave, but take a gradual slope to the end.

This movie famously had, in response to audience reactions, a bittersweet ending more heavily on the sweet; the girls of the Chicken Ranch disappear to places unknown with little option left for them, but with the addition of Miss Mona and Ed marrying. In contrast, the original ending and that of the theatrical one is NOT so sweet, as Miss Mona and Ed simply part ways after the latter offers a marriage proposal, gently turned down by Miss Mona. Personally I generally tend to like happier endings in a personal sense, which is a bit of a paradox because I tend to find sadder or poignant endings to stick much harder. They HURT more, which often tends to make them more memorable.

Provided that such an ending actually fits the tone of a story, rather than being something tacked on in the spirit of assuming that ‘real art means things are sad’, I generally prefer them. I was genuinely undecided on this for a while, as the lighthearted tone of the movie meant that the marriage ending didn’t feel TOO dissonant, but the bitterer one felt just as appropriate. I tossed it up and down in my head and eventually, after discussing it a little, I came to the conclusion that simply parting ways would probably have been more appropriate. As noted, while this movie never loses its campy qualities, there IS a notable decline for the characters as things get worse for them, and such an ending would have been pretty fitting. A gentle parting of the ways as they move on, fitting the way the life they knew has simply fallen apart, and the world moving on without the life they used to know.

Sometimes a happy ending is too pat; sometimes you WANT a movie to punch you in the face, because sometimes that just feels more right for the events. In those times, a happy ending can feel insincere; something done to appease expectations (as in the notorious case of the Will Smith I Am Legend adaptation and audiences reacted poorly to him being the true monster all along, which is… you know. The ENTIRE POINT OF THE STORY). A bittersweet ending, by contrast, isn’t purely a downer there, and it still has hope in there without feeling out of tonal place with the way the story has wound up. So, ultimately, I have to agree that the theater’s ending would probably have worked better here.

In the end, as far as actually seeing Parton’s acting in person outside of a brief Animaniac’s appearance, Reynolds popping up in Saints Row the Third, and me being so used to Deluise’ role as a comic heart character, this was an excellent introduction to their acting chops overall!

[anthonybialy]

For Beta or Worse

Society’s not improving under the stewardship of unpleasant guys pretending to be swell.  The future isn’t progressive.  Beta brutes embody the most unfortunate of tendencies in these prehistoric modern times while trying feebly to contain their cavemen urges.  Pretending to care is not a new trick.  Civilization is plagued by the toxic lack of masculinity.

I hate to be cynical in the assessment of faux sensitive fellows who express admiration for ladies by wallowing in the worst stereotypes of femininity.  Actually, I revel in it.  Jaded distrust should always remain a characteristic of every gender and especially the one who can rank Jackass movies.  

Prehistoric modern men engage in the worst sort of ulterior motive, namely an attempt to make ladies wrongly believe they’re worth a special hug.  Sucking up may not enable scoring.  The only thing that could be even more repulsive about their alleged game is pretending to be wholesome.  At least be honest about creepiness.

Showing how deeply concerned they are convinces nobody, including their intended conquests.  Enlightened dudes who don’t give in to troglodytical impulses are quite nasty in their rage.

The truly tolerant enjoy targeting anyone who dares not submit to current conventional wisdom, which is unconventional and unwise.  Enervated guys make a show of allegedly being allies, which is now defined as pandering paired with virtue-signaling.  They wish someone would print t-shirts that announce how sensitive they are so they could stop trying to stick out their chests.

Nurturing fellows illustrate the new style of grit by going after the most successful female author ever.  Impugning fictional wizard creator and real-world biology follower J.K. Rowling reflects dedication to adoring women so much that a man can become one just by declaring such.   The audacity to question the science of announcing a gender switcheroo is a far greater offense in these enlightened times than antiquated crimes like shoplifting and mugging.

The expect on spells committed the crime of noticing no magic can alter biology.  Science’s enemies flaunt how courageous they are on behalf of women by proclaiming joining their ranks is a decision.  Assailing those who wonder if the apparent delusion is really happening is one way to be accepting.  Sexist barbarians think men can’t infringe on womanhood by switching sides.

The only group of genetic males worse than embracers of genuinely phony empathy are fake alphas.  Alleged strength without righteous focus was bad enough at Limp Bizkit concerts.

Focusing on winning at all costs isn’t merely a wholesale misunderstanding of how a backbone functions: the lack of a noble guiding principle leads to humiliations like losing to Joe Biden.  It’d be much more amusing if everyone else didn’t have to endure results.

The feebleness of intended imposed changes offers the only consolation.  As with fuming crab Biden failing to implement his ghastly agenda, ineffectiveness is a blessing when it affects twerps.

Craving resolve without displaying it leads to regrettable results like flaccid bully Putin as some sort of vigorous adventurer.  For alpha males, they sure spend lots of time worshiping guys they think are dreamy.

Presidents leave legacies, often unfortunately.  Donald Trump of course typifies role-playing as a virile stud to those who enjoy being suckered.  The former steak salesman and federal executive has spent his lifetime portraying himself as the standard of manliness.

Doing what he thinks you think he should be is undoubtedly virile.  Focus on image like a true independently rugged human.  The perpetual pouter turned the inability to beat Joe freaking Biden into a flaccid riot.  Indignant broheims couldn’t even mount an insurrection properly.

The need to be ranked surely doesn’t mask overcompensation.  Allegedly charming specimens whine like vegans at steakhouses.  Constantly needing to proclaim they’re at the top tier is itself a sign of insecurity.  Players with tells never recognize any of them.

Like Three Stooges shorts, the plot isn’t tricky.  At least the male idiocy when Moe takes his frustration out on Larry’s ineptness is deliberate.  Testosterone lightweights act in a manner they perceive to be feminine, which is the most insulting treatment around.

Women can spot pandering in order to lamely try to seduce them.  Sometimes, the effort applies to convincing them to vote, which is even sleazier.  Presuming all women are cool with aborting the inconvenient is for cloaked predators in multiple senses.

Insincerity has never been truer.  The modern anti-roughhousing guy says whatever he thinks women want to hear.  Like how communism and fascism are alleged opposites that end up with identical tyranny, the false tough and truly delicate guys should form an alliance with a limp handshake.

Illiberal liberal fellows trade in ironic sexism.  Technical males seethe without possessing the physical strength or mental fortitude to act commendably.  They offer the best of both worlds otherwise.  Pretending pushups put to good use causes societal ills has led to anger without moral focus.  Emasculation somehow didn’t create strength.

[elvenwhovian]

Thoughts on the criticisms for The Rings of Power

The negativity around ROP has been so disheartening and I need to rant/have my say. Below are the most common criticisms I've seen and my responses to them. 

1. "They butchered/desecrated Tolkien's story! They changed the story too much so I won't watch/ will only hate-watch." 

Some of you are too young to remember, but I was there 3000 20 years ago when PJ's films came out. He changed A LOT. And I was surrounded by homeschooler book purists who had a lot to say, both good and bad. Here's my thing ... if you don't like ROP because they changed things, fine. You do you.  But don't tell me that PJ's films are perfection if you say you can't handle major changes to Tolkien’s works. 

Arwen didn't rescue Frodo. The elves never came to Helms Deep. Faramir didn't take Frodo and Sam captive. And Frodo never sent Sam away before Cirith Ungol, just to name a few. These were SIGNIFICANT changes that PJ made. But they didn't ruin the story ... dare I say, they made things more interesting. 

2. "The story moves too slowly." 

Bro ... have you read LOTR? Its a slow burn at the start. And then half of TTT is just Frodo and Sam simply walking into Mordor. Just like Tolkien, I feel like the show runners are laying a foundation and then in season 2 things will pick up. Also they have 5 seasons planned. Also its television. Its meant to be in installments to keep you coming back. Honestly, compared to some modern TV, it is refreshing to have a show that is taking its time and not beating you over the head with info dumping and action set pieces every single week. We are back in Middle-earth. Enjoy the ride, my dudes. 

3. "The Harfoots are annoying/cheesy/unnecessary." 

I'll admit that I was leery about them including proto-hobbits in the show, but I think they are delightful. They have their flaws, but Hobbits always have. They are quirky; the refreshing contrast to the darkness of war just beyond their borders. Yeah, Nori royally screws up A LOT. Reminds me of another hobbit who Gandalf used to berate for his stupidity. 

I also saw one comment complaining about "Wandering Day" and that the montage/song was too much like a Disney movie. First of all, how dare you? Do you even Tolkien, good sir? His books were full of songs. The hobbits had walking songs in the book. Tolkien loved songs and poetry. It is very VERY in character for Hobbits to have a song with their storyline. And honestly, that song is perfection. I've been singing it as a lullaby to my 6 month old son and he loves it. 

4. "Galadriel is too manly/angry/vengeful ... Also the men are weak." 

Perfect people are not interesting. Flaws make characters realistic, engaging, and worth watching. Galadriel is a flawed character in ROP and I LOVE IT. She is prideful, ambitious, and strong-willed ... all stuff Tolkien wrote about her. She is also very athletic/physically skilled. Tolkien also wrote this ... I have references. And yeah ... if you believed the evil who killed your brother was out there and no one believed you, you would be miffed too. 

And as I predicted, she is undergoing character development that is helping to temper her vengeance. She literally gives up her sword. 

The symbolism is spot on. 

Also, those saying she is too manly... bro, what the heck? Her costumes and armor are so beautiful and well done! My two favorite looks are the dress she wears in Numenor and her armor design.

I think they did a fantastic job making her a strong yet flawed female character. 

And the men are weak? Elrond and Durin have a rock breaking contest. Arondir fights for his girl ... doesn't get more manly than that. Also, Elendil is just fantastically done and oozes that stable yet compassionate masculine energy Tolkien's male characters are known for. 

5."I don’t like that they cast people of color." 

Don't be racist. Its 2022.

6. "The elves aren't done right/have short hair/ aren't like PJ's elves." 

Ok first of all, while many of the elves in the legendarium are described with long hair, its never defined as a standard for elvish culture. Second, if you are going to expect any and all Tolkien adaptations to conform to PJ's films, then I guess we can toss out all the cartoons that are beloved by so many people. Also, I don't see anyone beating up the legendary painter and Tolkien illustrator Ted Nasmith for his depictions of elves with shorter hair. 

Also, let's be real ... Elrond was described as "kind as summer" in The Hobbit. I love Hugo Weaving's portrayal, but he's never seemed particularly warm or kind to me. I adore Elrond's portrayal in ROP! I even like his floppy hair. He's a young whipper-snapper of an elf and he seems like the kind of person who would create a place like Rivendell. I mean ... look at this precious cinnamon roll:

Also Celebrimbor has that wise old British dude energy that reminds me of Bilbo or even the professor himself. Tolkien's elves were complex people with varying personalities and passions. They weren't the stoic, almost vulcan-ish, people PJ made them out to be. I love the PJ films, but if we are going to make them the standard, then I guess the room for creativity is gone(?) 

7. "The writing sucks/ is fan fiction." 

I'll admit, the writing is rough in a few places. Galadriel jumping ship was kinda dumb. But its not Rise of Skywalker level dumb. And I'll fully admit that this is fan fiction. All television writing based on an IP is fan fiction. Its fiction written by fans/writers based on already established characters/worlds. 

And frankly, the term "its fan fiction" is not an insult to me, because I've read some darn good fan fiction.  Next argument please. 

8. "Its a cash grab from Amazon so we should hate it." 

It’s not. Read the article by The Hollywood Reporter. Also, let's remember that lots of passionate people worked on this series and it shows. Punishing them because Amazon's name is on it is unfair. I know, I know ... Amazon is not squeaky clean. But if we boycotted every company who had stains on their record, we would be living in cabins in the woods eating squirrels. 

7. “Galadriel couldn’t have survived the volcano/ she does dumb over the top stuff ... this show is not realistic.”

You guys do realize this is a fantasy series, right? Also the way she stood their was so bad@$$. 

And yeah, she did this:

You do know that horse acrobatics is a real thing right? 

Also, need I remind you this over the top elf:

He did dumber stuff and we loved it. It was cool. If we are going to take the time to pick apart the “unrealistic” story full of wizards, elves, and magic, then we are gonna be here awhile.

In conclusion, there is only one episode left and I can’t wait! Even if the finale is “just ok”, it’s been a blast to be back in Middle-earth and that means a lot to me. If you are not a fan of ROP, that’s fine. You don’t have to watch it. But some of us are really enjoying it and I can’t wait for the next 4 seasons. Be nice.

Rant over :P Thank you for listening.

[thepremedthatwrites]

My Roommate’s Brother (pt. 2)

request: can I get a request where it’s a modern AU and Peter is known for having a bad boy reputation in like maybe hs or uni and he ends up falling in love with the reader but then gets framed for cheating on the reader and the reader believes it but then everything works out in the end, and if you can could you maybe add some smutty or fluff parts as well.

warning: smut below the cut

part 1

The semester was going smoothly. Susan and I had very similar schedules since we were studying the same topic. This led to us spending much time together. Our usual schedule was something along the lines of going to class in the morning, grabbing lunch together, and then working on our classwork which usually ended with us watching a movie together on one of our laptops. While I was also able to make other friends from my classes, I was not able to make such a strong connection as I did with Susan. 

It was the middle of October and a mutual friend of Susan and I had invited us to a party. I was excited to go and forget about the midterm paper I had due in a week. Susan on the other hand was less enthusiastic. “Are you sure you don’t want to go?” I asked while checking my reflection in the mirror. I adjusted my top, wondering if I should do a quick change as it was a bit lower than I was used to, exposing more of my cleavage than usual.

“Yeah. I have a paper due on Monday that I really should work on.” I walked out of the bathroom crossing my arms as I leaned against the wall. Susan was sitting at the table on her laptop with the small lamp we had bought the first week of school illuminating her work space. As if to put the final nail on the coffin, she was also wearing sweats and an oversized t-shirt. I let out a sigh.

“Okay. But once midterms are over I am dragging you to a party. You need to have fun here too, not just study.”

“Yeah, yeah. You have fun tonight. Don’t drink too much, and if you feel like you can’t walk home, call me.” I gave a small smile.

“Will do.” I grabbed my phone and coat before walking to the door. “See you later.”

“Have fun.” I gave a small nod before closing the door behind me and walking towards the elevator.

I was hit with the smell of alcohol and the blasting sound of music as I walked into the apartment. The apartment was the standard on-campus student apartment which meant it was small and cramped. There was a group of people congregating in the living room, the speaker playing the music sitting on the coffee table. “Hey (y/n)!” A friend of mine, Sophie, made her way to me. She had been the one to invite me. A large smile was on her face and a red solo cup in her hand. “Let’s get you a drink, yeah?” She had to practically shout her words in order to be heard over the music. I nodded as she grabbed my hand and led me to the kitchen where more people were gathered. 

“I love your top, where did you get it?” She had grabbed an empty cup and started to pour some vodka in it.

“I don’t remember,” I said. “I think it was a birthday gift.”

“Well I’m sure you’ll be able to bring a guy home with that top,” she said, winking as she handed me my drink. I took a sip and felt the liquid burn my throat. There was much more vodka than mixer in the drink.

“(Y/n)?” I heard. I turned to see Peter standing near the sink, a smirk on his face. 

“Looks like it’s already working,” Sophie whispered into my ear. “I’m gonna go back to the living room. Have fun!” She gave me a soft pat on the shoulder before going off, shouting something to someone in the other room.

“Hey Peter,” I said, smiling shyly at him. I took a sip of my drink knowing it would facilitate conversation. 

“I didn’t realize my sister roomed with such a party animal.” I let out a laugh.

“Not to disappoint but this is only the second party I’ve been to this semester.”

“Then maybe you should spend some more time with me. I have a list of parties for the next two weeks.”

“As tempting as that sounds, I do remember Susan saying something about you being nothing but trouble. Isn’t that correct, Peter?”

“I thought that only made me more enticing.” He gave a smirk as he took a sip of his drink. 

“(Y/n)! Come over here, quickly!” Sophie shouted from the living room. 

“It seems I’m needed somewhere else,” I said, already starting to walk towards the living room.

“Talk later?”

“Maybe,” I replied. I’m not sure if it was the alcohol in my system or the raised eyebrow and smirk that seemed to be permanently etched on Peter’s face but I somehow gathered the courage to give him a small wink before turning around and walking to Sophie. 

“Come, dance with me!” Sophie said, grabbing my free hand and jumping to the music. I let out a laugh before following suit. We had started to scream the lyrics to the song when I felt someone behind me. I turned my head to see Peter. 

“Dancing without me?” he asked, bending down so that his lips grazed my ear as he spoke. I felt his hands land on my hips as I continued to dance. Peter was now right behind me and as I moved I could feel myself graze his body. As I moved my body to the music I could feel Peter’s grip on me get tighter, the space between us becoming smaller and smaller until we were pressed against one another. In the back of my mind I could hear Susan’s warning but the music blaring from the speakers drowned her out. 

“I’m going to get another drink,” Peter said, his mouth so close I could feel his breath. I nodded.

“I will too.” He grabbed my hand, leading me to the kitchen where it was much less crowded as everyone had made their way to the living room. 

“What are you drinking? Vodka?” I nodded, handing him my cup. My face felt warm from all the dancing and closeness of everyone. Peter’s cheeks were slightly pink as well. The kitchen was much cooler though and I could feel myself start to cool down. He handed me my drink.

“Thanks.” I took a sip. It was weaker than the other drinks I had had that night. I wondered if Peter had done this on purpose. He took a step towards me before brushing a strand of hair from my face. I looked up so that my (e/c) eyes were locked with his blue ones. 

“So, are you display-only tonight?” His hands were now on my waist as he spoke.

“I thought you aren’t supposed to touch the display?” 

“You know I never follow the rules,” Peter said, a smile on his face. While his smile might have been supposed to be playful, his eyes were filled with hunger as he looked at me. I bit down on my lower lip, the movement causing him to flash a quick look at my lips before looking back into my eyes. His smile was now gone as his grip on me tightened. There was a second of silence before we both leaned in, our lips connecting for the first time. We kissed eachother hungrily, hands grabbing the other as we desperately tried to be as close as possible. Peter bit down lightly on my bottom lip causing me to let out a soft moan. 

“I’m pretty sure this is a kitchen not a bedroom.” Peter and I pulled apart to see Sophie and another girl I didn’t know standing near the entrance. We immediately took a step away from each other and my face warmed from the embarrassment of being caught. Peter and I stood silently as Sophie and the other girl poured themselves some drinks. “I’m sure Brian wouldn’t mind you two using his bedroom if needed,” Sophie said before leaving, giving me a wink before walking back to the living room.

“Maybe we should go to one of our places,” Peter suggested. I nodded.

“Susan should be asleep now.” Peter grabbed my hand before leading me out of the kitchen and towards the front door. Nobody seemed to notice us leaving as they were all too busy dancing and getting wasted. We walked quickly back to my place, the cool autumn air not bothering me as much as it should have since I was wearing a sleeveless top with no coat. I fumbled with my keys slightly as I unlocked my door before letting us both in. The common area was empty and Susan’s bedroom lights were off. 

We both still walked silently as a precaution before making our way to my room. As soon as I closed the door Peter’s lips were on mine. My back was pressed to the door as his lips kissed, sucked, and bit any exposed skin. I let out a soft gasp as he pulled down the front of my shirt, exposing me to him. “No bra?” he questioned, his thumb brushing against my nipple.

“It didn’t go with the shirt,” I said, giving a slight shrug. Peter let out a chuckle that sent a shiver down my spine. It was a deep sound that seemed almost animalistic. He bent down, my breast now in his mouth. “Oh, Peter,” I gasped as he sucked on my breast, his tongue running over my nipple causing me to arch my back. I entangled my fingers with his blond hair as he played with my breasts, eliciting gasps and curses from me. He eventually pulled away. 

“Go onto the bed,” he said, his voice lower than usual. I obeyed, making my way to my bed. I watched as he took off his shirt, revealing his toned body. I licked my lips as I watched, feeling myself get more aroused by the minute. He ran a hand through his hair as he turned to me. My breasts were still exposed and the straps of my shirt had fallen down my arms. “I want you to play with yourself.” 

“What?” I asked, feeling my heart start to beat faster as he spoke.

“I want you to touch yourself. Take off your clothes and do as I say.” I nodded quickly, not trusting myself to speak. I took off my shirt, my pants soon following and then my underwear. “Lay on your back.” I did as he said. I felt my skin start to raise as the cool air brushed my naked skin. “Now start to rub small circles on your clit. Go slowly for now and don’t do anything else.” I did as told, letting out a small sigh at the much needed contact. With each touch, a surge of pleasure shot through me. My body wanted me to go faster but I obeyed Peter and kept a slow pace. Just as I thought I would go insane from withholding from my body more pleasure, Peter spoke again. 

“Now, start to add more pressure and more speed.” I did as told, grateful to do so. Soft moans had started to leave my mouth as I continued to touch myself, my hips moving for more contact. I could feel the pleasure starting to build as my heart rate started to increase even more. I turned to Peter to see he was now taking off his pants. I could see his imprint on his boxers and my heart jumped at the sheer size. I was getting wetter by the second.

“Now stop,” he said. 

“But it feels so good,” I moaned. Peter walked over to me, grabbing my hand so that I had no choice but to stop. 

“I said stop, princess. That means you stop.” I let out a whimper but didn’t attempt to touch myself when he released my hand. He gave an approving nod. “Good girl.” He leaned down, kissing me. I kissed back hungrily, my hands pushing his head towards me. Peter pulled away, taking off his boxers. He climbed on top of me, his hands brushing my skin before stopping at my thighs. He pushed my legs apart, paused to line himself with me, and then pushed in. I let out a gasp as I felt him stretch me slightly. He went all the way in, stopping for a moment to let me adjust.

His mouth was next to my ear and I could feel his heavy breaths as they brushed my earlobe. I wrapped my legs around his waist, signaling to him that I was ready to continue. He gave one thrust and I let out a moan. He continued to thrust, slowly building a rhythm. I buried my face into his neck, trying to muffle my moans as he continued. My hands wrapped around his back and I could hear him pant as he continued. His pace was fast and merciless and with each thrust he sent a shock of pleasure that rippled through my entire body.

“Peter,” I gasped. Any fogginess that I might have had from the alcohol was now completely gone as Peter continued to fuck me. All I could focus on was how good it felt as my nails now scratched his back. This elicited moans from him as he continued to thrust into me, the springs in the mattress groaning as he moved. 

“You feel so good, princess,” he praised as he continued. I could feel myself continue to get closer to my finish. All it took was one more thrust and my vision was blinded by a searing whiteness as my back arched in pleasure. My entire body shook as my mind became foggy, all sense but touch seemingly disappearing. 

I slowly started to come down from my high, my breathing going back to normal as Peter pulled out of me, standing on his knees on the bed. “Come here,” he said. I obeyed, crawling towards him. I took him in my mouth, letting him hold my head in place as he thrust into my mouth. I could feel tears start to form in the corner of my eyes as I watched him, his cock brushing the back of my throat. “Fuck (y/n). You’re doing so good.” With one more thrust, his head fell back and I felt his cum spill down my throat. I swallowed the bitter liquid, entranced by Peter’s face which was filled with euphoria as he finished. 

“Good girl,” he said in almost a whisper. I pulled away, his cock falling out my mouth as I sat up to kiss him. “Let’s go to bed, yeah?” As if on cue, my exhaustion hit me like a truck. I nodded, crawling underneath the covers with Peter. I passed out almost as soon as my head hit the pillow.

[andrews-garfussy]

Yule Ball Outfits Visual

Here is what I imagine the women’s dresses to look like. (the men here just aren’t as cool as the women. It doesn’t matter what they wear; they’ll never outshine the women.)

Table of Contents

Freyja’s Dress:

I actually have a pretty cool story for this one. I wanted to find the perfect dress for Freyja, because her character is so unique to me. I felt as if 90s fashion just didn’t fit her character, so I scoured Pinterest to find her a vintage dress. I’ve been trying to find this dress all the way back from when I wrote chapter seven of this series. I eventually gave up and settled for a dress that I didn’t love. Well, the other day I spent the morning with my grandma, and she wanted to watch A Date With Judy. It’s a super old movie, but I fell in love with the fashion. As soon as I saw this dress, worn by Carol Pringle (Elizabeth Taylor), I immediately thought of Freyja. I can’t explain it, but I’m certain that this would be her dream dress. I can even imagine her having her hair up just like this with the flowers as well. So long story short, my amazing grandma brought you all this beautiful dress.

I think it’s also necessary to address that this movie was made in the fifties when corsets and unhealthy shapewear were still popular and sometimes, if not all the time, were expected of women. If either of these items were worn in this picture, Freyja would never wear it. In fact, I think she would rather die first. She hates the idea of beauty standards, and, if we’re being real, the girl probably just wants to be able to breathe and eat comfortably.

Vera’s Dress:

Sadly, I have no story for this one. I just found it on Pinterest. Like Freyja, I think Vera would go for a more vintage look, but for her, it would most likely be because of her parents, who were raised in households that valued blood status. Her mother would expect this look from her, and Vera, I think, would’ve liked the dress regardless of her mother’s input. I believe that Vera would enjoy the simplicity of it and use accessories to be as dramatic as possible. Our girl is high maintenance; of course she would wear the boa with some classic pearls!

Jackie’s Dress:

Again, this dress was found on Pinterest. I am interested in what fashion show this was taken at and what model it was worn by. If anyone knows, let me know! As opposed to her friends that were raised in the wizarding world, Jackie would definitely go for a more modern, 90s look. She’s been dreaming of a reason to buy a dress like this ever since she was a little girl, so naturally, she would not go with a dress that she would consider outdated. While I do think she would rock a modern dress, she wouldn’t be completely out of touch with the fashion of the wizarding world. I think she would add a sheer green scarf to wear on her arms, much like Vera with her boa. Jackie is the definition of “the best of both worlds.”

[joshscorcher]

3 Misconceptions about Americans and non-Americans

After interacting with many different people around the globe, especially on social media, I notice that Americans have very big misconceptions about the world outside, and non-Americans have big misconceptions about the USA. Most of it is just simple ignorance and not malicious racism, so I thought I’d try to clear some of it up.

3 Big Misconceptions that Americans have about the world outside the US.

1. Most other countries, especially non-Western ones, are not developed.

Many Americans don’t realize other countries are developed that we might realize., especially in countries that are described as “third-world.” One of Kenya’s biggest pastimes is cyber cafes, and they’re really cheap. Malaysia has a big (some locals would say internationally untapped) market for electronic entertainment.

Yes, there are countries that still need help and there’s a reason America is the biggest monetary contributor of foreign aid in the world, but take a step outside the continent and you’ll realize that things are not so different depending on where you are.

2. Other developed countries, especially in Europe, are paradises with more rights and better quality of life.

I’m not trying to poo-poo on other countries out of spite; I’m simply calling attention to facts. You know how you can’t be evicted in the U.S. for no reason? Australia doesn’t have that protection and they have a housing crisis now! You know how you can’t be fired in the U.S. if you get sick? You can in the UK! What many Americans assume are standard protections and rights that developed nations have? Other countries may not actually have them, even European ones!

I’ve noticed that Americans (and to a lesser extent all countries) have a bit of “grass is greener” syndrome when it comes to other countries. It’s fair to believe that other countries have some benefits that we don’t and it’s fine to want to implement them, but don’t automatically assume that moving to them will be “everything I have now +1.”

3. Other countries hate your country or consider you the laughingstock of the world.

Sorta. Many of them do, but in my experience, if you get non-Americans in a neutral setting and ask them about their own country’s politics, economics, and/or social issues? Oh ho, brace yourself for a RANT. I’ve also noticed that many make fun of the U.S. as a form of “punching up” humor, and this is often fueled by a little resentment that U.S. culture and news constantly permeates modern news and entertainment discourse.

People like to make fun of the U.S., but there are just as many people who see the U.S. as a bastion, just ask protesters who are sick of their regimes like Hong Kong and Cuba. It’s easy to believe that America is hated everywhere, but much of that comes from a very American-centric perspective of the world and social media. It’s not as bad as you think.

3 Big Misconceptions that non-Americans have about the US.

1. All states have the same culture.

Because the U.S. is so large, it has so many different geographical areas and so many different cultures who have called this place home. Louisiana is very different from Oregon. California is different from Texas. New York is different from Florida. Kansas is different from Massachusetts. Heck, even adjacent states like Idaho and Washington are wildly different! Or even in States like California, you’ll find that the coast and southern areas of the state are have completely different cultures from the northern and eastern areas. The State of New York? The New York you see in the movies is just the tiny little island of Manhattan and the rest of the state is almost nothing like it! 

There are rivalries between states that you might see echo rivalries like Scotland and England, Sri Lanka and India, Sweden and Denmark, or Tanzania and Kenya.

Financially, there’s a lot of disparity as well. A poor person in America is statistically better off than a poor person in many other countries, but don’t let that fool you. There is a lot of income and lifestyle disparity in the U.S. between the rich and the poor. Heck, the minimum wage and standard of living varies depending on which state you’re in! A studio apartment in New York City is MUCH more expensive than a two-storey house in Nebraska!

Point is, there is no “average” American.

2. The President is the leader of our country and can make laws and declare war.

This idea that the president is our leader is a misconception that started with Teddy Roosevelt, arguably our first “celebrity president.” (Some argue it was Lincoln, but I digress.) The president is merely the leader of our executive branch of government. We have an executive branch, a legislative branch, and a judicial branch. Each has checks and balances towards the other.

What powers does the president have? Check here. The office more limited than you might think. Many powers you think he has are actually delegated to the other branches of government or even the states themselves.

3. We are refused treatment or bankrupted by medical bills because we do not have socialized healthcare.

I’m not trying to defend our healthcare system as perfect (oh HELL no, it needs some big improvements), but the idea that we can get bankrupted by an accident is simply untrue. In fact, it is ILLEGAL for a hospital to charge a person more than they can afford or refuse them treatment for a medical emergency. It’s gotten to the point that even many Americans don’t realize they have this right!

Side note, this is an annoying thing about our culture and laws. Because we have been granted so many freedoms and protections, you see some people like landlords and hospitals try to get you to waive those freedoms and protections in contracts which is why it’s so important to read the fine print before you sign anything.